ISAs are equity in the student's future performance, up to a cap. This can result in paying a huge premium for relatively small amount of effort (a $30k cap for 6 months of online class is comparable to a semester at uni), but with 2 key advantages: a money-back-guarantee and accessibility.
With a fixed-cost tuition program, students who can't afford to pay don't go. This prices out students who would benefit from the program. There is also no recourse if you can't get a job from uni. How do u know if the teachers instructed you properly? Imagine paying $20k for the wrong instruction. Yikes.
The only time an ISA works against the student's favor is when the schools go after students who got a job working in something unrelated (which Lambda appears to have done a lot of) or students who were super successful, because they overpay for the instruction. The latter isn't that bad given the risk-free nature of the ISA, and the former can be resolved with legal action and regulation (which is what's happening).
That's just my $0.02, although I was a Lambda Grad who did the ISA and didn't have any issues.
Another piece of anec-data: I had a non-CS degree coming into Lambda, which definitely helped me during recruitment time. I think that had I gone into a CS program, I would have done fine and possibly even landed a better gig than I got after Lambda, but I didn't want to shell out $50k over 2 years on the chance of that happening, so I was happy to take the ISA. 5 years post-grad, I'm making 4x what I was making pre-Lambda, and my ISA was paid off after 2 years, but as is true with most things: your mileage may vary.
Buying equity in a person is literally what indentured servitude is.
Someone making a deal to give up their future earnings for several years in exchange for a trip to the American colonies and a better life isn't fundamentally different than giving up your future earnings to a coding bootcamp in exchange for a trip to FAANG.
The difference is in the degree of future earnings ceded.
Isn’t there a big difference in the amount of freedo between an indentured servant and somebody with an ISA?
An indentured servant was generally forced to work a specific job until things were paid back (and often at below market wages). Somebody with an ISA is free to do whatever they wish, they just have to pay
yOu cAn'T tRulLy bE fReE iF yOu cAn'T sELL yOuRsELf iNtO sLaVeRy.
I remember this take. It's the kind of thing that only makes sense in a dorm room full of financially secure people that ignore that this is simply creates a slave class of economically disadvantaged.
There's no logic on earth that can simultaneously say that ISA is slavery and an income tax isn't. The only difference is that you have to give your consent for ISA.
Non-dischargeable debts are unconscionable, something we recognised when the bankruptcy code was originally set up. Sadly "child support" has been used as the thin end of the wedge to bring them back.
If the percentage of earnings is capped (as it was in most agreements), it's far better than a loan-- worst/best case you pay the capped amount (like the loan amount); if you do worse than that best case, you pay proportionally less.
But trying to claw earnings from jobs that didn't relate to the school violates the letter and spirit of the agreement and shows the disproportionate power of the parties.
Percentage of earnings is just equity. They're different, but not ethically. Slavery would be forcibly taking 100% of an individual's equity, but given that ISAs are both optional and a minor percentage (Lambda's was 18% when I went thru), the comparison is unreasonable.
I believe they're capped to a maximum time and fixed amount, so it's like a loan where the payments depend on your revenue no? And if you don't reach the max amount during the max time you end up paying less.
