Fast Crimes at Lambda School

I did teach a 6 week C++ course. Mostly attended by CS students at the local college. Back in the day we didn't teach kids how to code in a CS cirriculum. They were expected to just pick it up themselves. Six weeks really isn't enough to teach how to be good at C++.

I spent a fair amount of time reading Papert and Piaget, trying to develop a theory on how people learn and how to best teach "programming" concepts. I've yet to see ANYONE (myself included) do an excellent job teaching the kind of programming employers want. I saw another comment here about how "programming" is simple, but teaching architecture and putting things together is hard. I would mostly agree with that.

But... there are some techniques that are better than others.

My experience w/ Lambda School was they tried to hire me as an instructor way back when. I talked to them briefly about pedagogy and their approach to modeling learning and how they were going to measure improvements in their cirriculum. I got blank looks. They kept harping about how they were going to iterate, but without the slightest idea how they were going to improve between iterations.

I quietly walked out the door never to return (moving to Seattle to work for Amazon instead.) It looks like I made the right call.

Edit: This is not to suggest 'austenallred received special treatment.

I have first hand experience with their program, albeit 10 years ago, but I would largely say that almost no one who completed the program with me actually needed it and its benefits are largely a forcing function to get you to build a portfolio in a short amount of time and have a peer group to rely on. Everyone from my cohort is still working in industry today if they want to and all seem to be doing well.

ISAs as indentured servitude? The shadowy negotiating a company's validation "behind closed doors?" (Where else are you supposed to do it.)

The criticism of Lambda School can stand on its own without wading into the extreme hyperbole.

Kind of surprised that PG made the comment he did, which seems naive in this regard.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=austenallred

A valuation of $1B for this business is crazy. Investors were simply underwriting students paying for trade school, there's no tangible tech innovation. Like Theranos, WeWork, and FTX - it's the story of a darling founder who has to justify an unrealistic valuation in a frothy market. They're living in an echo chamber where fraudulent behavior goes unquestioned because everyone wants the upside.

Salaries are based on scarcity. High-skill software engineers were rare at one point, because there weren’t many of them with experience or training. Programs like Lambda School increased the number of people who know how to code while decreasing quality, resulting in fewer unfilled jobs and lower compensation. And again, where is the innovation? In the sketchy ISA?

There's a fine line between the “fake it till you make it” ethos in Silicon Valley and fraudulent behavior that materially hurts investors and consumers. He clearly crossed the line by publicly and repeatedly lying, but he was also incentivized and encouraged to build a hyper-scale business on the backs of people lacking expertise in the job marketplace.

I believe teaching people how to code is a good thing. But it's not a venture-scale business, and never should have been valued as such. A sketchy financial instrument doesn't equal innovation.

- schools need to be selective to keep the quality of the student body high so they persevere to finish the program and succeed

- getting students hired in a competitive field is a very high bar that is much higher compared to most schools

- software is a difficult field with high frustration and a steep learning curve

Lambda was open to everyone, in a tough field, with a high bar for success. Alternatives might be possible in less competitive fields

Their whole deal is, they will offer you a "free" crash course in mobile development (or whatever the new hotness du jour is, these days I'm sure they have AI offerings). I believe the course lasts two months, after which they will prepare a fake résumé for you, apply for contract positions in your name, and have call-center people in India do the phone interviews on your behalf, pretending to be you. You are also coached in how to lie about your experience for the in-person interview. You are obligated to work for two years at wherever they place you (could be one place or many places, I guess). If you do not agree to all of this, you will be assessed a $20,000 charge for your "free" training and billed for such.

The principal in all three companies is Vikram Thadani. He's been running this scam in some form or another since the early 2010s.

Their current site: https://www.enhanceit.com

Old blog post about someone who got skeeved out applying to work for them when they were BrighterBrain:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150308193650/http://shifttohap...

More recent Reddit post about the same shit going on under the EnhanceIT name:

https://www.reddit.com/r/careerguidance/comments/v63p2t/enha...

Coding is hard, and there is no evidence to suggest it's getting easier , such as dealing with the integration of the front-end with the back-end, or having to deal with libraries and cloud environments and everything else that goes into it. The belief that average people can be turned into proficient coders in months is ludicrous.

