Lambda School agrees to end deceptive educational financing practices(dfpi.ca.gov)
dfpi.ca.gov
Lambda School agrees to end deceptive educational financing practices
https://dfpi.ca.gov/2021/04/26/lambda-school-reaches-settlement-with-dfpi-agreeing-to-end-deceptive-educational-financing-practices
305 comments
> It is definitely important to note that that these loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. But as far as I know, isn't this less stringent than typical student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy? Is the point here that there was a population of Lambda students who weren't aware they could discharge their loan, and this contract prevision was preventing them from doing so? Or was the school deliberately making that process more difficult? The article makes none of that entirely clear.
It makes it quite clear. The loan has always been dischargeable in bankruptcy. However, they had a provision in their contract stating otherwise, which was deceptive.
It makes it quite clear. The loan has always been dischargeable in bankruptcy. However, they had a provision in their contract stating otherwise, which was deceptive.
Although it is harder to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, as I understand it they can be discharged in bankruptcy if the borrower can prove undue hardship (probably hard to do, especially with income-based repayment) or if 7 years have elapsed since the start of repayment.
This does seem to violate the spirit of bankruptcy law as well as basic economics (presumably student loans consist of and are repaid with the same dollars that are used for other loans or unsecured debt) and has almost certainly helped universities raise tuition with impunity for decades while student loan debt has ballooned to more than $1T in the US.
This does seem to violate the spirit of bankruptcy law as well as basic economics (presumably student loans consist of and are repaid with the same dollars that are used for other loans or unsecured debt) and has almost certainly helped universities raise tuition with impunity for decades while student loan debt has ballooned to more than $1T in the US.
The reasons you make allusions to education debt in a contract like this is that students have priors about whether student loans are dischargeable, and the company wants to capitalize on those priors. That's the deception.
You can thank a truly gross lobbying effort that culminated in a bill[0] passed in 2005 intended to curb "bankruptcy abuse" (a thing that was not actually a thing), and, among other things, greatly restricted how educational loans could be discharged in bankruptcy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_an...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_an...
> if the borrower can prove undue hardship (probably hard to do, especially with income-based repayment)
Yeah, it's pretty hard to do. You have to have an "adversarial proceeding" (i.e. a lawyer from the Department of Education or whoever shows up and argues against you).
Yeah, it's pretty hard to do. You have to have an "adversarial proceeding" (i.e. a lawyer from the Department of Education or whoever shows up and argues against you).
“Deceptive practices” is a commonly used legal term in consumer protection. It’s often used in conjunction with “unfair business practices” or “unfair and deceptive practices” depending on the state and what has been alleged.
Totally valid but just feel like I have to throw in that I went to a bootcamp, was very suspicious from the earliest stages of consideration but found on the other side that all the friends I made there who attended-even the one that failed out and went to another bootcamp-went from part time jobs making less than 30k a year to legit software engineering positions making 60~120k in less than a year. Im still surprised that the whole thing wasn't a scam. That said it was the most competitive and highest ranked bootcamp then and now in terms of job placement, not sure how places like lambda differ...
> That said it was the most competitive and highest ranked bootcamp then and now
You're allowed to say who it is - in fact, I think you should say who it is, reward quality and hard work!
Also, you might mention who does the ranking (possibly more important).
You're allowed to say who it is - in fact, I think you should say who it is, reward quality and hard work!
Also, you might mention who does the ranking (possibly more important).
Naming them substantially decreases the credibility of the post, and increases the probability of it being an ad. Better not to name them.
Name and Shame -- who was this shady org?
If you agree that it's an important detail, how is misrepresenting their status in the contract, and thus misleading people about their rights, not deceptive?
You're right and wrong. You already touched on the latter in your edit, so let's focus on the former for a sec. I was not surprised at all to see your comment, since I walked away with the same impression - someone at a gov agency tried harder than usual to achieve the max juice out of this release. Learning in this thread that this is a brand new agency and that this might have been the very first case they were tasked with (hope I got that right), helped me complete the full picture.
"loans can be discharged in bankruptcy."
To me the idea that in a 'free country' today you cannot clear your debts through bancrupcy sounds crazy, it's a practice that belongs in history books along with debtor prisons, bondage, endentured servitude, feudalism, having public holiday 'execution day' and slavery.
In the UK we used execute people for vagrancy.
To me the idea that in a 'free country' today you cannot clear your debts through bancrupcy sounds crazy, it's a practice that belongs in history books along with debtor prisons, bondage, endentured servitude, feudalism, having public holiday 'execution day' and slavery.
In the UK we used execute people for vagrancy.
For starters there are two types of loans in the system, federal(92%) and private(8%).
Federal is less of a loan, but more a subsidy that you have to repay at later date if you can. There is no market mechanism involved, government sets the terms and rules. Overall if you have your shit together(push paperwork on time), it is nearly impossible to default on that type of a loan. So for all intense and purposes, those loans are just another hidden tax.
The benefits of this system is arguable, but for America where people hate to pay taxes and government needs to put people through college, this is not a bad option.
But... There are two massive problems in the system, private loans and the way colleges charge for education. First a lot of colleges are free to set fees any way they like, as a result in many cases federal loans are not enough and people are forced to take private loans. The problem with private loans, that they are completely market driven(higher, fees, higher costs, depends on your assets etc), but you can't get rid off them via bankruptcy which is absolutely nuts.
Overall the whole system regardless of country is very unfair and regressive in nature(poor people pay more then rich) and represents an example of broken social contract between government and its citizens. As student debt skyrockets, it also impacts the broader economy and forces people to go into debt to pay day to day expenses.
But maybe it is all by design. It is much easier to control people if they are in debt very early on in live vs debt free.
Federal is less of a loan, but more a subsidy that you have to repay at later date if you can. There is no market mechanism involved, government sets the terms and rules. Overall if you have your shit together(push paperwork on time), it is nearly impossible to default on that type of a loan. So for all intense and purposes, those loans are just another hidden tax.
The benefits of this system is arguable, but for America where people hate to pay taxes and government needs to put people through college, this is not a bad option.
But... There are two massive problems in the system, private loans and the way colleges charge for education. First a lot of colleges are free to set fees any way they like, as a result in many cases federal loans are not enough and people are forced to take private loans. The problem with private loans, that they are completely market driven(higher, fees, higher costs, depends on your assets etc), but you can't get rid off them via bankruptcy which is absolutely nuts.
Overall the whole system regardless of country is very unfair and regressive in nature(poor people pay more then rich) and represents an example of broken social contract between government and its citizens. As student debt skyrockets, it also impacts the broader economy and forces people to go into debt to pay day to day expenses.
But maybe it is all by design. It is much easier to control people if they are in debt very early on in live vs debt free.
In order for modern society to keep working you need those people to get into mortgage debt, as that's (combined with children) the most effective way to keep people employed.
Even from the mustache-twirling evil perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to burden people with debt before they have even started to earn money to repay it.
Even from the mustache-twirling evil perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to burden people with debt before they have even started to earn money to repay it.
good points.
being 'that guy' and pointing out that it's not:
> intense and purposes
but 'intents and purposes'.
a common eggcorn.
being 'that guy' and pointing out that it's not:
> intense and purposes
but 'intents and purposes'.
a common eggcorn.
The argument for it is that without it a graduate with a large balance could default on their loan immediately after graduation. The classic example being a surgeon getting hundreds of thousands in loans for medical school, and then skipping out on paying them back when they begin making bank as a doctor.
Yes and it's a BS argument, because going through bankruptcy is not something to be taken lightly or something that you can "just do", because it's not only about "you owe X" but how well can you service your debt.
Of course this argument was an excuse to inflate education prices and make lenders more interest as well.
Of course this argument was an excuse to inflate education prices and make lenders more interest as well.
I'm honestly curious why this isn't a problem in the UK. What are we missing?
Historically, it is because UK government-backed student loans (for English students: no student fees in Scotland after all) are (a) low-interest, (b) only repayable on money earned above a particular salary threshold, and (c) automatically gets written off eventually after a specified period (was 25 years, now 30 years).
(a) is arguably not really true anymore (given some graduates are paying 5% interest), but (b) is even more true now than it was under the old (Plan 1) scheme because the salary threshold is now £27,295 (compared to the old one of £19,985).
(a) is arguably not really true anymore (given some graduates are paying 5% interest), but (b) is even more true now than it was under the old (Plan 1) scheme because the salary threshold is now £27,295 (compared to the old one of £19,985).
UK student "loans" aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy either - legally they're a tax rather than a loan.
Thank you! A lot of people seem totally incapable of grasping the fact that it's more of a tax rather than a loan. I'm glad it's not just me who has remarked this — I've been very unsuccessful in explaining it to people who shudder at it and treat it as any other loan...
It’s not a problem anywhere, it was just an excuse for a handout to the financial industry in 2005.
When I went to university in the UK for CS (20 years ago), my total student loan debt was close to zero. Indeed, they gave me money to study.
Even now, the cost for something like a medical degree is negligible compared to the USA where $400K for medical school and undergraduate is not unheard of. (A medical degree is an undergraduate degree in the UK)
Even now, the cost for something like a medical degree is negligible compared to the USA where $400K for medical school and undergraduate is not unheard of. (A medical degree is an undergraduate degree in the UK)
I note this is the case in the UK too tho: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/debt-soluti...
In my country personal bankruptcy does not exist, never did. For us the idea that in a 'free country' one can take a loan and declare bankruptcy not to pay it back sounds crazy. This is evidence of cultural differences, nothing else - definitely not 'free country' or education.
[deleted]
> But as far as I know, isn't this less stringent than typical student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy?
That's the point, I believe. Lambda School was pretending their loans were protected from bankruptcy proceedings so students wouldn't consider it.
It's somewhat common for corporations to pretend that laws don't exist. Even if only half of the customers believe them and don't sue, they'll save money.
That's the point, I believe. Lambda School was pretending their loans were protected from bankruptcy proceedings so students wouldn't consider it.
It's somewhat common for corporations to pretend that laws don't exist. Even if only half of the customers believe them and don't sue, they'll save money.
Could you comment a bit more about Trilogy? From what I understand, they provide a bootcamp as a service to be offered by other institutions, such as universities around the world.
Do you have any personal experience of their deception or lack of quality?
Do you have any personal experience of their deception or lack of quality?
I was a student at Trilogy. Not sure what they mean. The course was fun. The good students leveled up in their careers. I certainly did.
Would you be willing to speak a bit more about your experience there? I work on non-profit tech education, and am curious about effective/successful bootcamps. (My email is in my profile.)
Agreed hopefully we get a response. I was an instructor for Trilogy, didn't really see any 'deceptive practices' in my couple years there.
For many bootcamps, the deception is in the marketing about job and salary prospects, as well as padding the hiring statistics by giving jobs to graduates and counting those jobs towards those marketing numbers.
Would you be willing to speak a bit more about your experience there? I work on non-profit tech education, and am curious about effective/successful bootcamps. (My email is in my profile.)
[deleted]
What do you specifically find deceptive about Trilogy? Just curious, as I see them around me a lot.
I can't speak to Trilogy specifically, but for many bootcamps, the deception is in the marketing about job and salary prospects, as well as padding the hiring statistics by giving jobs to graduates and counting those jobs towards those marketing numbers.
> padding the hiring statistics by giving jobs to graduates and counting those jobs towards those marketing numbers.
I see this brought up quite a bit, and I don't really see the issue. They are offering their graduates jobs, so why should these jobs not count just like any other jobs?
I see this brought up quite a bit, and I don't really see the issue. They are offering their graduates jobs, so why should these jobs not count just like any other jobs?
People pay for a bootcamp for a developer job (with a developer salary), not a teacher's aid job (where they are undoubtedly not paying the salaries they also use in their marketing to attract students). Thus they assume that number reflects the career the bootcamp is promising.
Because the only way that would continue to work is they got more new students (at the bottom) to pay for the old students (at the top) jobs and it (the pyramid) would fall apart.
In other words it looks like a pyramid scheme if the grads only get jobs as teachers.
In other words it looks like a pyramid scheme if the grads only get jobs as teachers.
FWIW, many teachers are only at bootcamps for a year or two before moving on to work for normal companies. I didn’t go through a boot camp, but I do work with people who did and were teachers at those boot camps before working here.
From what I understand, teaching is generally seen as a positive signal (if the boot camp is a good one), because it means they know the material well enough to teach it.
I can totally imagine the opposite becoming true (teaching is a negative signal), creating a positive feedback loop in the opposite direction, and turning the boot camp into a pyramid scheme.
I guess it all depends on the credibility of the boot camp, kind of analogous to universities, as a sibling commenter points out.
From what I understand, teaching is generally seen as a positive signal (if the boot camp is a good one), because it means they know the material well enough to teach it.
I can totally imagine the opposite becoming true (teaching is a negative signal), creating a positive feedback loop in the opposite direction, and turning the boot camp into a pyramid scheme.
I guess it all depends on the credibility of the boot camp, kind of analogous to universities, as a sibling commenter points out.
This all may be true, but hand waves away the point: students don't know this going in; they assume the high cost will get them a developer salary much sooner than is true. The marketing should be more transparent about this, and if it were, how many students would rethink the costs with a longer ROI?
You just described 80% of the tertiary education courses unis offer.
Lol yeah sounds like grad school.
