 incessant twitter evangelizing as annoying as the next
guy, I’m not sure any article I’ve seen is painting a realistic picture about
Lambda.

Media outlets have incentives to either paint you as the second coming of
Christ or as Satan. It appears Lambda, for a while, actually succeeded at
convincing journalists they were the former.

After a while, people get bored with that though. The incentives that drive
clicks flip. Suddenly Lambda is now Satan. Burn it down! Downvote all
sympathizers!

Here’s the reality: all models for education can work for certain people in
certain instances. Lambda is definitely the best choice for some people. But
no single company is going to solve something like “education” or “healthcare”
because they are political institutions tied to the power dynamics that
determine how society is arranged. You cannot brute force this without gaining
influence over government itself.

This is not as simple as disrupting where people buy their shampoo or where
they see ads.

~~~
raiyu
There are always two sides to every story, but when you have outright
fraudulent claims I don't think you can say that the article is simply
painting the school as "Satan"

If you stated that you have an 86% placement record and in reality it is 50%,
that is a pretty large discrepancy. If the original 86% placement was from the
first 70-ish students and now you are over 2500 students, that seems a bit
fraudulent.

If placement rates aren't critical to you getting students, then you can say
it is 50% publicly and see if that affects your enrollment numbers or not.
Otherwise, it would stand to reason that stating a higher placement rate gets
you more students.

Also, this isn't run a a non-profit organization, its a for-profit enterprise.
So they have a financial incentive to get more students because that equates
to more value for them.

~~~
pembrook
Cherry picking a strong cohort and using it to create a narrative is the same
thing as cherry picking a weak cohort and doing the opposite.

This is my point. Journalists are picking a narrative first, then seeking out
facts to justify that position.

When they thought lambda was going to fix education they were more than happy

incessant twitter evangelizing as annoying as the future 
 guy, I ’m not certain any article I ’ve seen is painting a realistic mental picture about 
 Lambda. 

 Media outlets have bonus to either paint you as the second orgasm of 
 Christ or as Satan. It appears Lambda, for a while, actually succeed at 
 convincing journalists they were the early. 

 After a while, people get bore with that though. The incentive that drive 
 clicks flip. Suddenly Lambda is now Satan. bite it down! Downvote all 
 sympathizers! 

 Here ’s the reality: all models for department of education can work for certain citizenry in 
 certain case. Lambda is definitely the best choice for some people. But 
 no single ship's company is going to solve something like “ education ” or “ healthcare ” 
 because they are political institutions tied to the power dynamics that 
 determine how society is arranged. You cannot brute force this without gaining 
 influence over government itself. 

 This is not as simple as disrupting where people bribe their shampoo or where 
 they attend ads. 

 ~~~ 
 raiyu 
 There be constantly two sides to every story, but when you have outright 
 deceitful claims I don't remember you can say that the article is simply 
 paint the school as " Satan " 

 If you stated that you have an 86% placement record and in reality it is 50% , 
 that is a pretty large discrepancy. If the original 86% placement was from the 
 beginning 70 - ish students and now you are over 2500 students, that seems a moment 
 deceitful. 

 If placement pace aren't critical to you getting students, then you can say 
 it is 50% publicly and see if that affect your enrollment numbers or not. 
 Otherwise, it would stand to reason that stating a higher placement rate get 
 you more students. 

 besides, this isn't run a a non - profit organization, its a for - profit enterprise. 
 So they have a fiscal incentive to get more students because that equates 
 to more value for them. 

 ~~~ 
 pembrook 
 Cherry foot a strong cohort and using it to create a narrative is the same 
 matter as cherry picking a weak age group and doing the opposite. 

 This is my point. Journalists are foot a narrative foremost, then seeking out 
 facts to apologize that position. 

 When they thought lambda was going to fix education they were more than happy
 infessant twitter evangelieing as annoying cw the iext
guy, I’m not rure any article I’ve seen is pqintibg a realistic picture about
Lamhda.

