We’ve submitted all the paperwork and have worked closely with California. This all happened a long time ago.
I’m not sure what the right level of regulation is (it’s hard taking care of 50 states at once - one state registration was 2,277 pages and weighed 25 pounds https://twitter.com/austen/status/1153450365712388096?s=21), but it’s reasonable that it would be regulated somehow.
Good thing there are APIs for printing and mailing changes to a diff :)
[1] https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1888&c...
Out of curiosity, was the paperwork cumbersome, or did the old counsel just not know?
note: I considered rewording the "not know" bit since regulations can be tricky, there can be other reasons why they might've felt that the need to register wasn't there. Most of which I feel, for counsels, falls into the didn't know, didn't look category.
It took two people two months full-time to prepare and submit.
New is the easiest case.
If your "new thing" entrenches the status quo and generally benefits those on the top of society the law will be interpreted as in your favor as it can possibly be.
If your "new thing" threatens the status quo or makes the poor more able to annoy those on the top of society the legal system will go through whatever contortions it must to throw up roadblock after roadblock.
If your "new thing" is somewhere in between or if most people are indifferent but there's small vocal minorities who feel strongly for/against your thing that's where it gets interesting.
At Metis, state and federal regulation (we're accredited) is a big burden - but something I as an instructor feel is in the best interest of my students.
I'm so shocked that this isn't simply about certification (aka, you can't give out some sort of officially accepted slip of paper without a license, which I would at least be able to come up with arguments for), that I am really curious as to how this is an issue.
In particular:
1. It seems you can exchange knowledge for money as long as you don't have a physical presence in the state. Do you think this is an unfortunate loophole that in an ideal world would be "fixed"? If I create a new framework or technology and live in Bolivia, do you believe that ideally before I can offer a course on it online that accepts payments I should first be licensed in the state of the person taking the course? Should random people who happen to live in the state have a leg up on me teaching the technology I invented simply since they live there already and it is probably easier/in-their-means to get registered?
2. It doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with "bad knowledge", as there are plenty of people willing to teach bad things for free (you can define bad however you want here). And separately, as far as I can tell, no one is really checking the courses are good or anything. Using the example above, would California have the capability to know that my React course is up to snuff?
So what is the registration for? Why is the sale of knowledge different than the sale of t-shirts?
1. Is the only goal to have these places on file for easier class-action lawsuits later? That might make sense?
2. Is it because tuition is particularly expensive, so it is known to attract more scams? So, merely a consequential result and not anything inherent to knowledge itself.
3. Is it because this sort of "institution" qualifies for government assisted funding/scholarships? In that case I could certainly understand it.
Any of those reasons could make sense, but none lead me to the feeling that the sale of knowledge, of all things, should of course necessarily be licensed/registered outside any other variables.
The citation date is March 20th of this year, which is only four months ago. When will Lambda School be fully registered with California?
EDIT: Whoops sorry, didn't realize my comment was submitted twice.
https://a16z.com/2014/02/06/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/
TL;DR, A widely respected CFO makes a suggestion regarding stock and being competitive as far as employee compensation. CFO says that they have done the same thing at numerous companies. The CEO is not very knowledgeable and asks the general council (who unlike a lot of places at the time reports directly to the CEO, not the CFO) to weigh in. General council says don't do it, so they don't. 2 years later, CFO goes to jail, CEO and everyone else stays out of jail because of a good decision.
I would extend your lesson and say to be sure you are asking a lawyer who has knowledge / experience in the area of law you're asking about.
There are some laws explicitly written to say that ignorance of the law is an excuse. "knowing an willing violation" (I don't know if this is one of them though)
Taking that to the logical extreme of having a legal opinion with every email puts you in a very privileged situation with the state
It exponentially increases the cost of the state to investigate. The state now knows you have a lawyer already, but doesn't know the contents of the advice and doesn't get to use things under attorney-client privilege even if a judge approved a fishing expedition that exposed your digital artifacts. And in the meantime it lowers your compliance burden if the advice says you don't have to comply, depending on how you compensate your lawyer your costs were super low.
If there is potentially criminal liability, but the burden of proof is a knowing and willful violation, then you're practically exempt because of the lawyer on payroll.
So in this case they negotiated the fine and get to improve operations.
Costs of investigating and prosecuting aside, the state likes to see a rationale for compliance. The lawyer also provides that, which you would prefer to have some case law to support it. This doesn't result in sanctioning the lawyer, its just not worth it to the state.
But the legal system is so complex, how are you as a laymen suppose to verify it if you are basically the test case for trying something new?