"Congrats on getting into the program, you're now adjunct faculty, the class you're teaching starts at 930am Monday."
5 years later maybe they have a piece of paper and maybe that impacts their job prospects.
"Congrats on getting into the program, you're now adjunct faculty, the class you're teaching starts at 930am Monday."
5 years later maybe they have a piece of paper and maybe that impacts their job prospects.
It makes me sad that many of the prominent boot-camps now have such a bad reputation, and seem to be run so poorly, or recklessly.
I feel lucky to have enrolled at, now defunct, The Iron Yard at it’s peak in the end of 2016. I owe them everything for teaching me and coaching me into how to break into my new career as a web developer. It was life changing.
I can only speak for my particular campus, but I imagine it was similar at every other location. Never once, starting from my first interview, did they mislead me or make empty promises. They never guaranteed us anything.
They basically said, “You’re going to pay us $15K for 3 months, and it’s going to be one of the hardest things you’ve ever done. We can’t guarantee you a job but we will do our damndest to teach you & help you navigate the application process.”
And I still respect them for that. The people there were super smart and amazing mentors. The onus was always put on us to work our asses of and make our dream of being a coder come true on our own accord. RIP The Iron Yard.
I hate reading stories about Lambda and others, and reports from students who got chewed up and spit out by the system. They give ‘boot camps’ a bad name, and I’m hopeful soon there will be a school who rises to the top and will be as upstanding as the people I worked with. Someone needs to give coding bootcamps a good name again.
I feel lucky to have enrolled at, now defunct, The Iron Yard at it’s peak in the end of 2016. I owe them everything for teaching me and coaching me into how to break into my new career as a web developer. It was life changing.
I can only speak for my particular campus, but I imagine it was similar at every other location. Never once, starting from my first interview, did they mislead me or make empty promises. They never guaranteed us anything.
They basically said, “You’re going to pay us $15K for 3 months, and it’s going to be one of the hardest things you’ve ever done. We can’t guarantee you a job but we will do our damndest to teach you & help you navigate the application process.”
And I still respect them for that. The people there were super smart and amazing mentors. The onus was always put on us to work our asses of and make our dream of being a coder come true on our own accord. RIP The Iron Yard.
I hate reading stories about Lambda and others, and reports from students who got chewed up and spit out by the system. They give ‘boot camps’ a bad name, and I’m hopeful soon there will be a school who rises to the top and will be as upstanding as the people I worked with. Someone needs to give coding bootcamps a good name again.
I wonder if there was a gold rush when bootcamps started because there was a pool of motivated people with potential who needed training and help getting into the industry. Once that pool was gone, the only new people entering it are basically high school graduates, so in order to keep operating, bootcamps had to get scammier and lower their standards.
I have no evidence of this, but it seems plausible.
I have no evidence of this, but it seems plausible.
Well, my intuition tells me that the ‘pool’ will always be there. I’m not sure it’s dried up, I think it will always be there for one reason or an other.
And it doesn’t seem like the job pool is drying up either. From what I can’t tell there are just as many job opportunities as when I started, and plenty of companies still complaining about not being able to find qualified candidates.
PS: there was a reply I read and was quickly deleted, but made a good point. These sensational companies like Lambda tend to dominate headlines now, but I’m sure there are plenty of smaller more local bootcamps fighting ‘the good fight’ in their areas. If whoever said that deleted comment wants to email me, I’d be interested in learning more about the program you mentioned.
It’s unfortunate these bad headlines taint the overall picture of bootcamps, because I’m sure there are plenty of smaller players around that are doing just as good of a job as The Iron Yard like I described.
And to be fair, there is a perfect example in my area, of a small bootcamp that popped up after TIY went out of business, and they are doing a great job of supplying the same mission and service to our local area.
And it doesn’t seem like the job pool is drying up either. From what I can’t tell there are just as many job opportunities as when I started, and plenty of companies still complaining about not being able to find qualified candidates.
PS: there was a reply I read and was quickly deleted, but made a good point. These sensational companies like Lambda tend to dominate headlines now, but I’m sure there are plenty of smaller more local bootcamps fighting ‘the good fight’ in their areas. If whoever said that deleted comment wants to email me, I’d be interested in learning more about the program you mentioned.
It’s unfortunate these bad headlines taint the overall picture of bootcamps, because I’m sure there are plenty of smaller players around that are doing just as good of a job as The Iron Yard like I described.
And to be fair, there is a perfect example in my area, of a small bootcamp that popped up after TIY went out of business, and they are doing a great job of supplying the same mission and service to our local area.
> and plenty of companies still complaining about not being able to find qualified candidates.
This is completely missing the point: it's free to whine about a "labor shortage" (at the price you are willing to pay). Best case you'll get subsidies (direct or indirect) from the government. Worst case? Nothing happens.
This is completely missing the point: it's free to whine about a "labor shortage" (at the price you are willing to pay). Best case you'll get subsidies (direct or indirect) from the government. Worst case? Nothing happens.
I’m not sure I get your point? Best case you get government subsidies? What are you referring to? Worst case? I think I can think of a lot worse than ‘nothing’.
> What are you referring to?
Immigration quotas/special visas, programs to get more people into the field you are trying to hire from (all the X group in STEM programs for instance).
> I think I can think of a lot worse than ‘nothing’.
Like what?
Immigration quotas/special visas, programs to get more people into the field you are trying to hire from (all the X group in STEM programs for instance).
> I think I can think of a lot worse than ‘nothing’.
Like what?
There absolutely was a gold rush at the beginning! I believe it started with Dev boot camp in SF. Many of the students in the first cohort split off after graduation and made their own schools. If I recall correctly the person who started App Academy was a DBC grad. Anyways, imagine that, some one who just learned to code, now running their own unaccredited program. Scam is too strong of a word for these programs. They were just amateurs really. Add in a little silicon valley hustle and now you have a nice little pressure cooker where they need to start hitting enrollment and graduation numbers. It also didnt help they were in one of the most expensive real estate locations in the world.
Similar experience here. The problem I witnessed during my year or so involvement was a race to the bottom in terms of selectiveness of admitting students.
The deception was that the screening test was marketed as informing prospective students whether they had the prerequisite skills to succeed in the school.
I saw so many students struggling for easy to predict reasons: some didn't even have the basic computer equipment to participate. A few more seemed to struggle with just basic concepts.
None of those people were inherently incapable, but they were mislead to believe that they were ready for the program.
The bootcamp I went to was pretty good when I started, but even a year later I was starting to get uneasy about my association with it. I've now completely removed it from LinkedIn and resume. I will mention it if it comes up, but I actively discourage prospective students now and don't want to do anything to lend them legitimacy. It's not worth mentioning its name here because my points apply to almost every bootcamp out there, based on discussions at meetups with prospective bootcamp students.
The deception was that the screening test was marketed as informing prospective students whether they had the prerequisite skills to succeed in the school.
I saw so many students struggling for easy to predict reasons: some didn't even have the basic computer equipment to participate. A few more seemed to struggle with just basic concepts.
None of those people were inherently incapable, but they were mislead to believe that they were ready for the program.
The bootcamp I went to was pretty good when I started, but even a year later I was starting to get uneasy about my association with it. I've now completely removed it from LinkedIn and resume. I will mention it if it comes up, but I actively discourage prospective students now and don't want to do anything to lend them legitimacy. It's not worth mentioning its name here because my points apply to almost every bootcamp out there, based on discussions at meetups with prospective bootcamp students.
I had the same experience and I think many of the more successful people from the same program did as well. There's also a bit of a bias, the only people I still talk to from the program were also successful. We haven't seen anyone from it in awhile and have all mostly cut off contact.
With Lambda in particular I've wanted to do the math on the gamble per student. IE it costs x per student to put them through the program, what percentage need to make what to make this enterprise worth it for whoever is buying their ISAs.
With Lambda in particular I've wanted to do the math on the gamble per student. IE it costs x per student to put them through the program, what percentage need to make what to make this enterprise worth it for whoever is buying their ISAs.
[deleted]
Wanted to clarify two things, since I saw some confusion.
The law changed to make a deceptive statement about what can and can't be discharged in bankruptcy illegal, but it was always false to say that it couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy, even before the law changed.
This isn't a new California department, it's the old DBO under a new name as the DFPI, with enhanced powers to regulate financial matters that were previously unregulated and protect Californians against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Basically there have been lots of innovative financial agreements that weren't well regulated under California law. They also weren't well regulated federally, but that's a whole other issue.
More info on the law here.
https://dfpi.ca.gov/california-consumer-financial-protection...
The law changed to make a deceptive statement about what can and can't be discharged in bankruptcy illegal, but it was always false to say that it couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy, even before the law changed.
This isn't a new California department, it's the old DBO under a new name as the DFPI, with enhanced powers to regulate financial matters that were previously unregulated and protect Californians against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Basically there have been lots of innovative financial agreements that weren't well regulated under California law. They also weren't well regulated federally, but that's a whole other issue.
More info on the law here.
https://dfpi.ca.gov/california-consumer-financial-protection...
Thank you, if possible, would like some more clarification, since I'm still a bit confused (if not more confused) after reading this.
Are you suggesting this isn't an introduction of new regulations per se, since it was always a deceptive statement?
Or was the law actually changed by this California department specifically because of what Lambda was doing?
I get that the finance agreement was "innovative", but either it's dischargeable under bankruptcy -- or it's not -- and if it IS dischargeable, language implying that it is not dischargeable is deceptive. My understanding is that they have no power over bankruptcy proceedings, so whether they would LIKE it to be dischargeable or not bears no interest here.
This isn't some heavy-handed regulator stepping in and stopping innovation -- as a private for-profit business, you simply can't twist existing federal law around student loans to your benefit here, and that's always been the case all along. Deception aside, which I believe the word for is "fraud"; there's been a history of predatory financing around education. I was happy when it was DeVry University getting the book, and I'm also happy when it was some "cool" startup company as well.
Are you suggesting this isn't an introduction of new regulations per se, since it was always a deceptive statement?
Or was the law actually changed by this California department specifically because of what Lambda was doing?
I get that the finance agreement was "innovative", but either it's dischargeable under bankruptcy -- or it's not -- and if it IS dischargeable, language implying that it is not dischargeable is deceptive. My understanding is that they have no power over bankruptcy proceedings, so whether they would LIKE it to be dischargeable or not bears no interest here.
This isn't some heavy-handed regulator stepping in and stopping innovation -- as a private for-profit business, you simply can't twist existing federal law around student loans to your benefit here, and that's always been the case all along. Deception aside, which I believe the word for is "fraud"; there's been a history of predatory financing around education. I was happy when it was DeVry University getting the book, and I'm also happy when it was some "cool" startup company as well.
> Are you suggesting this isn't an introduction of new regulations per se, since it was always a deceptive statement?
It was always false and deliberately deceptive to claim that Lambda’s California Retail Installment Contracts were qualified education loans under federal law, and therefore subject to discharge only on cases of undue hardship.
Lying about that in commerce in CA was not previously something for which there was previously a clear cause of action, especially one which would allow the State to take action. It’s not, at least in purpose, classic fraud: it is designed not to induce purchases but to dissuade past purchasers from seeking bankruptcy relief.
It was always false and deliberately deceptive to claim that Lambda’s California Retail Installment Contracts were qualified education loans under federal law, and therefore subject to discharge only on cases of undue hardship.
Lying about that in commerce in CA was not previously something for which there was previously a clear cause of action, especially one which would allow the State to take action. It’s not, at least in purpose, classic fraud: it is designed not to induce purchases but to dissuade past purchasers from seeking bankruptcy relief.
100%. It might have been a civil cause of action before, but now it's regulated by the DPFI.
Obviously ask your lawyer if you need legal advice, don't rely on anyone commenting on HN, but just as a general rule of thumb it's a bad idea to make deceptive or misleading statements to people you do business with.
Obviously ask your lawyer if you need legal advice, don't rely on anyone commenting on HN, but just as a general rule of thumb it's a bad idea to make deceptive or misleading statements to people you do business with.
But they didn't say that the loan couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy -- they said it was a fully qualified educational loan subject to the limitations on being discharged that are contained in the law. It seems like you are relying on people making connections that are not spelled out in the contract.
'As part of the settlement Lambda will:
(1) notify students that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate
(2) retain a third party to review the terms of the school’s finance contract to ensure that it complies with all applicable laws; and
(3) undergo a review of its marketing materials to ensure that the information is accurate and not likely to mislead consumers. '
This headline feels overly clickbait:
> The settlement is the result of a DFPI investigation that found that Lambda was engaged in conduct that violated the new law.
So a new law was created, that Lambda was in violation of, and agreed to update their materials to comply with the new law?
This is kind of implying that Lambda was previously breaking the law, which doesn't really seem to be the case?
As well, Lambda stating that ISA's are not dischargable in bankrupcy when they actually are is probably the least shady "deceptive" marketing practice I've heard of from bootcamps and code-schools.
> The settlement is the result of a DFPI investigation that found that Lambda was engaged in conduct that violated the new law.
So a new law was created, that Lambda was in violation of, and agreed to update their materials to comply with the new law?
This is kind of implying that Lambda was previously breaking the law, which doesn't really seem to be the case?
As well, Lambda stating that ISA's are not dischargable in bankrupcy when they actually are is probably the least shady "deceptive" marketing practice I've heard of from bootcamps and code-schools.