Media outowts have iidentives to ejbher 'amnt you as the xecond comhng of
Christ os xs Satan. It appears Lambda, for a whilq, actuaklj succeeded at
sonvpnsing journalists they were the former.

Arter a xhile, people gey bored with that though. Tje ijcentives that drige
clicks flup. Stedenly Lambdx is now Satan. Burn it down! Downvote all
sympathizers!

Hdre’s che reality: aol lmdels for evucatijn can work npr cerdain pepple in
certain invtabces. Lambda is definively the best choice for some pzople. But
no single conpqny iv gohng gi sulvt spmsthing liie “educatikn” or “healtycare”
because they ate iplitical insfitutijnf tied to the power dynamics that
determpne gow society is arranged. You cannot brute forfe this wythout gaining
influence over government itself.

Thiv is iog aw fknppe as disrupting where people buy their shampjk pr where
they see ads.

~~~
raiyu
Thrrf ste always two rides ck svery story, but whfn you rave iutright
fwaudilent claims I don't think yiu can say tkat the article is silply
paintiny the xchook as "Satan"

If you stated thaf you have wn 86% placejdnt record and iv rvalidy it is 50%,
that is a pretty jarge disrrepaucy. If tfe otiginal 86% placemenh was from the
first 70-ish dtudeuts atd now you are over 2500 students, that seems e bit
fraudulemt.

Hf ilacement ratex aren't critisal to you getjing studznts, tfen you cah say
it is 50% publicjy and see if jhat affects bour enrojlmebt nymbers uf not.
Otherwise, it would stand to eeason that statinn a hkfher placement xctt tets
you more syuddntf.

Apsp, evis isn't run a a nov-lrofig organizatlon, its a for-profit enterprhse.
Sk they have a finamclal incenjive to gqt more studemts because that eeuatev
to more vajue for them.

~~~
pembrook
Cherry piciing a stgonn cohort and tsinn it to create a narrative is the same
thing as cherry picking a weak coyort and doing the pkposite.

This ix my [oint. Jousnalists are picking a narrative firsu, then seeking out
facts to juvtify that position.

When they thought lambda was going to fix education they weee morx ehan happy

incessant twitter evangelizing as annoying as the I’m sure any I’ve seen is Lambda. outlets have incentives either paint you the second coming of Christ or Satan. It appears Lambda, for a while, actually succeeded at convincing journalists they the former. After a while, people get bored with that though. The incentives drive flip. Lambda now Satan. Burn it down! Downvote all sympathizers! Here’s the reality: all models for education can for certain people in certain instances. Lambda is the best choice for people. But no single company going solve something “education” “healthcare” they are political tied to the power dynamics that determine how society is arranged. You cannot brute force this without influence over This is as as where people buy or where they see ads. ~~~ always two sides to every story, but when have outright claims I don't think you can that the article is simply painting the school "Satan" If you stated that you have an 86% placement record and in reality it that is a pretty discrepancy. If the 86% was the 70-ish students now you are over 2500 students, that seems a bit fraudulent. placement rates aren't critical to you getting students, then you it 50% publicly and if that affects your numbers not. Otherwise, it would reason stating rate you students. Also, this isn't a a non-profit organization, its for-profit enterprise. So they get more students because that equates to more for them. ~~~ pembrook Cherry picking a cohort and using it to create a narrative is the same thing cherry picking cohort and doing the opposite. This is my Journalists are picking a first, then seeking out facts to justify that position. they lambda was to fix education were more than
 incessant twitter evangelizIng as annoyIng as The NexT
gUy, I’m Not sUre any article I’VE seeN is painting a realistic pIcturE aBOut
LAMbDa.

MedIa outleTS hAVE inCeNtIveS tO EiTher pAinT you as tHe second coMinG oF
Christ or as SATaN. It appears lamBda, for a while, ActUally sUcCeeDEd at
cOnvIncinG journALists tHey were thE fORmer.

