4 ms·

The last part seems like it could easily be improved by simply tying it to the portion of the curriculum covered.

nicesnowoman 7y ago
I doubt they'd do that because it'd be bad for Lambda's financials.
austenallred 7y ago
That is exactly how it happens. It’s 10% per week for the first 10 weeks, except you don’t owe anything at all until week 4. So it’s fully locked in at 10 weeks but is gradual until then.
- wpietri 7y ago
  That is definitely not proportional. For 40 weeks, proportional would not be 10% per week, but 2.5% per week.
  - austenallred 7y ago
    0 0 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      The pushback here is that this isn't proportional to the duration of the program. While you're right that this is proportional for 10 weeks, it's not proportional to program duration. If your position is that it's fair to charge 100% tuition for a 40 week program after 10 weeks, make that argument. Don't try to argue that 10% per week for 10 weeks is somehow proportional to 40 weeks. I'm a big fan of Lambda and am a pretty vocal defender, but this is simply misleading.
      - austenallred 7y ago
        We're clearly talking past each other. Yes, I think it's fair to owe full tuition once you're past 10 weeks in Lambda School, especially given a generous 4-week dropout period during which you owe nothing.
        nicesnowoman 7y ago
        It isn't generous at all. The material only seemed to get worse and worse to the point where it's basically unbearable by the time you hit Labs at the 4-5 month mark. Those with good experiences are lucky. Many others are stuck in the worst group settings possible. You rope students in who have already quit their jobs for this opportunity. Most are going to want to hope for the best and stick it out, even if things seem fishy in the first 4 weeks. Not only that, but Lambda often changes everything up after enrollment so the marketing materials/curriculum on the website are NOT the guarantee of what is delivered. You package this chaos up as "we are constantly improving" but the early cohorts who dry-run your experimental changes suffer greatly when curriculum is so underdeveloped to the point where we have to find so much supplementary material.
        the_watcher 7y ago
        I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take and is more generous than the alternative (as someone who dropped out of a degree program, I can attest that I wasn't able to return any of my student loans 6 weeks into the semester. I checked). I wasn't trying to talk past you. My original comment was that a specific complaint about the amount owed being 40% after 4 weeks, despite 4 weeks not representing 40% of the program, could be addressed by tying payment directly to portion of curriculum covered. You responded that this is how it works, but you redefined the denominator in the proportion from the original complaint. I don't think you're doing this in bad faith, I'm legitimately just trying to point out a response something that is clearly a frustration isn't translating how you intended.
        codingdave 7y ago
        The other point being glossed over here is that higher education tuition is typically applied per term, not for an entire program. You don't get billed for four years tuition when you leave after one year - you have drop-out windows every term, and only pay for terms in which you attended. So if LS has organized their cirriculum into "sprints", and wants to follow the standard in higher education, there would be a brief dropout window at the start of each sprint, with no ISA applied for sprints that were never started.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      I think the assumption I can't do math is insulting. But let's run with it. Here, in the same form, is your theory of value delivery. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5 75.0 77.5 80.0 82.5 85.0 87.5 90.0 92.5 95.0 97.5 100.0 That's your theory, of course. You can see how cost is not proportional to value delivery. But from what people have been saying about your program, it sounds like actual value delivery is more like 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 So in that case, charging 100% when they're only 25% of the way through a program that's delivering 20% of what it should is even more obviously bad.

I doubt they'd do that because it'd be bad for Lambda's financials.

That is exactly how it happens. It’s 10% per week for the first 10 weeks, except you don’t owe anything at all until week 4. So it’s fully locked in at 10 weeks but is gradual until then.

wpietri 7y ago
That is definitely not proportional. For 40 weeks, proportional would not be 10% per week, but 2.5% per week.
- austenallred 7y ago
  0 0 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    The pushback here is that this isn't proportional to the duration of the program. While you're right that this is proportional for 10 weeks, it's not proportional to program duration. If your position is that it's fair to charge 100% tuition for a 40 week program after 10 weeks, make that argument. Don't try to argue that 10% per week for 10 weeks is somehow proportional to 40 weeks. I'm a big fan of Lambda and am a pretty vocal defender, but this is simply misleading.
    - austenallred 7y ago
      We're clearly talking past each other. Yes, I think it's fair to owe full tuition once you're past 10 weeks in Lambda School, especially given a generous 4-week dropout period during which you owe nothing.
      - nicesnowoman 7y ago
        It isn't generous at all. The material only seemed to get worse and worse to the point where it's basically unbearable by the time you hit Labs at the 4-5 month mark. Those with good experiences are lucky. Many others are stuck in the worst group settings possible. You rope students in who have already quit their jobs for this opportunity. Most are going to want to hope for the best and stick it out, even if things seem fishy in the first 4 weeks. Not only that, but Lambda often changes everything up after enrollment so the marketing materials/curriculum on the website are NOT the guarantee of what is delivered. You package this chaos up as "we are constantly improving" but the early cohorts who dry-run your experimental changes suffer greatly when curriculum is so underdeveloped to the point where we have to find so much supplementary material.
      - the_watcher 7y ago
        I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take and is more generous than the alternative (as someone who dropped out of a degree program, I can attest that I wasn't able to return any of my student loans 6 weeks into the semester. I checked). I wasn't trying to talk past you. My original comment was that a specific complaint about the amount owed being 40% after 4 weeks, despite 4 weeks not representing 40% of the program, could be addressed by tying payment directly to portion of curriculum covered. You responded that this is how it works, but you redefined the denominator in the proportion from the original complaint. I don't think you're doing this in bad faith, I'm legitimately just trying to point out a response something that is clearly a frustration isn't translating how you intended.
        codingdave 7y ago
        The other point being glossed over here is that higher education tuition is typically applied per term, not for an entire program. You don't get billed for four years tuition when you leave after one year - you have drop-out windows every term, and only pay for terms in which you attended. So if LS has organized their cirriculum into "sprints", and wants to follow the standard in higher education, there would be a brief dropout window at the start of each sprint, with no ISA applied for sprints that were never started.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    I think the assumption I can't do math is insulting. But let's run with it. Here, in the same form, is your theory of value delivery. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5 75.0 77.5 80.0 82.5 85.0 87.5 90.0 92.5 95.0 97.5 100.0 That's your theory, of course. You can see how cost is not proportional to value delivery. But from what people have been saying about your program, it sounds like actual value delivery is more like 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 So in that case, charging 100% when they're only 25% of the way through a program that's delivering 20% of what it should is even more obviously bad.