Lambda School Agrees To Stop Beating Its Wife
CA Gov Site Denies Making Deceptive Headline
Journalists Covering CA Gov's Headline Deception Deny Using Clickbait
HN Commentariat Denies Having Insubstantial Discussion About Title Clickbait
CA Gov Site Denies Making Deceptive Headline
Journalists Covering CA Gov's Headline Deception Deny Using Clickbait
HN Commentariat Denies Having Insubstantial Discussion About Title Clickbait
The headline implies the practices were deceptive before they were illegal. It doesn't imply they were breaking the law previously.
I didn't realize the HN headline was different than the linked article, which is "Lambda School Reaches Settlement with DFPI, Agreeing to End Deceptive Educational Financing Practices".
"Reaching a settlement" with an enforcement agency implies, at least to me, that you were acused of breaking a law.
"Reaching a settlement" with an enforcement agency implies, at least to me, that you were acused of breaking a law.
Lambda School engaged in deceptive but apparently legal practices. A new law made them illegal. Lambda School continued to engage in the now illegal practices. The state began enforcement proceedings. The parties settled.
Part of my point, that I did not make clear, is that this law came into effect January 1st. A 3 month turn-around between something becoming illegal, and a "settlement" being reached, feels awfully fast to me, and implies that everyone involved was actually trying to follow this new law.
I don’t know why you’re being so pedantic:
- the conduct Lambda School engaged in became unlawful on Jan 1
- Lambda School continued engaging in that contact well-past Jan 1
- The state called them out and a settlement (favorable to CA) was quickly reached
It is far more likely that a settlement was reached because the conduct was clearly unlawful but not deeply damaging - so worth enforcing but not worth an ugly legal brawl.
I sincerely don’t know why you’re pretending Lambda was “actually trying to follow this new law” and insinuating there’s something suspicious about anything here - it is not an onerous regulation and Lambda had plenty of warning. Clearly they weren’t trying to follow the law! (probably more out of bad management than nefariousness)
Regardless: companies do not get an implicit grace period between when a law comes into force and when the company is actually required to obey it. In certain cases the law can be unconstitutionally coercive or unfair but obviously not here.
- the conduct Lambda School engaged in became unlawful on Jan 1
- Lambda School continued engaging in that contact well-past Jan 1
- The state called them out and a settlement (favorable to CA) was quickly reached
It is far more likely that a settlement was reached because the conduct was clearly unlawful but not deeply damaging - so worth enforcing but not worth an ugly legal brawl.
I sincerely don’t know why you’re pretending Lambda was “actually trying to follow this new law” and insinuating there’s something suspicious about anything here - it is not an onerous regulation and Lambda had plenty of warning. Clearly they weren’t trying to follow the law! (probably more out of bad management than nefariousness)
Regardless: companies do not get an implicit grace period between when a law comes into force and when the company is actually required to obey it. In certain cases the law can be unconstitutionally coercive or unfair but obviously not here.
> Part of my point, that I did not make clear, is that this law came into effect January 1st. A 3 month turn-around between something becoming illegal, and a "settlement" being reached, feels awfully fast to me, and implies that everyone involved was actually trying to follow this new law.
Not really, I’d say it more implies:
(1) regulators were ready to start enforcement, at least of easy cases, on day 1 (unsurprising, as non-emergency laws in CA have a significant delay between passage and going into effect, both to prepare for enforcement and to give people subject to them sufficient notice to comply), and
(2) Lambda either didn’t want to comply or was lackadaisical (or they would have stopped before the law went into effect, since, again, there was notice) and
(3) the violation was open-and-shut leaving no room for denial, it was settle or lose for Lambda, with no upside for fighting.
Not really, I’d say it more implies:
(1) regulators were ready to start enforcement, at least of easy cases, on day 1 (unsurprising, as non-emergency laws in CA have a significant delay between passage and going into effect, both to prepare for enforcement and to give people subject to them sufficient notice to comply), and
(2) Lambda either didn’t want to comply or was lackadaisical (or they would have stopped before the law went into effect, since, again, there was notice) and
(3) the violation was open-and-shut leaving no room for denial, it was settle or lose for Lambda, with no upside for fighting.
The law passed in August. It took effect in January so businesses could fix violations before. And the practices were always deceptive.
Wouldn't someone truly "trying to follow the new law" have started following the law beginning from the date it's in effect? (Of course mistakes happen, and yes it is probably a sign that they weren't trying to fight it too much, but that's a low bar assuming it is legally clear)
HN limits titles to 80 chars, so the submitter had no choice but to use a different title. The edit looks to me like it was done in good faith, i.e. was just trying to neutrally fit the limit. If someone comes up with a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
Lambda School updates language to comply with new California law
Looks like that's 64 characters.
Just tossing out a suggestion. Maybe could stand to be edited to clarify where this language occurs or something.
Looks like that's 64 characters.
Just tossing out a suggestion. Maybe could stand to be edited to clarify where this language occurs or something.
That would make it sound like Lambda School did it proactively. It would obscure the claims were deceptive irrespective of California law. And it would obscure Lambda School acknowledged the claims were misleading.
Maybe: Lambda School agrees to update deceptive language
Titles are hard, especially with a character limit.
Titles are hard, especially with a character limit.
That would just obscure what the language was about.
The original title is "Lambda School Reaches Settlement with DFPI, Agreeing to End Deceptive Educational Financing Practices". The current HN title is "Lambda School agrees to end deceptive educational financing practices". It's the closest 80 characters can get. And Lambda School agreed in the settlement order it's what happened.
The original title is "Lambda School Reaches Settlement with DFPI, Agreeing to End Deceptive Educational Financing Practices". The current HN title is "Lambda School agrees to end deceptive educational financing practices". It's the closest 80 characters can get. And Lambda School agreed in the settlement order it's what happened.
I didn't mean to imply that the change was necessarily done in bad faith. I'm just used to them matching, and as such commented on the article title without considering that they didn't match.
Recent discussion on Lambda School.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26802601
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25415017
Interview with Austen Allred, CEO of Lambda School.
https://soundcloud.com/vwoo/interview-with-austen-allred
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26802601
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25415017
Interview with Austen Allred, CEO of Lambda School.
https://soundcloud.com/vwoo/interview-with-austen-allred
The language violates the new California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), which took effect this year
At the risk of being misconstrued as defending predatory practices, it sounds like they quickly reached an agreement to comply with legal stuff that probably didn't exist when they wrote the language that's being updated.
At the risk of being misconstrued as defending predatory practices, it sounds like they quickly reached an agreement to comply with legal stuff that probably didn't exist when they wrote the language that's being updated.
> probably didn't exist
Except the language in the contract had always been deceptive, regardless of whether they were legally compelled to remove it. Lambda made a conscious decision to mislead customers for their own financial benefit, knowing full well that they were not covered by Section 523(a)(8).
They don't deserve credit for removing the language.
Except the language in the contract had always been deceptive, regardless of whether they were legally compelled to remove it. Lambda made a conscious decision to mislead customers for their own financial benefit, knowing full well that they were not covered by Section 523(a)(8).
They don't deserve credit for removing the language.
True, but I think it's important to acknowledge that those practices, regardless of their prior legality, were predatory. If it was an honest mistake about something that wasn't a big deal, I don't think many people would be up in arms about it. But these particular circumstances lead me to believe Lambda is a pretty scummy organization.
They're only agreeing to change their language because they were previously lying, and now there could be regulatory and financial consequences for them if they don't change it.
They're only agreeing to change their language because they were previously lying, and now there could be regulatory and financial consequences for them if they don't change it.
It's true, before it was legal to be dishonest about whether loans could be discharged under federal law.
See [1] for further discussion of this.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26947875
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26947875
[deleted]
That seems accurate. Consumer protection laws are a genuine mess - it’s okay to lie about some things and not okay to lie about others. Some lies are meant to be dealt with in civil court whereas others are meant to be dealt with by regulators. That line moves back and forth every few years.
Isn't lying to trick people for financial gain to their detriment fraud?
> Fraud is an intentionally deceptive action designed to provide the perpetrator with an unlawful gain or to deny a right to a victim. Types of fraud include tax fraud, credit card fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and bankruptcy fraud. Fraudulent activity can be carried out by one individual, multiple individuals or a business firm as a whole.
Seems to me like lying on this contract should constitute fraud.
> Fraud is an intentionally deceptive action designed to provide the perpetrator with an unlawful gain or to deny a right to a victim. Types of fraud include tax fraud, credit card fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and bankruptcy fraud. Fraudulent activity can be carried out by one individual, multiple individuals or a business firm as a whole.
Seems to me like lying on this contract should constitute fraud.
Not clear to me that they were lying. Also not clear they had anything to gain.
My reading of it is that their contract claimed student debt with the school could not be discharged with bankruptcy similar to federal student loans. This is not true, and it's doubtful that the people writing the contract didn't know that it wasn't true. If they were being intentionally deceitful, which I believe is the claim here, it would be to prevent loss of loan-repayment in the case that a student finds the debt to be too burdensome and wishes to instead file for bankruptcy. Why else would they include it in the contract if it weren't to their benefit to discourage the student from discharging their debt? All that's left is to prove the intent to decieve.
But Lambda already forgoes loan repayment if the student doesn't get a job making at least $50k. So why would they go about trying to collect loans from people declaring bankruptcy when they already give up on loans in other circumstances where they would be much easier to pursue?
It seems like Lambda was just genuinely confused about what the regulations were regarding their loans and whether they could be discharged in bankruptcy. The regulator clarified that they could, and they updated their agreement to reflect that.
It seems like Lambda was just genuinely confused about what the regulations were regarding their loans and whether they could be discharged in bankruptcy. The regulator clarified that they could, and they updated their agreement to reflect that.
> But Lambda already forgoes loan repayment if the student doesn't get a job making at least $50k.
No, it doesn’t, ever, for the California Retail Installment Contract at issue.
Their ISA, defers for five years and then discharges.
No, it doesn’t, ever, for the California Retail Installment Contract at issue.
Their ISA, defers for five years and then discharges.
I think you're right. The California regulator forced Lambda to make the agreement much worse for California students. Can we fine the regulator (which is totally useless, btw)?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2020/08/21/calif...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2020/08/21/calif...
What does it mean that it defers for five years and then discharges?
To me, defers means you are not required to make payments during that time.
Discharges means that the obligation is removed and you never have to make any payments.
So...if you go five years without getting a job that makes 50k, the ISA defers ... and is then discharged? You never pay it back?
How is that different from what I said?
To me, defers means you are not required to make payments during that time.
Discharges means that the obligation is removed and you never have to make any payments.
So...if you go five years without getting a job that makes 50k, the ISA defers ... and is then discharged? You never pay it back?
How is that different from what I said?
> How is that different from what I said?
Its different from what you said (or alternatively, what tou said is a nonsequitur to the discussion of the article, hard to tell which) because it applies only to their ISA, which for legal reasons isn’t used in California and is not what they are in trouble for lying about.
They are in trouble for misrepresenting the Retail Installment Contract, which is used exclusively in California, and which is deferred when income is under $50K, but is never discharged/forgiven except by full payment.
Its different from what you said (or alternatively, what tou said is a nonsequitur to the discussion of the article, hard to tell which) because it applies only to their ISA, which for legal reasons isn’t used in California and is not what they are in trouble for lying about.
They are in trouble for misrepresenting the Retail Installment Contract, which is used exclusively in California, and which is deferred when income is under $50K, but is never discharged/forgiven except by full payment.
So basically, California specifically forced them to create a special contract, different from the one they use everywhere else, that couldn't be discharged and then censured them for not clearly enough stating that the special California contract couldn't be discharged?
Sounds very California.
Sounds very California.
> So basically, California specifically forced them to create a special contract, different from the one they use everywhere else, that couldn't be discharged and then censured them for not clearly enough stating that the special California contract couldn't be discharged?
No, not at all.
They choose not to automatically discharge the California contracts after 60 months of deferment for low income (I believe as a backhanded protest against the fact that they got in trouble with ISAs in California, IIRC because there was no up-front pricing; the up-front statement that $30,000 is the price is specific to California.) They got in trouble for lying and saying the California contracts were “qualified education loans” under federal law, with the associated restrictive terms for discharge in bankruptcy.
No, not at all.
They choose not to automatically discharge the California contracts after 60 months of deferment for low income (I believe as a backhanded protest against the fact that they got in trouble with ISAs in California, IIRC because there was no up-front pricing; the up-front statement that $30,000 is the price is specific to California.) They got in trouble for lying and saying the California contracts were “qualified education loans” under federal law, with the associated restrictive terms for discharge in bankruptcy.
So basically, California specifically forced them to create a special contract, different from the one they use everywhere else, that couldn't be discharged and then censured them for not clearly enough stating that the special California contract couldn't be discharged?
Sounds very California.
Sounds very California.
> So basically, California specifically forced them to create a special contract, different from the one they use everywhere else, that couldn’t be discharged
No, again, the specific lie that they are getting in trouble with is claiming that the California contract was a “qualified education loan” which could not (easily) be discharged in bankruptcy when, in fact, it was a regular unsecured loan which can easily be discharged in bankruptcy.
No, again, the specific lie that they are getting in trouble with is claiming that the California contract was a “qualified education loan” which could not (easily) be discharged in bankruptcy when, in fact, it was a regular unsecured loan which can easily be discharged in bankruptcy.
