[LMYahooTFY]

>According to the linked document, this was not a typo. This line contradicts reality: "this extension of credit is a qualified educational loan and is subject to the limitations on dischargeability in bankruptcy contained in Section 523(a)(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code."

This in no way answered my question.

>In addition, the document points out, "Certain Lambda School marketing has included representations implying its program is “free.”" It is not free.

Interesting and not related to the contract, we're talking about marketing. I find your comments extremely disingenuous, you're switching contexts of "misleading" in the very separate domains of marketing and legal contracts which should be too obvious.

The order is non-specific, so what do you want to get into? "Free until you get a job" comes to mind, is that misleading? I'll argue it's true, given that you don't pay them money when you don't have a job.

>The parent post made it sound like they were out of the woods, when they clearly aren't. If I were the subject of this press release, I would not be "excited."

It's certainly a step forward in my opinion, and you seem to take issue with the fact that it wasn't a flawless approval. Fair enough, your opinion is noted.

>Approval is very different than endorsement.

This seems like doubling down on a total misrepresentation.

Austen clearly said approval, then elaborated to claim it was an endorsement of their relatively unique education model. You don't need to be that generous to imagine that 'approval' by a body (which only approves or does not) of a new/innovative model is something of an endorsement of this new model.

You picked out endorsement, and responded as if he had said "BPPE endorsed our program". It's clearly not what he said.

Austen even appears to have removed the egregious line, which I imagine makes sense from a PR standpoint as people will try to misrepresent it as you have.

[sandofsky]

> This in no way answered my question.

I can't believe I have to make this explicit, but ok.

> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?

Reading the contract, a student will think that they can't discharge the debt through bankruptcy. In reality, yes, they can discharge the debt through bankruptcy. It's right there in the order:

"The Bankruptcy Non-Dischargeability Provision is misleading because, contrary to the Dischargeability Provision, the Contract is not a “qualified educational loan,” as defined in section 221, subdivision (d)(1), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the limitations on dischargeability pursuant to section 523, subdivision (a)(8), of the United States Bankruptcy Code."

A 'mess up' would be misuse of an Oxford comma. You don't 'mess up' dropping a very specific reference to a very specific legal code that does not apply.

> Interesting and not related to the contract, we're talking about marketing. I find your comments extremely disingenuous, you're switching contexts of "misleading" in the very separate domains of marketing and legal contracts which should be too obvious.

The order cites their deceptive marketing. Presumably that's why they were ordered to review all of their previous marketing.

> The order is non-specific, so what do you want to get into?

I copied and pasted directly from the order.

> You picked out endorsement, and responded as if he had said "BPPE endorsed our program". It's clearly not what he said.

I copied and pasted from his own post.

Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.

[LMYahooTFY]

> Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.

I'm sorry, do you feel I'm not being generous in my interpretation? I certainly feel you're not, is that not a guideline here?

>I can't believe I have to make this explicit, but ok.

You don't have to, you misunderstood me. If a contract is flawed, is there a result other than 'misleading'?

Do we expect all contracts to be flawless 100% of the time? Are all of the flaws deliberate?

> You were caught putting deceptive language in your contracts.

So I'll try to be generous, I read this as you accusing him of deliberately misleading people. You assert that this cannot be a 'mess up'. Am I wrong?

> I copied and pasted directly from the order.

I'm asking if there's marketing material you'd like to point out and discuss. I quoted some, do you not want to engage on that?

>I copied and pasted from his own post.

Which I explained, he explicitly stated approval, and then at worst, embellished upon it.

Is there no overlap between "approval" and "endorsement" that ever warrants the statement he made?

> Since we can't reach common ground on basic facts, I see no reason to engage with you any further.

You're extremely adversarial, yet I'm unsurprised you want to withdraw.

[ascar]

You are ignoring the evidence presented, ask open questions beside the point and attack him personally. That's not a way to have a discussion and it feels like you're acting on an agenda.

> You don't have to, you misunderstood me. If a contract is flawed, is there a result other than 'misleading'?

Or from further up

> I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading?

Of course there is. Especially if you don't conflate misleading and deceptive, because they certainly don't mean the same thing. Not every statement in a contract that might turns out to be against the law was made to deceive one party. And that's so obvious that your question is nothing else but distraction from the situation at hand.

A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause.

[LMYahooTFY]

What percentage of students need to be hired in programming roles before it's not a predatory scam?

> You are ignoring the evidence presented, ask open questions beside the point and attack him personally. That's not a way to have a discussion and it feels like you're acting on an agenda.

Where have I attacked him? Telling him I think he misunderstood me is attacking? Seriously?

To go over my initial contention here,

Austen's original statement:

"Their approval is a huge testament to our team and our students, as well as an official endorsement of our all-remote, career-focused educational model."

The user's response:

"The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally."

So, Austen clearly said approval, and then I would argue embellished it at worst, and I would further argue it's not unreasonable. "Approval" and "Endorsement" are literally synonyms.

Beyond that, the BPPE doesn't endorse schools, but it clearly does approve them.

Does the user's response seem a generous interpretation to you at all? Or should it not be?

> A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause.

This is actually an answer to my question which the other user never addressed. How does this constitute me attacking him? Do I seem too ignorant to warrant an answer...?

At this point I feel I'm simply being high roaded. The other user clearly ignored or misunderstood many of my questions, and I'm not attacking him for acting in bad faith the way you're attacking me. If you'd like to address any other specific points I'm happy to continue discussion.

edit: spelling/grammar