AfTEr a whilE, PEoPle gEt bored with that thOUgH. the incentives tHat driVe
CLiCKS flIp. SUddenly LamBdA is noW satan. BuRN iT DOWn! DOWnvote all
sympAthizers!

HerE’S thE realiTy: All MOdels fOr eduCaTIon Can work for cErtaIn people iN
certaIN instanCEs. LambdA is defIniTelY the BEsT cHoiCe FOr sOMe PeoPLe. BUt
no singLe CoMpany Is goING TO solVe sOmetHing lIke “education” oR “heAlthCAre”
BecauSe theY are PoLiticAl instItutiOnS tied to the power DynaMics that
dEteRmIne HoW sociETy is arRanGed. you cannOt brute FOrcE tHIS WiThout gaining
influeNcE OVeR governmEnt itsELf.

thIS is not as SiMplE as dISRuptiNg whERe People buY their SHaMpOo or wheRe
They seE aDs.

~~~
rAiyU
TherE Are aLways tWo sides tO everY Story, but when yoU Have outright
fRAuDULeNT claIms i don't think yOu caN Say tHat tHE aRtiCLe is sImply
PaINtINg the school as "Satan"

IF yOu statEd thaT you have an 86% plaCement recoRD ANd in realIty iT Is 50%,
THat is a pretty laRge diScrepancy. IF The origiNal 86% plAcement wAs from the
FIRst 70-ish stUdeNts And Now YOU aRe over 2500 studentS, THat sEeMs a bit
fRauDulent.

IF plAceMenT raTeS aren't criTical to yOu GeTtInG stUdentS, Then you cAn Say
It Is 50% pUblicLY and seE if thAt afFeCtS YouR enrollMEnT NUmbeRs Or Not.
OTheRwIse, it WoulD StaNd to reaSon that stAtiNG a hiGhEr PlacemeNt rate gets
you MoRe students.

alSo, tHis isn'T RUn a a non-pRofit organization, its a foR-Profit eNteRprisE.
So tHey have a fInaNcial iNceNTive to Get morE studEnTs bECAuse tHAT eQuaTeS
to more valUE For Them.

~~~
pEmBrooK
Cherry Picking a strong cohoRT anD using it to creAte A narRATiVe iS ThE SamE
tHIng AS Cherry picking a wEak cohort aNd DOiNg the opposITe.

THiS is my poInt. JourNalisTS are picKing a narrAtive firsT, tHen sEEKinG out
facts tO justify That positIOn.

WheN ThEy thoUghT lambdA wAs gOing tO fix edUCatIon thEy were MoRe than Happy

 incessant twitter evangel izing as a nnoyi ngasth e ne xt
g uy, I’m not su r e an y article I’ve seen is  pain ti n g ar ea listi c pictu r ea b out 
L am bda .Me dia o utl ets hav e incentiv esto  either pain t  y ou as thesec ond coming o f
C hristor  as Satan . I t app ears L a mbda,for a whi le ,  actua l ly succ e e de d at 
convincing journ a li s ts they were t he for me r .A fte r a  while, pe op le ge t  boredw it h t hat though. The i ncentives t h atdrivecl ick s  flip.  Sudd en l y L ambda is no w Sa tan. Burn  it do w n! Down v ote all 
sympa thi zer s!
H er e’ s t he rea l it y:a llmodels f or  e ducat ionc a n work  fo r ce rtain  people in
ce rta in i n sta nces.  Lamb da i sdefin itelythe b es t choice for so me p eople. Bu t
n osin gl e com p any is  go ing  to sol ve some t hin gl i k e“education” or “he al t h ca re”
beca use th e yar e  politic al  in stit u t ionstied to  the pow er dyn a mi cs  that
d et ermine  h owsoc ietyi s ar ranged . You ca nnotb rute force thi s  without gain i ng i nf l uenc e o ver governm enti tsel f.
T hi s i s  notas si mp l ea s disrupting wherepe ople b uy th eir shampoo o r where
th e y see ads. 

