The problem with any education is how do you figure out the actual value added?
We all know that kid who would learn stuff regardless of what environment he was put in, and his opposite. And then probably a fair few in the middle where the environment actually matters.
When you're looking at outcomes, how do you know which school is worth paying for? I'm facing this issue myself right now for my primary school kids.
The big issue statistically is selection. For an analogy, think of cars. Are Volvos safe, or do they just attract safer drivers? It's not impossible to tease out from stats in principle, but has anyone done it? With schools it's even worse. Is one school in a richer area? What about the cost, that will skew selection too? Does one school use an entrance exam? And the really big one, does a school kick out underperformers?
With respect to coding schools you have to wonder whether the "best" students are already creamed off by universities, such that Lambda School and their like are really just salvaging a few people who fell into unfortunate circumstances and are trying to help themselves out. Along with some unfortunates who are never going to be coders but buy the premise that you can be taught these things in a short period of time, you just have to pay.
In any case it seems like they are forced to produce numbers quite fast for business reasons, and this has caused them to present the stats in the most positive light possible. The virus situation is not an entirely crazy excuse, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
> The problem with any education is how do you figure out the actual value added?
Answer: with a randomised controlled trial. That is, the school randomly rejects a number of applicants who meet the enrolment criteria, then it follows up after 5 years to see if the accepted students are significantly better off than the rejected candidates (eg. in terms of income).
Austen Allred, the CEO of Lambda School, has already floated such an idea: "I’d love to eventually do an impact study that statistically shows how much more attendees of Lambda School make over the course of their lifetimes." https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1433260773040693257
We all know that kid who would learn stuff regardless of what environment he was put in, and his opposite. And then probably a fair few in the middle where the environment actually matters.
When you're looking at outcomes, how do you know which school is worth paying for? I'm facing this issue myself right now for my primary school kids.
The big issue statistically is selection. For an analogy, think of cars. Are Volvos safe, or do they just attract safer drivers? It's not impossible to tease out from stats in principle, but has anyone done it? With schools it's even worse. Is one school in a richer area? What about the cost, that will skew selection too? Does one school use an entrance exam? And the really big one, does a school kick out underperformers?
With respect to coding schools you have to wonder whether the "best" students are already creamed off by universities, such that Lambda School and their like are really just salvaging a few people who fell into unfortunate circumstances and are trying to help themselves out. Along with some unfortunates who are never going to be coders but buy the premise that you can be taught these things in a short period of time, you just have to pay.
In any case it seems like they are forced to produce numbers quite fast for business reasons, and this has caused them to present the stats in the most positive light possible. The virus situation is not an entirely crazy excuse, but it will be interesting to see what happens.