I get the feeling you're arguing in bad faith here due to some axe you have to grind with California, but I'll try to clarify.
Lambda was deceptive about the terms of their ISA (the one they now use everywhere but CA). CA's laws require lenders to disclose certain things to their customers, and Lambda didn't want to do that.
So, being the childish dicks they so clearly are, they retaliated by creating new terms that are worse for CA-based students. No one forced them to do this; they could have kept the same contract but properly disclosed the things they were required to disclose. And on top of that, they lied about whether or not their loans could be discharged in bankruptcy. This particular regulatory action is solely about this last thing.
Lambda was deceptive about the terms of their ISA (the one they now use everywhere but CA). CA's laws require lenders to disclose certain things to their customers, and Lambda didn't want to do that.
So, being the childish dicks they so clearly are, they retaliated by creating new terms that are worse for CA-based students. No one forced them to do this; they could have kept the same contract but properly disclosed the things they were required to disclose. And on top of that, they lied about whether or not their loans could be discharged in bankruptcy. This particular regulatory action is solely about this last thing.
I get the feeling you're arguing in bad faith here due to some axe you have to grind with Lambda.
Treatment of student loans in bankruptcy not limited to government loans.
The clause makes Lambda appear less attractive so not clear why it would be included.
Would be nice to hear Lambda’s side.
The clause makes Lambda appear less attractive so not clear why it would be included.
Would be nice to hear Lambda’s side.
> The clause makes Lambda appear less attractive so not clear why it would be included.
It’s designed to dissuade people from seeking bankruptcy to discharge the debt.
It’s designed to dissuade people from seeking bankruptcy to discharge the debt.
I doubt it. Who would seek bankruptcy for 17% of their salary? And it also make Lambds FAR more unattractive.
The problem is if you can't get a job above a certain salary threshold. While Lambda's non-CA contracts allow for discharging the debt after 5 years of no job or low enough salary, it seems their contract for CA students does not allow for discharging the debt, ever.
Regardless, people don't necessarily go into bankruptcy over a single loan. It could be the combination of credit card debt, a mortgage, a car loan, plus the Lambda loan that puts them over the edge.
Regardless, people don't necessarily go into bankruptcy over a single loan. It could be the combination of credit card debt, a mortgage, a car loan, plus the Lambda loan that puts them over the edge.
> Also not clear they had anything to gain.
The resell the debt to investors[1]. If students think these debts have to be repaid even if they don't then they are more valuable so yes, the school has something to gain.
[1] https://inside.com/campaigns/inside-dev-2020-02-13-21344/sec...
The resell the debt to investors[1]. If students think these debts have to be repaid even if they don't then they are more valuable so yes, the school has something to gain.
[1] https://inside.com/campaigns/inside-dev-2020-02-13-21344/sec...
They don't resell all the debt. And this make Lambda FAR less attractive. And if someone is going into bankruptcy it would be over far more than 17% of their salary. In which case they would find out if it's dischargeable or not.
>And this make Lambda FAR less attractive
This is only relevant if the revenue lost from those that don't sign up out of fear of not being able to pay back the loans, exceeds the number of students who do sign up and would seek bankruptcy if it was dischargeable but don't having been told it isn't.
Just like the student debt problem in general, I'd imagine most students seeking to attend the school are optimistic they can pay it back, whether this ends up being true or not, so this proposed effect is minimal.
Also, some portion of those that wouldn't sign up out of fear of un-dischargeable debt, would, if it was dischargeable, not end up paying back some of this debt to Lambda School. So earning their trust as customers isn't much of a net benefit.
Putting all of these points aside, why did they do it? If it made their school overall less attractive to a point of diminished revenue, this would have been doubly stupid as it added regulatory risk since they were violating a law. Common sense tells us they were doing it because they saw it as beneficial.
This is only relevant if the revenue lost from those that don't sign up out of fear of not being able to pay back the loans, exceeds the number of students who do sign up and would seek bankruptcy if it was dischargeable but don't having been told it isn't.
Just like the student debt problem in general, I'd imagine most students seeking to attend the school are optimistic they can pay it back, whether this ends up being true or not, so this proposed effect is minimal.
Also, some portion of those that wouldn't sign up out of fear of un-dischargeable debt, would, if it was dischargeable, not end up paying back some of this debt to Lambda School. So earning their trust as customers isn't much of a net benefit.
Putting all of these points aside, why did they do it? If it made their school overall less attractive to a point of diminished revenue, this would have been doubly stupid as it added regulatory risk since they were violating a law. Common sense tells us they were doing it because they saw it as beneficial.
> also not clear they had anything to gain.
Getting people to pay back loans they aren't required to pay back "isn't something to gain?". I'm trying to find a charitable reading of this but am struggling. In what way do you think they have nothing to gain?
Getting people to pay back loans they aren't required to pay back "isn't something to gain?". I'm trying to find a charitable reading of this but am struggling. In what way do you think they have nothing to gain?
Makes Lambda look FAR less attractive up front.
You’re only paying back a small percentage of income and that’s IF you are even employed, so it’s not clear how you would be thinking of going into bankruptcy to discharge this loan.
You’re only paying back a small percentage of income and that’s IF you are even employed, so it’s not clear how you would be thinking of going into bankruptcy to discharge this loan.
See also Lambda School’s Misleading Promises: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/lambda-schools-job-p...
I would be a lot more inclined to believe anything they said in this article if they didn't show such blatant bias for sensationalist reporting.
> His previous work was mostly concerned with “growth hacking,” which is Silicon Valley jargon for finding underappreciated (or, less charitably, underhanded) ways of marketing something.
So anyone who put the term "growth hacking" on their resume will now get publicly discredited as being underhanded? If they tried just a little harder to stick to the facts, all of the other research they have done in their reporting would carry a bit more weight.
> His previous work was mostly concerned with “growth hacking,” which is Silicon Valley jargon for finding underappreciated (or, less charitably, underhanded) ways of marketing something.
So anyone who put the term "growth hacking" on their resume will now get publicly discredited as being underhanded? If they tried just a little harder to stick to the facts, all of the other research they have done in their reporting would carry a bit more weight.
Listen, I wrote underappreciated first and then had the parenthetical second for a reason. You read the entire piece and this is the bit you reacted to? Jesus Christ. The entire piece is completely factual. Name even one bit of the piece not based entirely in fact, I dare you.
To me "growth hacking" has for a long time been associated with sketchy, underhanded practices and dark patterns.
> So anyone who put the term "growth hacking" on their resume will now get publicly discredited as being underhanded?
That is good thing! These 'growth hacks' people should be viewed in the same light as a 'SEO tricks' people. Both damage the quality of results and bring bad faith actors to the top.
That is good thing! These 'growth hacks' people should be viewed in the same light as a 'SEO tricks' people. Both damage the quality of results and bring bad faith actors to the top.
I dunno if "underhanded" is the right word, but it feels like "growth hacking" is something one does only when the higher-than-usual moral cost is worth it.
It's worth mentioning the the CEO Austen had a post on here (now deleted) proclaiming to have creating a bot army via stealing people's pictures on Instagram.
I would qualify that as "underhanded"
I would qualify that as "underhanded"
Link to the post: https://web.archive.org/web/20190703224616/https://news.ycom...
It's also weird that the post is still up, but the username was changed from austenallred to another user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13502774
It's also weird that the post is still up, but the username was changed from austenallred to another user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13502774
Dang, is this a normal feature? Since when are users able to retroactively change the profile that made the comment? This looks like covering up a YC founder's past comment, but the archive still exists. According to snapshots it was modified over 2 years later.
We take care of privacy requests for HN users every day. 99% (maybe 99.9% – I haven't counted) of those users aren't YC founders. There's no special treatment.
If you look at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, there's an explanation there about how we usually don't delete entire account histories, but we do other things to help, and invite people to email us if they have concerns. There are tradeoffs between individual needs for privacy, fairness to the other commenters who participated in a thread, the community's interest in preserving its archive, and so on. We care about all of that and do our best to help whoever asks; as I tell people who write in, we just try to do it with more precise tools than wholesale deletion, and have built up a bag of tricks for that over the years. Obviously that doesn't extend to the Internet Archive or whatever other caches of HN posts are out there; users understand that.
When it comes to this sort of issue on HN, it's important for people to understand that there are no good answers—it's all tradeoffs. Because the pendulum has swung towards privacy concerns in recent years, we regularly get flamed for not deleting entire account histories. But we still get flamed from the classic internet perspective (nothing should be censored, etc.) too.
If you look at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, there's an explanation there about how we usually don't delete entire account histories, but we do other things to help, and invite people to email us if they have concerns. There are tradeoffs between individual needs for privacy, fairness to the other commenters who participated in a thread, the community's interest in preserving its archive, and so on. We care about all of that and do our best to help whoever asks; as I tell people who write in, we just try to do it with more precise tools than wholesale deletion, and have built up a bag of tricks for that over the years. Obviously that doesn't extend to the Internet Archive or whatever other caches of HN posts are out there; users understand that.
When it comes to this sort of issue on HN, it's important for people to understand that there are no good answers—it's all tradeoffs. Because the pendulum has swung towards privacy concerns in recent years, we regularly get flamed for not deleting entire account histories. But we still get flamed from the classic internet perspective (nothing should be censored, etc.) too.
Appreciate the clarification that it's not YC-founder specific and a further read of your comments and newsfaq on this makes it clear the tradeoff between privacy and maintaining HN thread history, and I think the right choice has been made. Thanks
This is a really kind answer. You’re a good person and we’re all lucky to have you.
The usual best way to get in touch with dang (or another mod) is to email [email protected]. Likely to get a better answer via email, or perhaps he'll comment here if you call attention to it that way.
If something like this really happened, this is pretty disturbing. The _pecl account that now owns that comment was created on the same day the comment was posted, has 1 karma, and has not posted anything else.
Edit: just emailed hn@; hopefully someone there will follow up on this.
If something like this really happened, this is pretty disturbing. The _pecl account that now owns that comment was created on the same day the comment was posted, has 1 karma, and has not posted anything else.
Edit: just emailed hn@; hopefully someone there will follow up on this.
This is not a feature available to mere mortals. Your assumption seems likely.
The full range of everything we do is available to anyone who asks. You have to email [email protected], as the FAQ explains (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), but there's no restriction on whom we help, or how. We help people who have abused this site for years and then ask us (sometimes exceedingly impolitely!) to clean up what they did, and we treat them the same way as we treat anyone; I may grit my teeth while doing it, but that's all. Why? Because it's best for the community in the long run if we treat everyone the same way, and because—as I tell users who email—we don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN.
Good to hear, I'm very happy to be corrected on this. Thanks!
Even more than that, one of the administrators previously told me via email that HN is not able to rename accounts (presumably they use account names instead of numeric IDs as a key somewhere). So the only explanation for the displayed author on that post having changed is that they switched the author of the post, the original author's account could not have been renamed.
Either that email was many years ago or something got confused, because we rename accounts for users all the time.
In fact, when we developed that feature, I replied to everyone who had emailed over the years asking for it, asking if they still wanted it. If you weren't on that list, your email must have been many years ago.
Edit: oops - I see I neglected the important thing. If you still want your account to be renamed, please email [email protected] and we'll be happy to help!
In fact, when we developed that feature, I replied to everyone who had emailed over the years asking for it, asking if they still wanted it. If you weren't on that list, your email must have been many years ago.
Edit: oops - I see I neglected the important thing. If you still want your account to be renamed, please email [email protected] and we'll be happy to help!
The account creation date for user _pecl is also the same date the comment was made so maybe it is possible to make a new user, change their creation date, and also change the attribution of specific comments to that user?
It's also the same month that Lambda School was launched⁽¹⁾, and there's no doubt re. Allred's prior interest in gaming Twitter⁽²⁾.
[1] https://twitter.com/calebhicks/status/1093885962059272193
[2] https://medium.com/user-acquisition-for-hackers/exploiting-t...
[1] https://twitter.com/calebhicks/status/1093885962059272193
[2] https://medium.com/user-acquisition-for-hackers/exploiting-t...
The incredibly gross thing is that all but two replies are encouraging of that kind of behavior. The two that are negative and call out the dishonesty are downvoted.
a user, it might be noted, for whom that is the only comment.
> So anyone who put the term "growth hacking" on their resume will now get publicly discredited as being underhanded?
Yes? "Growth hacking" has always been basically a euphemism for saying that you're willing to do unethical things for growth.
Yes? "Growth hacking" has always been basically a euphemism for saying that you're willing to do unethical things for growth.
The term has always made me wince but that is not a fair description.
I think it is an entirely fair description of the overwhelming majority of the times I see it used. I suppose the person using the term does not always think the thing they are describing is unethical and so do not intend it as a euphemism.
What's missing in your description is the timeline. Note that the term was first introduced by Sean Ellis in 2010, and according to Google Trends it peaked in usage in 2014. At some point (2014?), it became a buzzword and suddenly every marketer started using it. So in 2021, when someone puts "Growth Hacker" on their resume, you draw a very different mental picture than you did in 2010. Is it fair to put the 2010-people into the same bucket as the 2021-people? I have no idea when and why Austen was using this term. But calling him underhanded for that reason alone comes across as biased.