The only way would be to filter many candidates going in, but the negative press would be huge. So you end up with huge cohorts of people who can't code, and you have to make the money back somehow. Good teachers need to know how to code well, and those are expensive too. And, let's face it, the internet is full of great material to learn to code for free. If you are not motivated enough to learn by your own, all the time, I don't see how a bootcamp will give you anything.

I’m fairly confident now that the cumulative student journey improvement, work allocation, cross-faculty collaboration, beurocracy-reduction, and general efficiencies we have delivered to a stable large post-secondary institution across all faculties is going to make a larger and longer lasting positive improvement to more students and people’s lives than what Lambda achieved. (With fewer people, less funding, etc)

At that time, I was working in a helpdesk role that I had had for about 5 years. It was a call center job, so I didn't have a lot of control over my schedule, but was able to arrange to keep my schedule for the nine months of the program. About 3 months into the program, they completely changed the structure of the program, which doubled the length to 18 months.

I completed the core curriculum and the capstone project. Throughout the program they kept promising to connect us with career counselors, but kept pushing it back. First it would be after we were halfway through the core curriculum, then when we finished the core curriculum, then when we started the capstone project, then when we finished it. I never once got to speak with any kind of career professional. The closest we got was a peer reviewed resume.

After the capstone project, we started a "computer science" module, which was supposed to be the end of the course. I did a few weeks of the computer science module, but couldn't continue when my shift changed, since this was outside of the original nine months. I tried to make arrangements to finish the module on my own time, but they wouldn't allow this. The only option I was given was to withdraw from the program.

By the time I had finished, the reputation for Lambda was already tanking. I tried sending out resumes, but I couldn't get any traction at all. I did Triplebyte and passed, but only got one interview from that process and it didn't lead to a job.

Meanwhile, I got a pay bump that put me over the 50k. Lambda came after me for the ISA, since I had a job in tech. It didn't matter that it was the same job I had had for 5 years before starting their program.

I went to a lawyer and was told that the contract required arbitration in New York City, which would be too expensive to bother with, so I just paid the ISA.

I later went through a different bootcamp on scholarship and did end up getting a SWE job after that, but was laid off in 2022 when our project was discontinued and am back on the helpdesk. Guess I was never meant to be a programmer lol.

The Vanderbilts and Carnegies of today could do a major public service if they wanted to. Use their names and hire the best researchers in their respective fields and pay them well.

The other baffling thing about Lambda was that companies had to pay Lambda to recruit their students.

I thought people in the US already knew that part of the value of a college is accreditation. Some people would fail in a rigorous 4-year program. Some courses are like grand filters: it does not mean much if one excels first-year calculus, but it is a strong signal that one's talent or discipline is in question if the person fails the first-year calculus. So, statistically, companies get a pretty good signal, at a relatively low cost, on how good a college graduate is.

Just find desperate people who lost their jobs during the pandemic, promise them a new job, collect their phones and emails and start spamming hard, using salespeople named "coaches" and engaging them into a gamified funnel. In the end, sell them idea of taking a loan (or ISA if no bank will give you a loan cause of your credit history) and get part of that loan as an enrolment fee. All of that set-up in the spirit of a charity organisation of course, helping people to "start a new life".

The application was initially made by founders who finished a similar bootcamp as well. Terrible software decisions and randomly assembled tech stack included. Then hiring junior guys to clean up after bootcampers, middle level guys to clean up after fired junior guys, and lastly senior guys (my company) to write some code which actually works.

After application was finally working they got XXX millions of VC funding, and started hiring everything they can, then firing, hiring, firing and so on, we all got fired eventually and I dont even know what's happening there now, but I remember it was a big mess.

Founders are former bank's people, loans are still their bread even after getting into IT. They were totally convinced they are the next unicorn, but just "one talented growth-hacker" away from it, always looking for that hacker but never found him i guess.

I only made a comment long time ago that Lambda School sounded like a good idea to me and I regret how fool I was.

Edit: btw, bitwise, you were right in 2019, despite your response to my comment being downvoted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774532

How many people got the traditional education route, rack up even MORE debt, still don't end up doing the thing / end up where they want to be?

Is this maybe an easy to see problem that is part of a larger education problem none the less?

