4 ms·

For unaccredited online programs, I think both of those options are far too expensive. Edit: a comment below pointed out that Turing isn't online.

randomacct3847 8y ago
Lambda is online, Turing is in person in Denver.
- learc83 8y ago
  I also noticed that they are a non-profit, which gives me a bit more confidence. I'd still be uncomfortable advising someone to pay $20k for an unaccredited program.
  - randomacct3847 8y ago
    You do realize there are millions of college students who pay $200k over 4 years to attend accredited programs that graduate with no discernible skills, right?
    - learc83 8y ago
      There are barely millions of students paying $200k, much less millions paying that much for "no discernable skills". That's at the upper end of people paying full sticker price for private schools. And it's unlikely someone makes it through a 4 year program with no skills whatsoever. And I wouldn't recommend a $200k degree to anyone either unless it's from an elite university where the signaling and networking is worth it. Also top tier universities almost universally offer income based financial aid.
  - austenallred 8y ago
    You’re placing faaaar too much weight in accreditation
    - learc83 8y ago
      It's a minimum standard that enforces some level of transparency and accountability, and it means that you can generally find somewhere else to transfer to that will accept your credits. You also might want to disclose that you are the founder of Lambda School.
barry-cotter 8y ago
Turing must be accredited in some fashion. You can use GI Bill to pay and get student loans to pay tuition and living expenses.
MarkMc 8y ago
What matters for most people is not accreditation, but rather how much the program can boost the student's income.
- learc83 8y ago
  What matters is people's perception of how much a program can boost their income. Perception and reality often diverge--particularly when there is significant information asymmetry. Accreditation doesn't fix this problem, but it alleviates it by providing minimum standards and consistent metrics to allow more comparison.
  - brandall10 8y ago
    Wouldn't the metrics here be things like conversion rates, median/average incomes, average time to employment, etc, from previous cohorts? Accreditation still feels to me to be in the perception category for the parties who are new to the process, just a basic gating... the hard stats for real-world performance indicate the industry perception and are going to align with actual expectations bar a shift in industry hiring practices or program quality.

randomacct3847 8y ago

Lambda is online, Turing is in person in Denver.

learc83 8y ago
I also noticed that they are a non-profit, which gives me a bit more confidence. I'd still be uncomfortable advising someone to pay $20k for an unaccredited program.
- randomacct3847 8y ago
  You do realize there are millions of college students who pay $200k over 4 years to attend accredited programs that graduate with no discernible skills, right?
  - learc83 8y ago
    There are barely millions of students paying $200k, much less millions paying that much for "no discernable skills". That's at the upper end of people paying full sticker price for private schools. And it's unlikely someone makes it through a 4 year program with no skills whatsoever. And I wouldn't recommend a $200k degree to anyone either unless it's from an elite university where the signaling and networking is worth it. Also top tier universities almost universally offer income based financial aid.
- austenallred 8y ago
  You’re placing faaaar too much weight in accreditation
  - learc83 8y ago
    It's a minimum standard that enforces some level of transparency and accountability, and it means that you can generally find somewhere else to transfer to that will accept your credits. You also might want to disclose that you are the founder of Lambda School.

barry-cotter 8y ago

Turing must be accredited in some fashion. You can use GI Bill to pay and get student loans to pay tuition and living expenses.

MarkMc 8y ago

What matters for most people is not accreditation, but rather how much the program can boost the student's income.

learc83 8y ago
What matters is people's perception of how much a program can boost their income. Perception and reality often diverge--particularly when there is significant information asymmetry. Accreditation doesn't fix this problem, but it alleviates it by providing minimum standards and consistent metrics to allow more comparison.
- brandall10 8y ago
  Wouldn't the metrics here be things like conversion rates, median/average incomes, average time to employment, etc, from previous cohorts? Accreditation still feels to me to be in the perception category for the parties who are new to the process, just a basic gating... the hard stats for real-world performance indicate the industry perception and are going to align with actual expectations bar a shift in industry hiring practices or program quality.