> I don't know whether it's intentional or not, but you continually, over and over, take two numbers that are not the same thing whatsoever and compare them or multiply them or whatever else and it simply makes no sense.

You keep running in circles around a very simple statement that was on the front page of your website: "86% of Lambda School graduates are hired within 6 months and make over $50k a year."

Just tell me how you got to 86%, because that's wildly inconsistent with years of outcomes data, in addition to the leaks.

> This is fair - there were students who just wanted experience even if unpaid, and the initial intent was to build it into the school itself literally with no pay. I changed my mind on that one after conversations with a few students, and we changed the design as you pointed out, but no student ever did any unpaid work, so it's also not accurate to say that we had a bunch of students doing unpaid work.

I'm sorry, did you just lie to my face, say, "This is fair" and try move on?

I'll be honest, I can't follow the story you're trying to tell. It sounds way more complex than what everyone watched unfold.

Your FAQ at launch clearly says it's unpaid. You had a product manager on Hacker News trying to defend the program while all the commenters explained, "This is an unpaid intern program and probably illegal." He even tried the same, "Well our lawyers said it was ok." After the Twitter backlash, you tweeted and deleted an apology, and then started acting like none of that stuff happened.

As for "no student ever did any unpaid work," didn't you pilot the program for months before publicly announcing it? (This is a rhetorical question. At this point I lack faith you'll tell the truth.)

>> > It was not a qualified educational loan. Section 523(a)(8) is all about how student loans are not dischargeable.

> Ironically other regulatory bodies disagree with the DFPI on this one, and part of the issue of ISAs is everyone wants to regulate it differently but there's no agreement

Let me get this straight. You're saying, "There's no legal precedent, but hey, it might be true? So we threw it in!"

> OK, I really am spending too much time here now. I remember distinctly when you told The Verge that our iOS curriculum didn't include things that would get a student through a phone screen, I offered a bounty to your favorite charity for you to point out any single thing that we were missing

You blocked me, making it impossible to reply.

> and you backtracked and said, "Well some of your students' code on github wasn't very good."

Despite the block, I said: "Your students publish their homework to GitHub. Half a cohort failed to grasp memory management, but you rubber stamped them through the program.

You even hired one of those students to be a section lead, to teach other students."

https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1270761157595262976

"I am not publicly linking to the students who struggled with it, because it’s not their fault. But I did share the GitHub projects with two senior iOS developers I trust, and they agreed these students didn’t get it."

https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1270761955976859650

So to answer your challenge: memory management. I have sign-off from two senior, ex-Apple iOS devs. Please wire that money to the National Student Legal Defense Network, who seems to be handling that lawsuit against you.

> I don't know why this has become such a personal grudge.

It's interesting that you think this is all about you.