How is it regulated there? better or worse?
I don't have a strong opinion about if such things should be regulated or not, but I do know that there's a lot of people who have just slapped together programs to ride a money wave, and offer relatively little in exchange and it's hard to vet the places by yourself.
I will never forget watching a grown man cry in a mock interview because he could not solve FizzBuzz. I made sure they understood the relevant operators, the problem, inputs and expected output, gave ample time, kept things very casual and relaxed, and told them to ask any questions they needed. This was practice, after all.
I suppose I would cry too, if I wasted months and ~20,000, likely banking on a great new life as a programmer.
At the same time I've worked with great entry-level developers who used the code camps to jump from "bad" positions, e.g. young dead-ended professionals, folks with complimentary degrees but no job prospects in that industry, etc. The common thread with these folks is either prior background programming, a personal support network of programmers, or both.
What kind of regulation would help for this? Mandated entrance exams with a hard-cutoff?
It's not clear if you're intending to criticize Lambda School in particular here, but given the context that's how it comes across. If that wasn't your intention, it might be worth clarifying your comment; otherwise it might be worth providing some supporting evidence. I'm not associated with Lambda School, but am a fan precisely because they have always struck me as a really sincere organization that works hard to maximize value for their students.
I can't remember the last time I recommended anyone attend one of these schools; perhaps never honestly. I've seen them be really useful for some people, but also really unhelpful for many more.
They are a short cut, and leave people with a large amount of technical debt starting out in the form of a knowledge gap. Sometimes you need that, but I'd still recommend (if they can) someone do Course 6 at MIT any day over a 12-week course. Even without it being MIT, there's no way to fit 4 years of knowledge and experience into 12 weeks; none.
That said, we (App Academy) found that the BPPE was a mostly accommodating regulator that worked with us to come into compliance. We did face a couple challenges that will likely still exist today:
1) BPPE won't give approval to operate until the whole application process is completed. This means that Lambda School is likely operating without approval and will continue to do so for 6-12 months at a minimum. Contracts are unenforceable during this period, the school could be forced to shut down CA operations overnight, etc.
2) BPPE doesn't have a formal policy for Income Share Agreements (ISAs). We were able to get our ISA approved in 2015, but it took some doing and was not nearly as straightforward as getting a normal tuition contract approved. Several other ISA programs that applied a year or two after us were not approved.
More info: https://venturebeat.com/2014/01/30/california-bootcamp-will-...
I realize California isn't just "any" state but needing to seek unique approval from up to all 50 states just to run an online school seems like a really high (and expensive) bar.
It would be nice if more states cooperated on things like this. Then you seek approval from the collective, rather than at an individual level.
You don't need all 50 states approval to run an online school, but you will need the approval of the state that you are actually in.
I assume they also have to come into compliance to avoid further fines, but given that they provide a legit educational service, that shouldn't be too hard for them.
We’re lucky to be big and VC-backed and growing fast. $75k would be near deadly to a lot of smaller schools, so I’m sure the BPPE sized the fees accordingly.
My apologies for assuming that!
Could that be any more broad? Education is often just verbal and written communication between people. Seems like a first amendment violation.
It looks like you ignored a lot of the text of the order, such as the citation of exemptions, and the limiting qualifier “postsecondsry” before education.
> Could that be any more broad?
Well, no, it would be harder for it to be more broad than your mischaracterization.
> Seems like a first amendment violation.
Probably not even if it was as broad as you mischaracterize it. The first amendment does not prevent the State from general regulation of commerce, even if what is being traded is speech.
>Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach adults things in a cirriculum ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approval.
It's an important distinction, but I don't think that huge game changer. Still looks clearly unconstitutional.
I could literally rent a storefront and recite audio books and that would be illegal. How is that a constitutional law? Note: educational books often have a curriculum built in. The difference between a book and a class is just the medium it's presented.
Limiting the spread of information is what dictatorships do. There is a reason it's the very first amendment.
>Seems like a first amendment violation.
The key phrase here is charging money. Commercial speech has always been more strictly regulated than other forms of speech.
The government can often regulate selling things in ways that it could not Constitutionally regulate the thing being sold outside of commerce.
No, the law at issue (as stated in the document mischaracterized upthread) restricts only “private postsecondary education”.
The applicable definition of “postsecondary education” is at Cal.Ed.Code § 94857:
“Postsecondary education” means a formal institutional educational program whose curriculum is designed primarily for students who have completed or terminated their secondary education or are beyond the compulsory age of secondary education, including programs whose purpose is academic, vocational, or continuing professional education.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-94857.h...
