This is a subject that resonates with me for deeply personal reasons. One of the arguments that supporters of such coaches, and the coaches themselves use is t

This is a subject that resonates with me for deeply personal reasons. One of the arguments that supporters of such coaches, and the coaches themselves use is that knowledge is valuable only if recipients of that knowledge value it. The extension of this argument is that a recipient of knowledge will not value it unless he or she has parted money to obtain it. One phrase I hear tossed around a lot in Singapore is, "You must sow before you reap." What really irks me is how these gurus/coaches really know how to position themselves as individuals who are returning to the community. So, I've been thinking whether there is a way to flip this model around. If someone is truly seeking to help the community and truly believes that the seeker of knowledge needs to pay a price before they can extract full value of imparted knowledge, then this model, that I'm hoping I eventually can personally implement, should not be too hard to digest. The model: The guru/coach creates a program with very clear milestones and deliverables. The student pays a lump sum which is held in escrow by a third party (e.g. charity, educational institution...). When the student meets all the milestones and deliverables, at the end of the program, the money is returned to the student. If the student fails to achieve any milestone, the money is donated to a charity. If the student partially achieves the goals set in the beginning, then teacher and student need to sit down and determine what went wrong and reach a consensus on the amount returned to the student and amount given to charity. I've shared this model with some friends and I do believe there are points that still need to be worked out, but I sincerely hope there will be a day when people who seek to better themselves are not impoverished for the personal aggrandizement of others.