4 ms·
So, I get the reasoning, but a realistic and frankly inevitable outcome (not 100% of the people you accept are going to end up with software job, no matter how
by nck4222 8y ago
So, I get the reasoning, but a realistic and frankly inevitable outcome (not 100% of the people you accept are going to end up with software job, no matter how good you are) is that a person ends up in the same field, with the same salary they had before, but now has to pay 15% of their income for 2 years to Modern Labor.
That's a pretty horrendous (and possibly incredibly destructive) outcome for someone looking to improve their outlook, and will definitely give me pause in recommending they apply to the program.
It also contradicts your mission:
>We believe that money should never be a barrier to learning and that with the right motivation and funding, anyone can learn new skills and make a better life for themselves.
At the very least people shouldn't be punished for either not succeeding in finding a job (a failure that could be partially the responsibility of Modern Labor), or simply deciding coding isn't for them.
- mamurphy 8y agoMaking the payback at marginal rates (0% for below $40k and 20% for everything above that) would largely fix this issue. If you are making around $40k per year, you have nothing to lose; if the program doesn't improve your state in life at least you don't have to pay too much back. Non-marginal (15% of everything) plus the "you must work for us if we beat offers" theoretically could lead to them offering everyone a $40,001 per year job, essentially forcing them to work that for 2 years and incur high payback costs.