[droithomme]

Original Udacity was a competitor to Coursera and EdX. Current Udacity is not in that domain. It provides very specific technical training designed in consultation and funding with specific companies for skills that they need. Said companies then hire the top students in the classes. The classes work as a sort of technical screening.

Not sure this is comparable to ITT Tech, which charged a lot of money for useless degrees.

This said, many of the early Udacity classes are quite useful for general skills. Quality varies though and one problem they had was not updating content in reaction to feedback, not correcting either errors or areas that were unclear. These issues are somewhat irrelevant in their current targeted domain in which one either is able to pick it up with the training offered and get the job or not.

[rifung]

> Said companies then hire the top students in the classes. The classes work as a sort of technical screening.

Do you have any sources for this? I see that a lot of companies sponsor courses and nanodegrees, but I still haven't seen any statistics about jobs after "graduation". I had considered taking some nanodegrees myself but can't really justify it since I have to work full time and make a living which is difficult enough.

[SwellJoe]

I would suggest that ITT was worse than useless. It was a negative indicator of quality for job candidates. Not having ITT on your resume is better than having ITT on your resume (even if nothing replaces it on the resume).