
Code bootcamp preys on minorities and tricks them into indentured servitude - Willson50
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/etqe27/_/
======
wutbrodo
The real complaint here seems to be that the school didn't deliver on the type
of education they promised (or seemingly any education at all). "Indentured
servitude" is just a stupid way to describe the income-sharing agreement, the
alternative to which is bearing all of the risk yourself in the form of
student debt (or having education freely funded, but that's obviously not in
the table for an individual).

There's plenty of basis for complaint here, and I hope it works out for her.
But this title is clickbait nonsense about one bootcamp behaving badly in a
way that has nothing to do with the ISA fee structure.

~~~
gault8121
The title is clickbait, but should an educational program automatically be
entitled to an income share agreement even if the educational program failed
to teach anything and the person got a job despite the program? That seems to
be the issue here.

~~~
wutbrodo
Yea, I thought the same thing when reading the article, and have thought so
previously about ISAs. At some level it's just pragmatism, since consistent
attribution of income is difficult. The only defense is an informed applicant
doing their research and determining that the expected value of the school's
impact to their career is worth it.

But more importantly, these problems don't actually have anything to do with
ISAs! Any educational institution holds you responsible for tuition,
regardless of how well they improve your earning ability. Why is an ISA
somehow more exploitative than going into debt to get a humanities degree from
a liberal-arts college with a consistently poor ROI? This is precisely
backwards; ISAs are dramatically _less_ exploitative, as the size of the
student-debt millstone is insensitive to your degree of financial failure and
the school has no direct incentive to actually improve your earning capacity.

Which brings me back to my initial point: The problem is bad schools with
misleading messaging about their ROI, not a mood-affiliation-driven kneejerk
reaction to a method of payment that's generally _less_ exploitative of
students (in that it smooths out the risk, disproportionately sparing the
worst off).

