I said, "After looking through Lambda School’s curriculum, I’d say students are going to struggle with very basic questions you’ll get on first phone screens," and "Out of ten student projects available, five should have failed."
Yes, you had a page in the curriculum on memory management. You also rubber-stamped through people who didn't understand it, and even contracted one of those people to not-help other students on the topic.
Anyone can link someone to a page about a topic and say it's covered, but the difference between a Udemy course and $30k worth of training is the expectation that someone will actually look at homework.
Anyway, the reason you won't explain the 86% placement number claim is that it was true for one cohort in 2018. That's why you only submitted a single report to CIRR. At scale, the number has always been somewhere between 30% and 50%, but that's easier to obfuscate by coming up with your own methodology.
There's a strong parallel with the time you claimed 100% of your UX cohort was hired, without disclosing that only one student graduated. You said it's ok because you tweeted, "VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE."
And I'm sure you'll argue you didn't lie moments ago about the Fellows program due to what the word "launched" should mean. You have shown a pattern of deflecting the substance of criticism by focusing on technicalities.
Maybe this worked out for you in a different life. I suspect you've gathered so many critics, you're "attacked at all sides," because you're now among engineers. They just take your data, plug it into a spreadsheet, and let the facts speak for themselves.
But I don't think this had to be. There's an alternate timeline where you did a mea culpa, cut out the shenanigans, and the tech community washed the bad taste out of its mouth. This could have been an incredible reception arc. Instead, Paul Graham enabled you with that whole "haters" pep talk, and things went downhill from there. So it goes.
Yes, you had a page in the curriculum on memory management. You also rubber-stamped through people who didn't understand it, and even contracted one of those people to not-help other students on the topic.
Anyone can link someone to a page about a topic and say it's covered, but the difference between a Udemy course and $30k worth of training is the expectation that someone will actually look at homework.
Anyway, the reason you won't explain the 86% placement number claim is that it was true for one cohort in 2018. That's why you only submitted a single report to CIRR. At scale, the number has always been somewhere between 30% and 50%, but that's easier to obfuscate by coming up with your own methodology.
There's a strong parallel with the time you claimed 100% of your UX cohort was hired, without disclosing that only one student graduated. You said it's ok because you tweeted, "VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26813371
And I'm sure you'll argue you didn't lie moments ago about the Fellows program due to what the word "launched" should mean. You have shown a pattern of deflecting the substance of criticism by focusing on technicalities.
Maybe this worked out for you in a different life. I suspect you've gathered so many critics, you're "attacked at all sides," because you're now among engineers. They just take your data, plug it into a spreadsheet, and let the facts speak for themselves.
https://applieddivinitystudies.com/lambda-lies/
But I don't think this had to be. There's an alternate timeline where you did a mea culpa, cut out the shenanigans, and the tech community washed the bad taste out of its mouth. This could have been an incredible reception arc. Instead, Paul Graham enabled you with that whole "haters" pep talk, and things went downhill from there. So it goes.