Private tutoring is not within it's scope (private tutoring at the elementary/secondary level that is used as an alternative to mandatory schooling or parent howmschooling is regulated in CA by a different law, but that's only when it is taking the place of mandatory schooling, not supplementing it or serving unrelated functions.)
https://i.imgur.com/CKt5ZGT.png
(notice the $75,0000.00 - in bold, no less)
If you do, you pay 17% of income for 2 years, capped at $30k total.
Edit: 20k up front, versus 30k if taken out of your salary over 2 years. That's around 20% interest. They mention that payments are 17% of your income, but this is calculated pre-tax and paid after taxes.
It is not a class of school, it is indeed a company. A scam/cult masquerading as a startup. It's hyped, it's batshit insane. A thread from yesterday https://twitter.com/KeziyahL/status/1155154616281178114 but of course there is more. To me, it was obvious there is something wrong because PaulG often raved about it and nothing good comes out of that. You can't growth hack education. Humans don't work like that. I started a (very small, very unprofitable) school in a far away country and also happen to have a teacher's degree and oh boy.
As for scam, just look at their website.
> "Pay $0 tuition until you land a high-paying job Lambda covers your tuition costs until you're making at least $50,000 a year. "
How is $50 000 a high paying job? According to the SSA, the average wage in 2017 was $48,251.57. Also, the 17% is calculated from before tax but paid after tax. So if you earn 50K, take home 40K then Lambda doesn't take 6800, no they will take 8500.
> "You can choose to pay $20k upfront for Lambda tuition ... You'll never pay more than $30k ..."
Wait, you are charging 50% interest? Possibly over two years?
Just pointing out how funny it is for someone to say that nothing good comes from PG... on HackerNews
> Wait, you are charging 50% interest? Possibly over two years?
that's not how interest works. on a variety of levels. for starters, "50% over two years" would be 22% annualized, which is the only way anyone talks about interest. admittedly, that would be a high interest rate.
except it isn't interest. what you pay is a function of how much you earn. try borrowing money from the bank for 6%, and see if they'll let you just stop paying if you don't make any money.
> I started a (very small, very unprofitable) school in a far away country and also happen to have a teacher's degree
what were you teaching that didn't require simple arithmetic, or reading comprehension?
However, literally nothing in that linked twitter thread, or the one it in turn links to, do a single thing to demonstrate that at all. The people who posted both have no first hand experience at all and there's no data or details or facts to support their arguments. It’s just someone reading the website and posting reaction gifs.
> A person shall not open, conduct, or do business as a private postsecondary educational institution (a private entity with a physical presence in this state that offers – advertise, publicize, solicit, or recruit – postsecondary education to the public for an institutional charge) in this state without obtaining an approval to operate under this chapter. The institution must be approved to operate, which means approved to establish, keep, or maintain any facility or location in this state where, or from which, or through which, postsecondary education programs are provided.
I think the key part is the determination of their location. Their California headquarters counts as a facility through which programs are provided. The fact that the classes are fully online is unrelated. They would have to argue that their headquarters don't have anything to do with providing postsecondary education programs.
The reason we have inordinate amounts of regulations to fill out paperwork for is because “reason” doesn’t work the same way in law as it does in practicality. What’s absurdly stupid in layman’s situations is but a part of the game of legal chess in court.
We could have a law that says “Use common sense and don’t be an idiot”, which makes perfect sense in theory, and without very specific precedents will debated to hell in court with how common law cases work.
We end up with a lot of nonsense clauses and rules and requirements due to this, but it also is how chaos is supposed to be kept in check from erupting at the seams when people use lack of specific regulation as an incentive to find ways to screw other people over.
Just hoping they start a slightly more flexible cohort for people who are working and looking for the next promotion
However, we can only offer the $0 upfront option to permanent residents of the US and EU right now. Hopefully soon other countries.
So much for regulation.
The question is rather why Lamda School didn't get themselves approved?
It's beneficial for society to make sure entities representing that they are something, actually are that something.
Isn't this a trade school? Why in the world does a trade school need this kind of regulation. It just seems like most of our laws are passed in secret you don't know you violated anything until you get hit.
There are many.
Perhaps the most compelling is a long history of scams. California's regulations might be arduous, but they didn't come out of nowhere.
Another reason is that the customers almost by definition doesn't know how to asses quality.
> It just seems like most of our laws are passed in secret.
This law wasn't passed in secret.