Full disclosure: I'm the product of a boot camp. Changed careers and learned to code after age 40. It worked out great for me, but yeah I was in camp with a lot of people who shouldn't have been / it was a waste of time / money for them.

I have to wonder as jobs and careers change, having faster ways to retool seems all but required. At the same time I think those efforts will be hit and miss, and I'm not sure there's a solution to that.

(That doesn't excuse any of the scummy nature of some of the storytelling around bootcamps, but honestly I've worked with university interns and they seem to tell each other their own stories about how much they'll be making and it's interesting how that hype sort of builds.)

It was the force of nature that turned my life on the right path.

It was the best decision I ever made

This wouldn’t have been possible without Austen.

I don't think an author who understands the domain would write like this. Even if we spot that Lambda was a tire fire that needed to die, the author's outrage doesn't square with realities on the ground in other sectors of postsecondary education, especially in programs that serve lower-income students. I wouldn't launch a general defense of Lambda/Allred but I think the following notes from a practitioner might be interesting.

Postsecondary employment stats are inaccurate across the board and intrinsically hard. In the real world I am mostly only aware of job stats that could be called "fake", and those which are not published. Hiring stats are surprisingly tough to get right and I would wager that the majority of public job stats would be called fake by the man on the street. For example, if you've seen a law school employment statistic, it probably includes (as "hired") all the people who work in another field, or who work part time, or who work on a "contract", etc. As a domain expert I can tell you there is no easy way to legislate this number's production (or outlaw the use of such stats) in a way that generates the outcomes you want, or which vindicates and villainizes the correct schools. Some state regulators make it illegal to publish or market job placement statistics; other state regulators make it mandatory! California's BPPE (for eg) posts them all publicly and a brief review will confirm that there are obvious incorrect filings which the regulator publishes without challenge. Accredited higher ed generally does not have direct state or federal regulatory oversight or rules on hiring stats. My personal opinion is that publishing and marketing hiring stats is good, actually -- even in an imperfect regime, which is the only way to do it -- but my broader point is that well-intended regulatory bodies haven't figured this out yet, and in any case the numbers are all wrong in the same ways that are cited here in shocked tones. Also would you be shocked if your local community college had reported 10% in-field employment? Note that "graduation" and "enrollment" are equally squiggly and intrinsically a part of the same statistic.

Sizable portions of debtholders are (or appear) surprised, unhappy, and/or obviously cheated by profit-taking lenders. I think a lot of us are frustrated that students are faced with impossible choices about debt. Many would say "public payment is the only moral system" but that argument isn't clearly stated here. (As an aside, publicly-funded higher ed tends to exclude poor students, both under the status quo and under proposals for publicly-funded higher ed. This is accomplished through insidious rationing of four-year and graduate institutions, and weak services for working students. Working-class Bachelors' students are routed to University of Phoenix and get $100k+ of debt instead of subsidized in-state tuition.) Putting aside the public funding dream, student debt is how we fund schools today, and vanilla debt has the same issues as ISAs (which are a type of debt). I can't speak to Lambda's ISA structure or administration but I have some general comments about ISAs. An ISA is a newfangled kind of debt that is legally restricted from being very different from debt. (It's basically a vanilla debt, bundled with an insurance product that pays if the alum earns less than $X, and costs extra if the alum earns more than $Y. The insurance can't legally carry high fees, so it can't refund many grads, and complicated administration and adverse incentives also cost a lot. In practice there will be winners and losers vs vanilla debt.) ISAs and conventional debt can be designed well or poorly, and explained well or poorly, but the author is outraged about things which happen abundantly in all these circumstances. I signed college debt paperwork; I griped about the parts I had understood, and the parts I hadn't understood; profit-seeking firms bought and sold my debt and tossed me about on their careless seas. I can personally report that informed low-income students generally love ISAs (the debt-plus-downside-insurance product), and usually dislike vanilla debt, and for this reason I like ISAs at least as much as vanilla debt.