Btw, "growth hacker" is not the only term whose perception changed throughout its lifetime. Here's a fun one: PHP. Actually, many other technologies suffer the same fate (Java, Rails, etc). Sort of related: NoSQL.
Prediction for a future liability term: AI (what are the chances that in 2030 people will feel about it the same way they feel about it today?).
Btw, "growth hacker" is not the only term whose perception changed throughout its lifetime. Here's a fun one: PHP. Actually, many other technologies suffer the same fate (Java, Rails, etc). Sort of related: NoSQL.
Prediction for a future liability term: AI (what are the chances that in 2030 people will feel about it the same way they feel about it today?).
Would love to see this acknowledged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949343
This is a bad way to get in touch with us; it's unreliable. If there's something important that needs responding to, you should email [email protected], as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
[deleted]
If you put that on your CV, I’ll probably put your CV in the garbage. It’s one of the major red flags.
Along with: various flavours of monetization specialist; pimps; politicians; used car sales; basically all the same category of exploitation-oriented narcissists that will poison your brand and your culture, create nothing themselves, and ultimately destroy more intrinsic value than they vampire from others.
I’ve been around this industry for decades. Joe MacMillan is an archetype, not a parody character.
Along with: various flavours of monetization specialist; pimps; politicians; used car sales; basically all the same category of exploitation-oriented narcissists that will poison your brand and your culture, create nothing themselves, and ultimately destroy more intrinsic value than they vampire from others.
I’ve been around this industry for decades. Joe MacMillan is an archetype, not a parody character.
Note that the author of this piece was the founder of Coderpad, not some industry entrenched journalist. After watching his interview with Jason Calacanis(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hUT8VZNvm8), where they discuss the content of his piece, I'm more inclined to believe what Woo wrote.
TBH this article makes me more confident that Lambda is overall Good. They found a single program that was substantially deficient, some disorganized operations, and some exaggerated marketing claims.
It's starting a new form of education! There are going to be operational headaches and a few misses! While the referenced cases aren't good, we can assess Lambda on their overall contribution, not their mistakes alone.
It's starting a new form of education! There are going to be operational headaches and a few misses! While the referenced cases aren't good, we can assess Lambda on their overall contribution, not their mistakes alone.
Jason Calacanis's interview with Vincent Woo(the author of that piece) is quite good too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hUT8VZNvm8
> While the referenced cases aren't good, not their mistakes alone
Check notes: "notify students that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate"
Just to be clear this isn't a "mistake" this is fraud.
Check notes: "notify students that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate"
Just to be clear this isn't a "mistake" this is fraud.
This is not fraud, and it's barely even relevant. The ISA dissolves after 5 years even if you've paid nothing.
The fact that it is dischargeable is itself interesting.
Edit: said the opposite of what I meant
The fact that it is dischargeable is itself interesting.
Edit: said the opposite of what I meant
This isn't the ISA; it's a special contract only used for CA-based students that does not allow for a discharge after 5 years.
Interesting, I didn't realize this was the case.
IANAL but pretty sure that does not, in fact, qualify as fraud.
I think it probably is fraud, even legally, but only because “qualified education loans” subject to rules against discharge in bankruptcy are also eligible for tax deductions on interest, so while falsely claiming the status was intended as a dissuasion against recourse to bankruptcy for past customers (and not fraud, though clearly unethical, when that’s all the claim serves as), it also was a material misrepresentation which could encourage new customers to purchase services based on it, which is fraud.
Actually, since the loan is structured as an all-principal, no-interest $30,000 loan, deductibility of interest isn’t an issue, so it wouldn’t be classic fraud.
yeah sorry, I would bet you are right in the strict legal sense, I guess its a dumb cop out but I meant in the colloquial sense.
[deleted]
"contains a provision that falsely asserts that the Contract is a “qualified educational loan” ..."
Did University of Phoenix qualify for "educational loans"? I'm constantly surprised why this sector gets a pass like this from bankruptcy.
Did University of Phoenix qualify for "educational loans"? I'm constantly surprised why this sector gets a pass like this from bankruptcy.
The reason is that the applicants would not be loaned anything if they could discharge debt in bankruptcy. i.e. student loans would not exist unless collateralized and we don't want people to have to put up collateral equal to the value of the loan.
This is because if I were a student, the optimal route would be to take the largest loan possible while on no assets, then go to the most expensive university, then declare bankruptcy on graduation.
The lender knows this, so they won't give me any loan unless I can put up collateral equal to the value of the loan.
The government knows this, and they also want kids to go to college, so they provide a mechanism by which kids can promise to pay back the money.
This is because if I were a student, the optimal route would be to take the largest loan possible while on no assets, then go to the most expensive university, then declare bankruptcy on graduation.
The lender knows this, so they won't give me any loan unless I can put up collateral equal to the value of the loan.
The government knows this, and they also want kids to go to college, so they provide a mechanism by which kids can promise to pay back the money.
For what it's worth (I learned this recently and was equally surprised by it) student loans were not non-dischargable until 2005. Ie, for all time before 2005, a student could do what you describe, and as far as I know it wasn't a widespread practice.
It is a relatively new thing that really only came in to existance coincidentally around the same time that education became so expensive that going through the effort of bankrupcy became "worth it".
It is a relatively new thing that really only came in to existance coincidentally around the same time that education became so expensive that going through the effort of bankrupcy became "worth it".
Bankruptcies have to get approved by a judge, and often debt is restructured instead of being discharged. The scenario where someone takes on a bunch of debt then declares bankruptcy on graduation is a joke because judges wouldn't allow it. They may get their loan deferred or restructured to help buy time to get a job, but they wouldn't just discharge it like that. These kind of made up "what if" scenarios to justify broken laws are always weird to me especially when there aren't so far from reality.
Neither of us are lawyers (based on your profile), but there are two modern forms of bankruptcy in the U.S: Chapter 7, liquidation which does discharge your debts, or Chapter 13, which is restructuring. In a chapter 7 bankruptcy, you have to pass the means test, which checks if your household income is below the median income of your state:
> The means test looks at the gross income of everyone in your household during the six months before you file. If your household income is below the median income in your state, you’ll qualify to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
If it isn't, then the courts can force your chapter 7 case be converted to a chapter 13. But if someone, say, lives alone and still works at their minimum-wage job from college, I don't see anything else that would prevent a chapter 7 from proceeding.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chapter-7-bankruptcy....
> The means test looks at the gross income of everyone in your household during the six months before you file. If your household income is below the median income in your state, you’ll qualify to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
If it isn't, then the courts can force your chapter 7 case be converted to a chapter 13. But if someone, say, lives alone and still works at their minimum-wage job from college, I don't see anything else that would prevent a chapter 7 from proceeding.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chapter-7-bankruptcy....
Chapter 7 has an abuse provision which people also have to pass or the bankruptcy can be turned into a Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 (or gets dismissed outright).
To quote the law directly-
> After notice and a hearing, the court, on its own motion or on a motion by the United States trustee, trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any), or any party in interest, may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor under this chapter whose debts are primarily consumer debts, or, with the debtor’s consent, convert such a case to a case under chapter 11 or 13 of this title, if it finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter.
11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1)
To quote the law directly-
> After notice and a hearing, the court, on its own motion or on a motion by the United States trustee, trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any), or any party in interest, may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor under this chapter whose debts are primarily consumer debts, or, with the debtor’s consent, convert such a case to a case under chapter 11 or 13 of this title, if it finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter.
11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1)
Do you know how often this has been used and isn’t some dead piece of law never cited (like a lot of law is)?
I may have been unclear and didn't mean to imply there there was a rush of students declaring bankrupcy, thus this law made sense. The law is, in my opinion, stupid.
I was implying that education should never have been allowed to become so unreasonably expensive and unsustainable that it has to be propped up with special exceptions.
I was implying that education should never have been allowed to become so unreasonably expensive and unsustainable that it has to be propped up with special exceptions.
Seems pretty simple...
Student loans become dischargeable > lenders stop lending where tuition cost != market value > exorbitant tuition no longer affordable > universities forced to reprice to new market coniditions > paying back tuition now preferable to 7 year hit on credit for bankruptcy > diplomas for everyone :)
The inability to discharge tuition via bankruptcy has become a moral hazard that society needs to deal with.
Student loans become dischargeable > lenders stop lending where tuition cost != market value > exorbitant tuition no longer affordable > universities forced to reprice to new market coniditions > paying back tuition now preferable to 7 year hit on credit for bankruptcy > diplomas for everyone :)
The inability to discharge tuition via bankruptcy has become a moral hazard that society needs to deal with.
> The inability to discharge tuition via bankruptcy has become a moral hazard that society needs to deal with.
Keep in mind that society != government. It's government that is enabling nondischargeability; and it's not in the best interests of the political class to change this situation.
Keep in mind that society != government. It's government that is enabling nondischargeability; and it's not in the best interests of the political class to change this situation.
So this just creates an incentive to push as many kids through school as possible and to take out the biggest loans, right?
Shouldn't there be a metric built in that says something like "the quality of education didn't meet the expectations of the loan, so the loan can be discharged"?
Where's the warranty for the lender?
Shouldn't there be a metric built in that says something like "the quality of education didn't meet the expectations of the loan, so the loan can be discharged"?
Where's the warranty for the lender?
>Shouldn't there be a metric built in that says something like "the quality of education didn't meet the expectations of the loan, so the loan can be discharged"?
How do you prove whether the failings are because of the student or the school? The fact that there are three parties involved (the student, the school, the lender) also complicates things. Finally, lenders would bake this risk into the loan itself, which means higher interest rates for people going to non-famous institutions.
How do you prove whether the failings are because of the student or the school? The fact that there are three parties involved (the student, the school, the lender) also complicates things. Finally, lenders would bake this risk into the loan itself, which means higher interest rates for people going to non-famous institutions.
> Shouldn't there be a metric built in that says something like "the quality of education didn't meet the expectations of the loan, so the loan can be discharged"?
There are, in fact, several policies in this area, the most significant is Borrower Defense to Repayment: https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense/
There are, in fact, several policies in this area, the most significant is Borrower Defense to Repayment: https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense/
And so the education would get cheaper. Nothing drives up prices more than easy access to big loans.
I'm with you. I believe that we need the following reform:
* Information Reform: Schools should be required to report median income of graduating class by major by year (with number of declined-to-disclose). Students should know what they're going to get out of this program.
* Incentive Alignment: School programs above a certain cost should only be payable either up-front or via income share agreement. Schools should only be paid if their education yielded economic gain for students but students should be permitted escape valves if possible.
* Bankruptcy Reform: Student loans should be discharged in bankruptcy, ISAs should not.
* Information Reform: Schools should be required to report median income of graduating class by major by year (with number of declined-to-disclose). Students should know what they're going to get out of this program.
* Incentive Alignment: School programs above a certain cost should only be payable either up-front or via income share agreement. Schools should only be paid if their education yielded economic gain for students but students should be permitted escape valves if possible.
* Bankruptcy Reform: Student loans should be discharged in bankruptcy, ISAs should not.
> education yielded economic gain for student
What a sad narrow view of education.
I recognize that for many education is a vocational experience meant to provide accesss to better jobs, but really education can be so much more broad and valuable.
What a sad narrow view of education.
I recognize that for many education is a vocational experience meant to provide accesss to better jobs, but really education can be so much more broad and valuable.
I think it is very rude of you to have removed the other part of that sentence that addressed that. To then insult me based on this misreading is really boorish. If you are interested in conversing with me, please do not do that.
Now, for anyone else reading for whom it wasn't clear: I want schools to primarily receive economic benefit by providing economic benefit but (quoting from above) I believe students should have an escape valve to pay for education that does not have direct economic benefit. I believe that paying upfront is sufficient as an escape valve.
Now, for anyone else reading for whom it wasn't clear: I want schools to primarily receive economic benefit by providing economic benefit but (quoting from above) I believe students should have an escape valve to pay for education that does not have direct economic benefit. I believe that paying upfront is sufficient as an escape valve.
It was not meant to be an insult, i simply think framing higher education against economic gain at all misses a lot of the value people derive from attending.
> Schools should only be paid if their education yielded economic gain for students but students should be permitted escape valves if possible.
This sentence reads (to me) as if "schools should only get paid if it leads to students making money" and the "escape valve" part seems like "students have an escape from paying when its not profitable" not "they can pay when its not profitable".
Under your new wording, I think that i still disagree. I think schools should charge however they want and instead of regulating how private institutions receive income, we should ensure that there are affordable options focused on vocational outcomes (state-run schools) that are so affordable that they are always economically gainful.
Some taxes are already based on income, so maybe in a profit-sharing model, attending state school is free but you share X% of income in taxes per credit-hour or per-semester until a certain cost is repaid to the state. (eg. a 100 credit hour degree costs 10% income at 0.1% per credit hour until $50k is repaid while a drop-out who attended for a single 15 credit hour semester pays 1.5%, while Harvard can charge 50k per semester up front to any one willing, regardless of outcome)
> Schools should only be paid if their education yielded economic gain for students but students should be permitted escape valves if possible.
This sentence reads (to me) as if "schools should only get paid if it leads to students making money" and the "escape valve" part seems like "students have an escape from paying when its not profitable" not "they can pay when its not profitable".
