[ballenf]

Similar experience here. The problem I witnessed during my year or so involvement was a race to the bottom in terms of selectiveness of admitting students.

The deception was that the screening test was marketed as informing prospective students whether they had the prerequisite skills to succeed in the school.

I saw so many students struggling for easy to predict reasons: some didn't even have the basic computer equipment to participate. A few more seemed to struggle with just basic concepts.

None of those people were inherently incapable, but they were mislead to believe that they were ready for the program.

The bootcamp I went to was pretty good when I started, but even a year later I was starting to get uneasy about my association with it. I've now completely removed it from LinkedIn and resume. I will mention it if it comes up, but I actively discourage prospective students now and don't want to do anything to lend them legitimacy. It's not worth mentioning its name here because my points apply to almost every bootcamp out there, based on discussions at meetups with prospective bootcamp students.

[MivLives]

I had the same experience and I think many of the more successful people from the same program did as well. There's also a bit of a bias, the only people I still talk to from the program were also successful. We haven't seen anyone from it in awhile and have all mostly cut off contact.

With Lambda in particular I've wanted to do the math on the gamble per student. IE it costs x per student to put them through the program, what percentage need to make what to make this enterprise worth it for whoever is buying their ISAs.