Schools that serve lower-income students are disproportionately judged negatively by middle-class audiences, often with malign motives and/or malign emergent outcomes. Depending on how you lawyer the details, you could say that 90% of community college students waste time and money and never see any benefit. (And they're in a government-subsidized program and only paying a minority of true costs!) I would find that kind of lawyering to be holistically untrue, but I don't think normal people have grounded intuitions about what is normal and OK, and how that is influenced by class and income, part-time vs full-time, accredited vs unaccredited, etc. Many people aren't aware that there is more demand for BA/BS programs than there are subsidized schools -- doubly so if the student is working and lower-class -- and this is the normal audience for for-profit universities. The world's best institution for this audience would have bad employment stats, as compared to a bad b-tier state school, and as compared to middle-class attitudes about predation. Are lower-income students better served if we pass laws against low-success programs, or institute price caps, etc? I observe that schools which serve poor students appear dirty and compromised in myriad ways, even when they are operating at the top or the middle of curve in terms of execution. This shows up in employment stats, in student complaints about debt (rich kids just pay), in employee morale and pay grade, etc. Again, this is true of great schools that serve a vulnerable audience. (Not saying that's the case here. I honestly don't know where Lambda is on the curve, and I honestly don't know which Universities of Phoenix should be shut down. And I'm a domain expert!)

In conclusion: If this author were an all-powerful regulator, what % of postsecondary programs for low-income students would get shut down? (After examining the facts.) Would this benefit low-income students? I honestly don't know and there are no simple answers, but even if I assume that Lamda is an outlier that needs to die, I don't think an author who understands the landscape would write like this.

If you think he's trying to hide on that account, and that's all your evidence, then you're just being emotional.

Don't trust anyone you meet on the internet as they may be the CEO.

Where are my people at these days?

https://nerdovo.com/

Seeing a huge wave of ponzified educational courses being pushed by influencers and famous people that results in financial ruin.

1%ers, 10x engineers, these are ALL caricatures that is created by course sellers to instill the belief that the participant NEEDS to purchase it.

If I was to create a society based on principles, the founders of Lambda School, should be behind bars.

To say something like "The defunding of public colleges" is egregious. It's just factually wrong. Colleges haven't been defunded. In fact college funding has gone up in many states. It's that tuition has risen more than the funding has gone up.

Also, no mention of thousands of people saddled with debt from many public colleges teaching CS or IT or whatever? That's not a scam either???

Lambda School was on-par with an average code bootcamp. Students got a taste of programming, but when it came to getting hired, neither the training nor credentials held a candle to a college degree

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

Lambda seems to have been real bad in the aggregate, but I'm wary of people leveraging that scary story as a vector for restoring college credentialism. Plenty of esteemed colleges have comparable track records, and deserve comparable stories.

Let's skip the math, physics, and other code-free classes give you a foundational understanding of computers [...]

Yes, let's, please. Programmers in the main connect form fields to SQL columns. Calc II is a hazing ritual that supports an elite credential structure, not foundational knowledge for the practice.

In reality, one iOS instructor had just graduated from a competing boot camp before getting hired, having never spent a day in the industry. The head of the data science program was Austen's brother, Ryan, whose only experience was another bootcamp and internship.

Again: real bad. Lambda: not good. But the author knows full well who teaches a lot of university courses, and that's not a great story either.

It has been a bubble now for 13 years. I disagree here. Maybe it's just the new normal? Comparisons between now the the '90s do not hold up. Tech companies today are much bigger, but also generating huge profits, unlike the 90s bubble, in which tech companies were much less profitable or unprofitable relative to valuations.

lol "people could raise ludicrous money" What? Where? Funding rounds are much smaller, more competitive, and more selective today compared to in the 90s. Hardly anyone except for a few lucky people (like the founders of Coinbase or Dropbox) are getting rich overnight anymore, unlike in the 90s. Founders are being offered table scraps worth of funding compared to the generous, multi-million-dollar funding rounds that were common in the 90s.

This is made worse by the fact that running a tech company is more expensive than ever in terms of the complexity of the product (interactive apps are waaaayyy harder to develop than a static html store) and marketing (everything is so expensive and saturated compared to the 90s. Ads are obscenely expensive today and full of click/viewer fraud and worthless, inflated metrics.) and labor costs (coders are much better paid today compared to the 90s relative to inflation).

Sure, you might not like ISAs, but that's not the point. You signed an agreement. The agreement itself is not illegal. If you don't like it, why did you sign it?

Like, what's the expectation here? That you should be able to get a coding education for free? Even if you got a job unrelated to programming, how does that excuse you from needing to pay for tuition for courses you already completed?