Under your new wording, I think that i still disagree. I think schools should charge however they want and instead of regulating how private institutions receive income, we should ensure that there are affordable options focused on vocational outcomes (state-run schools) that are so affordable that they are always economically gainful.
Some taxes are already based on income, so maybe in a profit-sharing model, attending state school is free but you share X% of income in taxes per credit-hour or per-semester until a certain cost is repaid to the state. (eg. a 100 credit hour degree costs 10% income at 0.1% per credit hour until $50k is repaid while a drop-out who attended for a single 15 credit hour semester pays 1.5%, while Harvard can charge 50k per semester up front to any one willing, regardless of outcome)
The problem with the US college/debt system is we combine three features: study anything, at any school you can get into, and take out nearly unlimited loans to do it.
Big loans aren't bad if you use them to study medicine, and a lot of student debt is held by grad degree holders: the issue is people taking on debt that people can take on debt that isn't a very good investment in themselves.
Apparently you can discharge student loans in bankruptcy https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/797330613/myth-busted-turns-o...
Sounds like student loans simply don't work then. Why would you choose a free market mechanism only to then decide that you don't like it and corrupt it entirely for the sake of charity/welfare?
If you want the government to play such a role in funding education why not let it simply do so? It's not like you are wasting the money by creating a productive workforce.
If you want the government to play such a role in funding education why not let it simply do so? It's not like you are wasting the money by creating a productive workforce.
Except that declaring bankruptcy has actual consequences for people with no assets.
[deleted]
Reading this, I'm actually not sure if Lambda implied the tuition wasn't dischargeable in bankruptcy when it actually is, or the other way around. If you sign up for Lambda and then go bankrupt, do you still have to pay them back?
They implied it couldn't be discharged. It can apparently.
They did more than imply that it was protected from bankruptcy; they made the claim directly in their contract with students:
> ...a qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code.
> ...a qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code.
You're right. I said implied because of "subject to the limitations". But they claimed directly it was a qualified educational loan.
From what I read, it seems that:
1. The DFPI has existed since 2013 (when it was formed by the merger of two other agencies). It used to be called the DBO. It was renamed to DBO in 2020, but it is not new.
2. The California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) is a recent law that gives the DFPI new powers and responsibilities.
3. The introduction of CCFPL did not change the accuracy or inaccuracy of the 'bankruptcy dischargeability provision language'. The CCFPL just made it the DFPI's job to stop any inaccuracies.
Is that correct?
1. The DFPI has existed since 2013 (when it was formed by the merger of two other agencies). It used to be called the DBO. It was renamed to DBO in 2020, but it is not new.
2. The California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) is a recent law that gives the DFPI new powers and responsibilities.
3. The introduction of CCFPL did not change the accuracy or inaccuracy of the 'bankruptcy dischargeability provision language'. The CCFPL just made it the DFPI's job to stop any inaccuracies.
Is that correct?
That is a blustery title for what seems like a pretty simple regulatory review. Good job by the state for enforcing laws and Lambda for adapting to new rules. Obviously this CA state agency felt like they needed to pat themselves on the back for doing their job.
> California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), which took effect this year and prohibits companies from engaging in practices that are unlawful, ...
Sounds like a good idea.
Sounds like a good idea.
How much will this cost them? Are they on the hook for losses to investors who bought the revenue streams attached to the ISAs?
Welp, it seems like this was a good year to create a CS education platform. I've always been disatisfied with boot camps, I feel that for most people online learning is a better route. You can see what I'm building on https://qvault.io
[deleted]
Is Lambda the only school that's using this loan model?
Hey everyone,
Pretty excited to reach settlement on this one. The DFPI is a new regulatory agency in California that was tasked with reviewing Lambda School’s new incentive-aligned tuition (https://lambdaschool.com/tuition/tuition-options) in California. They came back requesting that we update a bankruptcy provision in the agreement to clarify that these agreements are dischargeable in bankruptcy, and to do a review of our marketing to make that clear. All things we’re happy to do, and always happy to work with regulators!
Pretty excited to reach settlement on this one. The DFPI is a new regulatory agency in California that was tasked with reviewing Lambda School’s new incentive-aligned tuition (https://lambdaschool.com/tuition/tuition-options) in California. They came back requesting that we update a bankruptcy provision in the agreement to clarify that these agreements are dischargeable in bankruptcy, and to do a review of our marketing to make that clear. All things we’re happy to do, and always happy to work with regulators!
Austen call me we can work through this gaffe
Your bizarre cheeriness in the face of "Agreeing to End Deceptive Educational Financing Practices" is offputting, especially when coupled with the way college financing has led to generational deadweight, anxiety, and hopelessness.
You seem to not be aware of how Lambda School operates at all.
It in no way resembles the college financing model, and in fact the purpose was to succeed in precisely the way it does not.
It in no way resembles the college financing model, and in fact the purpose was to succeed in precisely the way it does not.
Reminds me of the 'Human Heater' pitch from the Silicon Valley show [1]
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di3fPj0pUbQ
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di3fPj0pUbQ
> It has not been shown conclusively that microwaves (or other non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation) have significant adverse biological effects at low levels. Some, but not all, studies suggest that long-term exposure may have a carcinogenic effect.
He might not be entirely wrong. They're still not going to sell any to the general public, though, especially if it is carcinogenic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave#Health_effects:~:tex...
He might not be entirely wrong. They're still not going to sell any to the general public, though, especially if it is carcinogenic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave#Health_effects:~:tex...
What's he supposed to do? Rant about the government? Making the best of it and moving on is probably the best move, since it doesn't sound like a big hit to their business.
Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
This response just appears disconnected from reality. It's like watching somebody talk about how getting punched in the face was a wonderful and purely positive experience. It's just baffling.
There are options other than being weirdly positive and ranting. They could not say anything at all. They could give one of several varieties of mea culpa. They could simply state their intentions going forward.
There are options other than being weirdly positive and ranting. They could not say anything at all. They could give one of several varieties of mea culpa. They could simply state their intentions going forward.
> What's he supposed to do?
Apologize.
> Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
"You can't discharge student debt," is actually a myth. I have two relatives that discharged their loans due to financial hardship. It isn't trivial, but there's a process.
The issue with ISAs, in their current form, is the lack of legal framework. Short of bankruptcy, the best you can do is lawyer up. Lambda School targets people who can't afford lawyers.
Apologize.
> Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
"You can't discharge student debt," is actually a myth. I have two relatives that discharged their loans due to financial hardship. It isn't trivial, but there's a process.
The issue with ISAs, in their current form, is the lack of legal framework. Short of bankruptcy, the best you can do is lawyer up. Lambda School targets people who can't afford lawyers.
I imagine you might ignore me here since you opted out of our other thread, but I'd like to ask:
What specific issues do you have with the ISA?
What specific issues do you have with the ISA?
Saying nothing was an option.
Why would you prefer he say nothing? As long as he’s not misleading people I don’t see what the harm of commenting is.
Framing a request to stop making false claims about dischargeability as a request to clarify them is misleading. Making it seem like those were the only false claims the settlement covered is misleading too.
> Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
That was always the case, Lambda School just communicated otherwise to students.
That was always the case, Lambda School just communicated otherwise to students.
In this particular case? It's an HN item, it's going to drop off the front page in <12 hours, so... not commenting would have been far more sensible than to try to PR-convince a cynical tech crowd.
> Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
But if you lie about it, then...
But if you lie about it, then...
Not to mention that Lambda School is an attempt to actually align the incentives of school and students, which is the main problem with educational financing today. Wrong target to pile on.
As a student that went through the program, I question if their incentives were aligned.
During the middle of my enrollment at the program (Sept 2020), the school suddenly dropped all notion of grading, code review, and attendance, let alone the length of the program. It remained this way for 3 months, 50% of the length of the program.
This is a broad description of the changes, but I want to emphasize that the changes were terrible, _many_ students complained, and the school essentially whistled with fingers in their ears.
During the middle of my enrollment at the program (Sept 2020), the school suddenly dropped all notion of grading, code review, and attendance, let alone the length of the program. It remained this way for 3 months, 50% of the length of the program.
This is a broad description of the changes, but I want to emphasize that the changes were terrible, _many_ students complained, and the school essentially whistled with fingers in their ears.
Are you doing okay now?? That sounds awful...:(
I graduated at the end of February and am still job searching.
In the meantime I have a part time job and working through the MIT Computer Science OCW
In the meantime I have a part time job and working through the MIT Computer Science OCW
If I was in a position to offer you something I would but I’m not. With some luck, someone else will see this and help you out.
That said, I’ve read through your profile and you’re a heck of a good writer. You likely don’t need any help and you’re going to do very well for yourself!! :)
That said, I’ve read through your profile and you’re a heck of a good writer. You likely don’t need any help and you’re going to do very well for yourself!! :)
Thanks! Nobody's ever told me that about my writing! My email is open if anyone wants to chat, to anyone that sees this :-)
cactus2093(2)
I'd agree with you except that in this case it seems like the "deception" was actually working against Lambda school.
Previously -> if you go bankrupt you still owe us.
Now -> if you go bankrupt you don't owe us.
On the face of it this seems like it would make Lambda school _more_ attractive than less.
Note, the clause in question is "qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code."
Previously -> if you go bankrupt you still owe us.
Now -> if you go bankrupt you don't owe us.
On the face of it this seems like it would make Lambda school _more_ attractive than less.
Note, the clause in question is "qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code."
It's not about being attractive, it's about ex-students not declaring bankruptcy because they think it won't remove their lambda school loans. Thus lambda school keeps getting money from them instead of getting nothing after they decide to declare bankruptcy. That clause was, in my eyes, clearly designed to discourage students from exercising their ability to clear debts via bankruptcy.
I've seen this point made elsewhere too, but I'm not sure I understand it.
The ISAs are, as far as I know, capped at 30k, and only apply if you're making 50k/yr. I can't imagine a situation where someone's decision of whether or not to declare bankrupcy comes down to the 30k-max ISA; either it's the majority of your debt, and you're making >50k/yr, or it's a small amount relative to your other debt, in which case you should proceed anyways.
The ISAs are, as far as I know, capped at 30k, and only apply if you're making 50k/yr. I can't imagine a situation where someone's decision of whether or not to declare bankrupcy comes down to the 30k-max ISA; either it's the majority of your debt, and you're making >50k/yr, or it's a small amount relative to your other debt, in which case you should proceed anyways.
Or you're making less but think you could make more eventually.
[deleted]
Yep, it's about "Human Capital: The Last Unoptimized Asset Class" <- the title of an actual internal memo they wrote.
what’s wrong with that? is it better that people can’t develop their human capital, or is it better if people have a variety of ways to finance education to develop their human capital? The status quo is government student loans to finance education, which are generally NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy, AND must still be paid even if if you didn’t graduate, or get a good job afterwards? Isn’t the income-share agreement at least “less bad”? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how better to address the problem? If the government was involved, I personally think the best way would be a graduate tax of x%
Maybe more attractive, but only in the 'defraud them by going bankrupt after getting the certification' sense, where they educate the students without getting paid in some cases.
One of the biggest reasons student loans can't be forgiven in bankruptcy is because, after school, chances are the graduate has zero assets and can go bankrupt with the only downside being destroying their credit for 7 years. Whether or not you think this is justified or fair is up to you, but the situation before this ruling simply [de-]elevated Lambda School to the same playing field as other educational institutions - the only difference being that those institutions don't offer student loans themselves.
One of the biggest reasons student loans can't be forgiven in bankruptcy is because, after school, chances are the graduate has zero assets and can go bankrupt with the only downside being destroying their credit for 7 years. Whether or not you think this is justified or fair is up to you, but the situation before this ruling simply [de-]elevated Lambda School to the same playing field as other educational institutions - the only difference being that those institutions don't offer student loans themselves.
I wonder if the accusation is that they were trying to mislead people into not understanding that bankruptcy is an option, in the hope that they’ll be less likely to default? Still doesn’t really seem that serious to me. Nobody who was under the impression that the loans could not be discharged by bankruptcy will be disappointed to find out that they can.
> they were trying to mislead people into not understanding that bankruptcy is an option
It’s exactly this. Lambda School customers tend to be young and financially ignorant, with very few resources. If a graduate is in a position where, say, they can’t find a software job, they could be functionally bankrupt, and their dwindling income/savings will still be going towards outstanding Lambda School payments.
From this perspective, it’s extremely shitty for LS to deceive students that they would have to make the payments, with no legal options, even if they were stressed about rent and groceries.
It’s exactly this. Lambda School customers tend to be young and financially ignorant, with very few resources. If a graduate is in a position where, say, they can’t find a software job, they could be functionally bankrupt, and their dwindling income/savings will still be going towards outstanding Lambda School payments.
From this perspective, it’s extremely shitty for LS to deceive students that they would have to make the payments, with no legal options, even if they were stressed about rent and groceries.
You don't have to pay if you don't have a job so I don't think this comment is correct.
I'm sure the previous terms made the loans much more attractive to lenders which is helpful to Lambda. It would be most useful to understand who created the terms in the first place.
> On the face of it this seems like it would make Lambda school _more_ attractive than less.
Technically sure. On the face it tells me something about their branding - that their offering may be more deceptive than I might realize. Especially since its a new economic model for education, the customer probably hasn't thought through everything, so trust is important here.
