4 ms·

Thanks. This model seems much less predatory as you have a stake in their success. The school they are considering has a 97% success rate which seems too good

by acover 8y ago

Thanks. This model seems much less predatory as you have a stake in their success. The school they are considering has a 97% success rate which seems too good to be true.

austenallred 8y ago
...what school is that? Sounds like classic code bootcamp accounting where they do something funny with the denominator
- acover 8y ago
  I don't think this is the place but they boast 96% employment of which 97% are in tech. They must be fudging something. https://lighthouselabs.ca/studentoutcomes https://lighthouselabs.ca/studentoutcomes
  - rahimnathwani 8y ago
    Thankfully, that page also links to their 'transparency report', which provides some of the raw numbers. The 96% you state is 237/247. Numerator is grads who accepted employment within 120 days. Denominator is grads who were unemployed and working with the bootcamp's career programme. But only 76 of those 237 were regular full-time positions. Another 78 were apprenticeships which led to full time employment. The total number of grads was 388 (i.e. much higher than the 247 denominator). The least generous ratio you can come up with from the supplied figures is 76 (# full-time jobs) * 97% (% technical) / 388 (# grads), which gives 19%.
    - austenallred 8y ago
      Gotta love bootcamp accounting. Personally I’d count apprenticeships; getting your foot in the door is generally the hardest part. That gives a meh 64.9%. Not far off most bootcamps to be honest, but a far cry from 97%.
      - rahimnathwani 8y ago
        If you count the apprenticeships that resulted in a full time job at the same place (i.e. where it got the person a foot in the door), then the numerator is 76+78=154 That's 40% of 388 total grads.
        austenallred 8y ago
        Ok I take it back that’s still really bad
    - acover 8y ago
      Thanks! I didn't notice that they would send you a report. It's nice that they provide it. I understand why they use such misleading statistics, it just hard to trust people that do.

by acover 8y ago

Thanks. This model seems much less predatory as you have a stake in their success. The school they are considering has a 97% success rate which seems too good to be true.

austenallred 8y ago

...what school is that? Sounds like classic code bootcamp accounting where they do something funny with the denominator

acover 8y ago
I don't think this is the place but they boast 96% employment of which 97% are in tech. They must be fudging something. https://lighthouselabs.ca/studentoutcomes https://lighthouselabs.ca/studentoutcomes
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  Thankfully, that page also links to their 'transparency report', which provides some of the raw numbers. The 96% you state is 237/247. Numerator is grads who accepted employment within 120 days. Denominator is grads who were unemployed and working with the bootcamp's career programme. But only 76 of those 237 were regular full-time positions. Another 78 were apprenticeships which led to full time employment. The total number of grads was 388 (i.e. much higher than the 247 denominator). The least generous ratio you can come up with from the supplied figures is 76 (# full-time jobs) * 97% (% technical) / 388 (# grads), which gives 19%.
  - austenallred 8y ago
    Gotta love bootcamp accounting. Personally I’d count apprenticeships; getting your foot in the door is generally the hardest part. That gives a meh 64.9%. Not far off most bootcamps to be honest, but a far cry from 97%.
    - rahimnathwani 8y ago
      If you count the apprenticeships that resulted in a full time job at the same place (i.e. where it got the person a foot in the door), then the numerator is 76+78=154 That's 40% of 388 total grads.
      - austenallred 8y ago
        Ok I take it back that’s still really bad
  - acover 8y ago
    Thanks! I didn't notice that they would send you a report. It's nice that they provide it. I understand why they use such misleading statistics, it just hard to trust people that do.