It wouldn’t be the same rate; the labor market drive what we can charge for an education in a specific field. Which, if you think about it, makes sense
-
-
We focus on filling holes in the labor market. We find shortages and fill them. Later we’ll compete head on. But if we know you won’t get a job as a result of studying x we won’t teach x.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It does, but it also causes some potential problems in terms of "replacing University", the original point. Like it would make sense for Nursing or Engineering or possibly Medicine. But those degrees to hire. But does it make sense in Science? Most Science grads work at Uni?
-
We don’t care where anyone works. Or if they start companies. That said our goal isn’t to replace universities. We think a lot of people actually shouldn’t necessarily go to a university. We view ourselves as a trade/vocational school, which the US desperately needs more of.
-
I can definitely get behind the need for a better trade / vocational school system in the US. But I think we should acknowledge that you are currently arbitraging an inefficient system. :) The ROI on the 4-year Nursing or Eng or Med version would be very different.
-
We are for now, yes. But a nursing or medical degree would still be a layup, after dealing with regulation. You just charge different rates. Within one year there will be a startup nursing college on an income share agreement. If there’s not we’ll add it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.