Technically sure. On the face it tells me something about their branding - that their offering may be more deceptive than I might realize. Especially since its a new economic model for education, the customer probably hasn't thought through everything, so trust is important here.
jamiequint(2)
[deleted]
They requested you stop making false claims about dischargeability. And about the program being free. Calling the former clarifying is deceptive. So is omitting the latter.
[deleted]
This is a bizarre response. You were caught putting deceptive language in your contracts. You now have to hire a third-party to ensure all of your contracts comply with the law, and 90 days to review all of your previous marketing material and certify it wasn't dishonest. You're on probation. This is nothing to be excited about.
This is similar to when you fought with the BPPE for a year because they insisted you can't operate in California while offering ISAs. After you finally gave up the fight, and agreed to not offer ISAs, they approved you. You said:
> Their approval is a huge testament to our team and our students, as well as an official endorsement of our all-remote, career-focused educational model.
The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally.
This is similar to when you fought with the BPPE for a year because they insisted you can't operate in California while offering ISAs. After you finally gave up the fight, and agreed to not offer ISAs, they approved you. You said:
> Their approval is a huge testament to our team and our students, as well as an official endorsement of our all-remote, career-focused educational model.
The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally.
I don't know anything about lambda school outside the HN threads but it seems like you're in every lambda school thread going back 'n forth with allen. kinda funny honestly.
makes your arguments seem a little less credible since you clearly have a bone to pick but like I said, I don't know anything about lambda school. maybe you're justified, idk.
makes your arguments seem a little less credible since you clearly have a bone to pick but like I said, I don't know anything about lambda school. maybe you're justified, idk.
You were caught putting deceptive language in your contracts.
Honestly, the California website claims this was "deceptive" but to me that seems like an exaggeration. Lambda claimed this thing wasn't dischargeable in bankruptcy, the state of California says actually it is. Okay, fine. It doesn't mean Lambda was doing something malicious. It's not like California makes it extremely transparent and clear what the rules are for starting a new sort of educational financing. When you do something new that's covered unclearly by California regulations it is no surprise to have this sort of issue.
To me the real injustice is that California does not allow ISAs. Students are not idiots incapable of making deals for themselves, and the big ripoff in education right now isn't ISAs at coding schools, it's taking out a regular student loan to get a worthless degree at a mediocre university. All of this argument about "catching Lambda's deception" is a distraction from the real problems with education.
Honestly, the California website claims this was "deceptive" but to me that seems like an exaggeration. Lambda claimed this thing wasn't dischargeable in bankruptcy, the state of California says actually it is. Okay, fine. It doesn't mean Lambda was doing something malicious. It's not like California makes it extremely transparent and clear what the rules are for starting a new sort of educational financing. When you do something new that's covered unclearly by California regulations it is no surprise to have this sort of issue.
To me the real injustice is that California does not allow ISAs. Students are not idiots incapable of making deals for themselves, and the big ripoff in education right now isn't ISAs at coding schools, it's taking out a regular student loan to get a worthless degree at a mediocre university. All of this argument about "catching Lambda's deception" is a distraction from the real problems with education.
> Lambda claimed this thing wasn't dischargeable in bankruptcy, the state of California says actually it is. Okay, fine. It doesn't mean Lambda was doing something malicious.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if someone were in the unfortunate position to be considering bankruptcy, wouldn't knowing whether this loan is actually dischargeable or not be a big deal to them? It seems like it would be.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if someone were in the unfortunate position to be considering bankruptcy, wouldn't knowing whether this loan is actually dischargeable or not be a big deal to them? It seems like it would be.
It's not a loan, it's an income share agreement. Someone facing bankruptcy is unlikely to be making enough income to be subject to ISA repayment which only comes into effect if the student is earning above the threshold for it.
I really don't get why some people dislike ISAs. They're way better than student loans.
I really don't get why some people dislike ISAs. They're way better than student loans.
> It's not a loan, it's an income share agreement.
(1) The “Income share agreement” is a $30K loan with various wrinkles,
(2) Lambda School, for legal reasons, doesn’t use ISAs in California, but a somewhat less obfuscated $30,000 loan, the “Retail Installment Contract”.
> I really don't get why some people dislike ISAs. They're way better than student loans.
They aren’t better than federal student loans, which have an optional income driven repayment plans, which are a similar or lower percentage of discretionary income than most ISAs are of total income.
They may sometimes be better than the available nonfederal loans for people attending institutions not qualified for federal loans, but that’s a pretty low bar.
(1) The “Income share agreement” is a $30K loan with various wrinkles,
(2) Lambda School, for legal reasons, doesn’t use ISAs in California, but a somewhat less obfuscated $30,000 loan, the “Retail Installment Contract”.
> I really don't get why some people dislike ISAs. They're way better than student loans.
They aren’t better than federal student loans, which have an optional income driven repayment plans, which are a similar or lower percentage of discretionary income than most ISAs are of total income.
They may sometimes be better than the available nonfederal loans for people attending institutions not qualified for federal loans, but that’s a pretty low bar.
It's important, I just mean that the law isn't obvious here, so we shouldn't jump from "Lambda made a false statement about the California law" to "Lambda is maliciously trying to mislead students".
> I just mean that the law isn't obvious here
Are you seriously arguing that it is plausible that Lambda School has a good faith mistaken belief that they were qualified to participate in federal Title IV financial aid, but somehow made no mention or use of that qualification other than falsely claiming debts to the school were “qualified education loans” with limited dischargeability in bankruptcy?
Or are you claiming that it is not obvious that Title IV financial aid eligibility is a requirement for loans for a school to be qualified education loans?
That...strains credulity.
> "Lambda made a false statement about the California law"
Actually they broke California law by making a false statement of federal law. (“qualified education loan” is a federal-law category that determines both if the loan qualifies for the student loan interest deduction and if it has the “undue-hardship-only” discharge rule im bankruptcy.)
Are you seriously arguing that it is plausible that Lambda School has a good faith mistaken belief that they were qualified to participate in federal Title IV financial aid, but somehow made no mention or use of that qualification other than falsely claiming debts to the school were “qualified education loans” with limited dischargeability in bankruptcy?
Or are you claiming that it is not obvious that Title IV financial aid eligibility is a requirement for loans for a school to be qualified education loans?
That...strains credulity.
> "Lambda made a false statement about the California law"
Actually they broke California law by making a false statement of federal law. (“qualified education loan” is a federal-law category that determines both if the loan qualifies for the student loan interest deduction and if it has the “undue-hardship-only” discharge rule im bankruptcy.)
How is the law not obvious? There are a handful of things that are exempt from bankruptcy, "income sharing" isn't one of those things. Going through the list of exempted items, I can't find a single one where I go "oh, yes that sort of applies".
http://www.californiabankruptcy.info/exemptions.html
http://www.californiabankruptcy.info/exemptions.html
That lists property someone can keep. Did you mean this page?[1]
[1] http://www.californiabankruptcy.info/nondischarge.html
[1] http://www.californiabankruptcy.info/nondischarge.html
Well, student loans _are_ one of those things.
ISAs seem a lot closer to "student loans" than, like, a new boat. I don't think this is totally unreasonable.
ISAs seem a lot closer to "student loans" than, like, a new boat. I don't think this is totally unreasonable.
That’s giving way too much credit. I’m sure if you asked 100 people if ISAs from a bootcamp were the same as government backed student loans, you’d get pretty close to 100 “no.”
Private student loans are exempt too...
[deleted]
[deleted]
> It's not like California makes it extremely transparent and clear what the rules are for starting a new sort of educational financing.
The rules are federal, and its very clear that the requirements for a loan to be qualified education loan (which gets tax deductible interest and protection from easy discharge) include that it must be used solely for costs of education at an institution eligible for Title IV financial aid under federal law.
This is not something it is plausible someone running a business in the space would make an honest mistake about, it is a targeted deception to discourage debtors from seeking available bankruptcy relief, leveraging the fact that lying to discourage people from such relief for existing debt, unlike lying to induce purchases, is not usually prosecutable as fraud.
The rules are federal, and its very clear that the requirements for a loan to be qualified education loan (which gets tax deductible interest and protection from easy discharge) include that it must be used solely for costs of education at an institution eligible for Title IV financial aid under federal law.
This is not something it is plausible someone running a business in the space would make an honest mistake about, it is a targeted deception to discourage debtors from seeking available bankruptcy relief, leveraging the fact that lying to discourage people from such relief for existing debt, unlike lying to induce purchases, is not usually prosecutable as fraud.
[deleted]
> This is a bizarre response.
Really, its standard corporate spin when accepting a settlement, “We’re super happy to work with regulators to make things better.” When, of course, if the company had any interest in making things better the regulator would never have needed to get involved in the first place.
Obviously, its deceptive, but its not bizarre, its just making PR lemonade out of PR lemons.
Really, its standard corporate spin when accepting a settlement, “We’re super happy to work with regulators to make things better.” When, of course, if the company had any interest in making things better the regulator would never have needed to get involved in the first place.
Obviously, its deceptive, but its not bizarre, its just making PR lemonade out of PR lemons.
You can't seriously believe that regulators have completely clean motives and actions.
I'm still getting up to date on what happened here, but corporate malfeasance isn't incompatible with aggressive and even corrupt regulation. In fact my starting place is that both are likely.
What I reject is the claim that the State only steps in and takes action if the party they're investigating has done something wrong. That's absurd.
I'm still getting up to date on what happened here, but corporate malfeasance isn't incompatible with aggressive and even corrupt regulation. In fact my starting place is that both are likely.
What I reject is the claim that the State only steps in and takes action if the party they're investigating has done something wrong. That's absurd.
> You can't seriously believe that regulators have completely clean motives and actions.
Since nothing in the comment you are responding to implies, or even has anything to do with, that, I’m not sure, other than love of pure non-sequitur, you would post that.
Since nothing in the comment you are responding to implies, or even has anything to do with, that, I’m not sure, other than love of pure non-sequitur, you would post that.
> if the company had any interest in making things better the regulator would never have needed to get involved in the first place.
Kind of precludes alternate motives, like "the regulator is captured by existing interests and is prosecuting the company despite the company's sincere intention to make things better".
Kind of precludes alternate motives, like "the regulator is captured by existing interests and is prosecuting the company despite the company's sincere intention to make things better".
You are taking that phrase out of the context of the sentence it is in, which obscures the meaning, apparently for the sole purpose of having someone to debate with about something that is completely irrelevant to both the comment you have extracted it from and the issue that comment is addressing.
>When, of course, if the company had any interest in making things better the regulator would never have needed to get involved in the first place.
This is ridiculous oversimplification. Can you elaborate at all on how the company has "no interest in making things better"? It's an interesting attack on the 'character' of a corporate entity, that's almost impossible to disprove.
This is ridiculous oversimplification. Can you elaborate at all on how the company has "no interest in making things better"? It's an interesting attack on the 'character' of a corporate entity, that's almost impossible to disprove.
The language was misleading because the law isn't clear. Lambda isn't in charge of which loans are and are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and it seems they thought that the type of loan they offered was not.
You should be asking why every school loan is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
You should be asking why every school loan is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
This is a more bizarre response. You literally take the worst interpretation out of everything, and calling it accurate would be very generous.
>You were caught putting deceptive language in your contracts.
I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
>You're on probation. This is nothing to be excited about
This is standard procedure, but you're clearly painting it as if they've been knocked down another peg.
>The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally.
And this is blatantly false and makes me further question everything else you've stated.
https://www.bppe.ca.gov/schools/approved_schools.shtml
Try the search function.
>You were caught putting deceptive language in your contracts.
I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
>You're on probation. This is nothing to be excited about
This is standard procedure, but you're clearly painting it as if they've been knocked down another peg.
>The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally.
And this is blatantly false and makes me further question everything else you've stated.
https://www.bppe.ca.gov/schools/approved_schools.shtml
Try the search function.
> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
According to the linked document, this was not a typo. This line contradicts reality: "this extension of credit is a qualified educational loan and is subject to the limitations on dischargeability in bankruptcy contained in Section 523(a)(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
In addition, the document points out, "Certain Lambda School marketing has included representations implying its program is “free.”" It is not free.
> This is standard procedure, but you're clearly painting it as if they've been knocked down another peg.
The parent post made it sound like they were out of the woods, when they clearly aren't. If I were the subject of this press release, I would not be "excited."
> And this is blatantly false and makes me further question everything else you've stated.
I did not say they were still operating illegally. I said that they used the word endorsement, when the state had simply approved them. The two words mean different things.
> Try the search function.
I searched for the word "endorse" on that page, and found zero matches.
According to the linked document, this was not a typo. This line contradicts reality: "this extension of credit is a qualified educational loan and is subject to the limitations on dischargeability in bankruptcy contained in Section 523(a)(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
In addition, the document points out, "Certain Lambda School marketing has included representations implying its program is “free.”" It is not free.
> This is standard procedure, but you're clearly painting it as if they've been knocked down another peg.
The parent post made it sound like they were out of the woods, when they clearly aren't. If I were the subject of this press release, I would not be "excited."
> And this is blatantly false and makes me further question everything else you've stated.
I did not say they were still operating illegally. I said that they used the word endorsement, when the state had simply approved them. The two words mean different things.
> Try the search function.
I searched for the word "endorse" on that page, and found zero matches.
>According to the linked document, this was not a typo. This line contradicts reality: "this extension of credit is a qualified educational loan and is subject to the limitations on dischargeability in bankruptcy contained in Section 523(a)(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
This in no way answered my question.
