Agreed. I still think it is valuable information based on the discussions it can drive. I appreciate your willingness to participate in these threads, be trans

Agreed. I still think it is valuable information based on the discussions it can drive. I appreciate your willingness to participate in these threads, be transparent, and show how hands-on you are with your school/students. However, I’m going to put you on the spotlight for a bit if that is ok. Right now, Lambda School is young enough that the amount of collected outlier feedback can be easily remembered. Doubly so since you can still interact with this outlier population at the scale you operate at. However... 1. Instead of the bottom 0.1%, what about the bottom 1% or 10%? Will you be able to remember/account for all of these students as you grow in scale over a long period of time? What’s your strategy for this? 2. There will come a point where one person cannot handle all of the outliers. There will also come a point where your priorities are pushed elsewhere. Do you feel that it’s more important for you to be central in handling these issues or will this responsibility be handed off? How will quality be ensured? I agree that you should not extrapolate from such a small sample size. However, I believe that to take ownership after a spotlight has been shone upon the worst instances would be to not discredit the feedback. Instead, offer up the insights on what actual patterns emerged from larger population findings, own any that correlated, and show how these were/are planned to be addressed. Individual teachers have to deal with this all the time. Sometimes with additional metrics evaluating their every move. It would be nice to see someone at a higher institutional level be an example of how negative outliers are handled, not only from the bottom up, but from the top down. Lastly, while Lambda School might be an exception, that doesn’t mean all bootcamps operate the same.