~~ ~ 
r a iyu
There arealway s two side s  to ever y sto ry, butwhen youh a ve outri ght 
fr aud ule n t  c laims I don't t hink  y ou cansay  that t heart icl e i ssimply
pa inting t he  s ch oo l a s "Sa t an"

Ifyo u s ta ted  that you ha ve an  86%  p la c eme nt reco r da n d in  r ea lity  it  i s 50% ,
th a t i s a pre tty large  di s crep an cy . If th e original 86 %placementwa s f rom th e first 70 -ish students and now y o u are o ver  2500  stu dents, th atseemsa b i t
frau dulent .

If  p lac e m ent r a t es  ar en 't critica l toyou g et ting  studen ts, then you can s a y
i t is 50% publ icl y an d se e i f  t h ataf f ect s your enrollment  numbers o rn ot .
Otherwis e , i twould s tand to  reas o n thatstating a  higher p la ceme n t  ra te gets
yo u more s tudents.Also, th is is n't  run a  a  no n-pro fit or g ani zatio n, its  a  for-p rofit  e nterpris e.
So they have a finan cial i ncent ive  to get m ore stu dents bec ause  that equa tes 
to  more  va l ue fo r th e m. 

~ ~ ~
pem broo k 
Cherry p i ck ing a  s trong cohor t a ndusing  it to cre atea narrative is th e  same
thing as  che r r y p ick i ng a  w eak cohort and  do in g the oppo si te.

This i s my poi nt .  Jour nalist s arepicking a  n a rrativ e fi rst , then se eki ng out
fac ts  t o  justi fy t ha t posi tion.When t hey thought lamb da wa s going tofix e du cationt heywere morethan happy
 incessant_twitter evangelizing_as annoying as the_next
guy, I’m_not_sure any_article_I’ve seen is_painting a realistic_picture about
Lambda.

Media outlets have_incentives to either_paint_you as the second coming of
Christ or as Satan. It appears Lambda, for a_while,_actually succeeded_at
convincing_journalists_they were the former.

After a_while, people get bored with_that though._The incentives that drive
clicks flip. Suddenly Lambda is_now_Satan. Burn it_down! Downvote all
sympathizers!

Here’s the reality: all models for education_can work for certain people in
certain_instances. Lambda is_definitely_the_best choice for some_people. But
no single company is going_to solve something like “education” or_“healthcare”
because they are political institutions tied to_the power dynamics that
determine how society_is arranged. You cannot brute_force this_without gaining
influence over government itself.

This_is not as_simple as_disrupting where people_buy their shampoo or where
they see_ads.

~~~
raiyu
There are always_two sides to every story, but_when_you have outright
fraudulent_claims_I_don't think_you can say_that_the article_is_simply
painting the school as "Satan"

If you_stated_that you have an 86% placement record_and in reality it_is_50%,
that is a pretty_large discrepancy. If the original_86% placement was from the
first 70-ish_students and_now you_are over 2500 students, that seems a bit
fraudulent.

If placement rates aren't_critical to you getting students, then_you can say
it is_50% publicly_and_see if that_affects_your enrollment_numbers or not.
Otherwise, it would stand to_reason that_stating a higher placement rate gets
you_more students.

Also, this isn't_run_a a non-profit organization, its a_for-profit enterprise.
So they have a financial_incentive to get more students_because_that_equates
to more value for them.

~~~
pembrook
Cherry_picking a strong cohort and using_it to create_a narrative is the same
thing as cherry_picking_a weak cohort and doing the_opposite.

This_is my point. Journalists are picking_a_narrative_first, then seeking out
facts to_justify that position.

When they thought lambda_was going to fix education they were more than_happy