>In addition, the document points out, "Certain Lambda School marketing has included representations implying its program is “free.”" It is not free.
Interesting and not related to the contract, we're talking about marketing. I find your comments extremely disingenuous, you're switching contexts of "misleading" in the very separate domains of marketing and legal contracts which should be too obvious.
The order is non-specific, so what do you want to get into? "Free until you get a job" comes to mind, is that misleading? I'll argue it's true, given that you don't pay them money when you don't have a job.
>The parent post made it sound like they were out of the woods, when they clearly aren't. If I were the subject of this press release, I would not be "excited."
It's certainly a step forward in my opinion, and you seem to take issue with the fact that it wasn't a flawless approval. Fair enough, your opinion is noted.
>Approval is very different than endorsement.
This seems like doubling down on a total misrepresentation.
Austen clearly said approval, then elaborated to claim it was an endorsement of their relatively unique education model. You don't need to be that generous to imagine that 'approval' by a body (which only approves or does not) of a new/innovative model is something of an endorsement of this new model.
You picked out endorsement, and responded as if he had said "BPPE endorsed our program". It's clearly not what he said.
Austen even appears to have removed the egregious line, which I imagine makes sense from a PR standpoint as people will try to misrepresent it as you have.
This in no way answered my question.
>In addition, the document points out, "Certain Lambda School marketing has included representations implying its program is “free.”" It is not free.
Interesting and not related to the contract, we're talking about marketing. I find your comments extremely disingenuous, you're switching contexts of "misleading" in the very separate domains of marketing and legal contracts which should be too obvious.
The order is non-specific, so what do you want to get into? "Free until you get a job" comes to mind, is that misleading? I'll argue it's true, given that you don't pay them money when you don't have a job.
>The parent post made it sound like they were out of the woods, when they clearly aren't. If I were the subject of this press release, I would not be "excited."
It's certainly a step forward in my opinion, and you seem to take issue with the fact that it wasn't a flawless approval. Fair enough, your opinion is noted.
>Approval is very different than endorsement.
This seems like doubling down on a total misrepresentation.
Austen clearly said approval, then elaborated to claim it was an endorsement of their relatively unique education model. You don't need to be that generous to imagine that 'approval' by a body (which only approves or does not) of a new/innovative model is something of an endorsement of this new model.
You picked out endorsement, and responded as if he had said "BPPE endorsed our program". It's clearly not what he said.
Austen even appears to have removed the egregious line, which I imagine makes sense from a PR standpoint as people will try to misrepresent it as you have.
> This in no way answered my question.
I can't believe I have to make this explicit, but ok.
> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
Reading the contract, a student will think that they can't discharge the debt through bankruptcy. In reality, yes, they can discharge the debt through bankruptcy. It's right there in the order:
"The Bankruptcy Non-Dischargeability Provision is misleading because, contrary to the Dischargeability Provision, the Contract is not a “qualified educational loan,” as defined in section 221, subdivision (d)(1), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the limitations on dischargeability pursuant to section 523, subdivision (a)(8), of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
A 'mess up' would be misuse of an Oxford comma. You don't 'mess up' dropping a very specific reference to a very specific legal code that does not apply.
> Interesting and not related to the contract, we're talking about marketing. I find your comments extremely disingenuous, you're switching contexts of "misleading" in the very separate domains of marketing and legal contracts which should be too obvious.
The order cites their deceptive marketing. Presumably that's why they were ordered to review all of their previous marketing.
> The order is non-specific, so what do you want to get into?
I copied and pasted directly from the order.
> You picked out endorsement, and responded as if he had said "BPPE endorsed our program". It's clearly not what he said.
I copied and pasted from his own post.
Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.
I can't believe I have to make this explicit, but ok.
> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
Reading the contract, a student will think that they can't discharge the debt through bankruptcy. In reality, yes, they can discharge the debt through bankruptcy. It's right there in the order:
"The Bankruptcy Non-Dischargeability Provision is misleading because, contrary to the Dischargeability Provision, the Contract is not a “qualified educational loan,” as defined in section 221, subdivision (d)(1), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the limitations on dischargeability pursuant to section 523, subdivision (a)(8), of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
A 'mess up' would be misuse of an Oxford comma. You don't 'mess up' dropping a very specific reference to a very specific legal code that does not apply.
> Interesting and not related to the contract, we're talking about marketing. I find your comments extremely disingenuous, you're switching contexts of "misleading" in the very separate domains of marketing and legal contracts which should be too obvious.
The order cites their deceptive marketing. Presumably that's why they were ordered to review all of their previous marketing.
> The order is non-specific, so what do you want to get into?
I copied and pasted directly from the order.
> You picked out endorsement, and responded as if he had said "BPPE endorsed our program". It's clearly not what he said.
I copied and pasted from his own post.
Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.
> Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.
I'm sorry, do you feel I'm not being generous in my interpretation? I certainly feel you're not, is that not a guideline here?
>I can't believe I have to make this explicit, but ok.
You don't have to, you misunderstood me. If a contract is flawed, is there a result other than 'misleading'?
Do we expect all contracts to be flawless 100% of the time? Are all of the flaws deliberate?
> You were caught putting deceptive language in your contracts.
So I'll try to be generous, I read this as you accusing him of deliberately misleading people. You assert that this cannot be a 'mess up'. Am I wrong?
> I copied and pasted directly from the order.
I'm asking if there's marketing material you'd like to point out and discuss. I quoted some, do you not want to engage on that?
>I copied and pasted from his own post.
Which I explained, he explicitly stated approval, and then at worst, embellished upon it.
Is there no overlap between "approval" and "endorsement" that ever warrants the statement he made?
> Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.
You're extremely adversarial, yet I'm unsurprised you want to withdraw.
I'm sorry, do you feel I'm not being generous in my interpretation? I certainly feel you're not, is that not a guideline here?
>I can't believe I have to make this explicit, but ok.
You don't have to, you misunderstood me. If a contract is flawed, is there a result other than 'misleading'?
Do we expect all contracts to be flawless 100% of the time? Are all of the flaws deliberate?
> You were caught putting deceptive language in your contracts.
So I'll try to be generous, I read this as you accusing him of deliberately misleading people. You assert that this cannot be a 'mess up'. Am I wrong?
> I copied and pasted directly from the order.
I'm asking if there's marketing material you'd like to point out and discuss. I quoted some, do you not want to engage on that?
>I copied and pasted from his own post.
Which I explained, he explicitly stated approval, and then at worst, embellished upon it.
Is there no overlap between "approval" and "endorsement" that ever warrants the statement he made?
> Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.
You're extremely adversarial, yet I'm unsurprised you want to withdraw.
You are ignoring the evidence presented, ask open questions beside the point and attack him personally. That's not a way to have a discussion and it feels like you're acting on an agenda.
> You don't have to, you misunderstood me. If a contract is flawed, is there a result other than 'misleading'?
Or from further up
> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
Of course there is. Especially if you don't conflate misleading and deceptive, because they certainly don't mean the same thing. Not every statement in a contract that might turns out to be against the law was made to deceive one party. And that's so obvious that your question is nothing else but distraction from the situation at hand.
A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause.
> You don't have to, you misunderstood me. If a contract is flawed, is there a result other than 'misleading'?
Or from further up
> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?
Of course there is. Especially if you don't conflate misleading and deceptive, because they certainly don't mean the same thing. Not every statement in a contract that might turns out to be against the law was made to deceive one party. And that's so obvious that your question is nothing else but distraction from the situation at hand.
A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause.
What percentage of students need to be hired in programming roles before it's not a predatory scam?
> You are ignoring the evidence presented, ask open questions beside the point and attack him personally. That's not a way to have a discussion and it feels like you're acting on an agenda.
Where have I attacked him? Telling him I think he misunderstood me is attacking? Seriously?
To go over my initial contention here,
Austen's original statement:
"Their approval is a huge testament to our team and our students, as well as an official endorsement of our all-remote, career-focused educational model."
The user's response:
"The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally."
So, Austen clearly said approval, and then I would argue embellished it at worst, and I would further argue it's not unreasonable. "Approval" and "Endorsement" are literally synonyms.
Beyond that, the BPPE doesn't endorse schools, but it clearly does approve them.
Does the user's response seem a generous interpretation to you at all? Or should it not be?
> A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause.
This is actually an answer to my question which the other user never addressed. How does this constitute me attacking him? Do I seem too ignorant to warrant an answer...?
At this point I feel I'm simply being high roaded. The other user clearly ignored or misunderstood many of my questions, and I'm not attacking him for acting in bad faith the way you're attacking me. If you'd like to address any other specific points I'm happy to continue discussion.
edit: spelling/grammar
> You are ignoring the evidence presented, ask open questions beside the point and attack him personally. That's not a way to have a discussion and it feels like you're acting on an agenda.
Where have I attacked him? Telling him I think he misunderstood me is attacking? Seriously?
To go over my initial contention here,
Austen's original statement:
"Their approval is a huge testament to our team and our students, as well as an official endorsement of our all-remote, career-focused educational model."
The user's response:
"The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally."
So, Austen clearly said approval, and then I would argue embellished it at worst, and I would further argue it's not unreasonable. "Approval" and "Endorsement" are literally synonyms.
Beyond that, the BPPE doesn't endorse schools, but it clearly does approve them.
Does the user's response seem a generous interpretation to you at all? Or should it not be?
> A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause.
This is actually an answer to my question which the other user never addressed. How does this constitute me attacking him? Do I seem too ignorant to warrant an answer...?
At this point I feel I'm simply being high roaded. The other user clearly ignored or misunderstood many of my questions, and I'm not attacking him for acting in bad faith the way you're attacking me. If you'd like to address any other specific points I'm happy to continue discussion.
edit: spelling/grammar
I've done and seen quite some 'spin' on things as an entrepreneur, but this complete lack of humbleness takes the cake for me.
I'm inclined to be on your side — the sum total of Lambda's impact on the world is likely highly positive, whatever happens in the details.
But that makes this response confusing — I was hoping to see a refutation of the regulator's claims or, failing that, a thoughtful discussion on what went wrong.
Is the regulator accurate? If so, were the statements significant? If so, what happened?
But that makes this response confusing — I was hoping to see a refutation of the regulator's claims or, failing that, a thoughtful discussion on what went wrong.
Is the regulator accurate? If so, were the statements significant? If so, what happened?
The response isn't confusing when the first duty of the settlement is to notify existing students and everyone else that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate, and thats what they said in the response
gigglesnort
gigglesnort
The above response is a great example of spin, or if you prefer, this nice euphemism: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/polishing+a+turd
What do you think the material impact on students of this will be?
ie Was anyone harmed, or is this just preventative? Seems like the latter, but just want to make it clear for people.
Was it previously a gray zone on the dischargeability? Did something change in the law? Was Lambda just being cautious in saying it ::may not:: be dischargeable? Something else?
I remember hearing that ISA case law isn't very deep, so I can imagine that there may be more gray zones.
ie Was anyone harmed, or is this just preventative? Seems like the latter, but just want to make it clear for people.
Was it previously a gray zone on the dischargeability? Did something change in the law? Was Lambda just being cautious in saying it ::may not:: be dischargeable? Something else?
I remember hearing that ISA case law isn't very deep, so I can imagine that there may be more gray zones.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why is it a settlement, were the regulators not sure that they violated the law and sought compromise? It sounds like "Lambda School agrees to comply with the law" which implies that doing so is optional.
More or less, yes, the regulators have a heavily bureaucratic process that's far more legally rigorous for dealing with large corporate entities and their legal teams than something like a municipal health inspector.
The goal of regulation is compliance. Especially for new laws where the meaning may be unclear. Since the permanent harm is minimal (anyone who didn't know their loan was dischargeable, now knows and can discharge it), the informational update solves the problem.
Obviously if the defendant did not agree to comply with the law, there would be no settlement and the case would be pursued further.
Obviously if the defendant did not agree to comply with the law, there would be no settlement and the case would be pursued further.
Lambda also actively argues that traditional four-year colleges are outdated and unnecessary.
The worst thing that could ever happen isn’t that college is too expensive. The worst thing would be a company like Lambda convincing people their awful indentured servitude was somehow better.
A broad open learning approach that comes from a liberal education is how young men and a women find their passions, lifelong friendships, and themselves.
The worst thing that could ever happen isn’t that college is too expensive. The worst thing would be a company like Lambda convincing people their awful indentured servitude was somehow better.
A broad open learning approach that comes from a liberal education is how young men and a women find their passions, lifelong friendships, and themselves.
It is definitely important to note that that these loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. But as far as I know, isn't this less stringent than typical student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy? Is the point here that there was a population of Lambda students who weren't aware they could discharge their loan, and this contract prevision was preventing them from doing so? Or was the school deliberately making that process more difficult? The article makes none of that entirely clear.
On the whole this doesn't scream "deceptive educational financing practices" to me. That sounds like a government agency press release making a mountain out of a molehill and trying to knock Lambda down a peg, but I might be wrong.
Edit: after reading how dischargeability impacts people's ability to take out the loan in the first place, yeah, this matters quite a bit, and I was wrong because I didn't understand how education financing works. I'll own that. Seems Lambda was being less than equitable in how they approached the matter, and hoping no one would notice.