Slashdot Mirror


California Regulator Seeks To Shut Down 'Learn To Code' Bootcamps

cultiv8 writes: "The Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE), a unit in the California Department of Consumer Affairs charged with licensing and regulating postsecondary education in California, is arguing that 'learn to code' bootcamps fall under its jurisdiction and are subject to regulation. In mid-January, BPPE sent cease and desist letters to Hackbright Academy, Hack Reactor, App Academy, Zipfian Academy, and others. Unless they comply, these organizations face imminent closure and a hefty $50,000 fine. A BPPE spokesperson said these organizations have two weeks to start coming into compliance."

52 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. California by gd2shoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep. This sounds like California.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:California by idobi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're charging someone $15000 for a 10 week course, and promising jobs at companies "like Facebook and Google," you probably need to fall under some sort of regulation and compliance.

    2. Re:California by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, if you are promising jobs that you can't actually guarantee, you don't need regulation, you need to be prosecuted for fraud. That simple.

    3. Re:California by alen · · Score: 3, Informative

      what is the small print

      unless its really 99% of their grads are hired for real software jobs which i don't believe they need to be truthful. every school that hypes a placement rate always has some small print that shows the 90% number is a small percentage of sampled students

    4. Re:California by cultiv8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're charging someone $15000 for a 10 week course

      My spouse's employer recently paid that amount for a 2 day SAP course, and I'm pretty sure CA regulators are not going after the company providing the SAP course.

      promising jobs at companies "like Facebook and Google,"

      I do not see a promise or guarantee of employment anywhere in the article or in a brief search of their websites.

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    5. Re:California by pesho · · Score: 5, Informative

      The regulation is hardly aggressive. According to the regulators for now all the companies need to show is a good faith effort to come in compliance. The article headline is obviously misleading.

    6. Re: California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Regulation can prevent harm. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, and a crap shoot with loaded dice since the perpetrator has much deeper pockets. Also see tort reform which gutted your only recourse. Deregulation and tort reform are done for the wealthy to give them impunity.

    7. Re:California by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're charging someone $15000 for a 10 week course, and promising jobs at companies "like Facebook and Google," you probably need to fall under some sort of regulation and compliance.

      I'm echoing what's already been said here. But regulation and compliance already exists. Fraud didn't become legal just because. If fraud and similar crimes are not being prosecuted, then it is an enforcement problem not a lack of regulation problem.

    8. Re:California by porges · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd raise your "misleading" to "bullshit", actually. The article makes it perfectly clear, the summary and headline are garbage.

    9. Re:California by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This doesn't require any more regulation.

      Deceptive advertising is fraud. Don't "regulate" -- prosecute them for fraud if they're committing fraud. If they're not, then leave them the hell alone.

    10. Re: California by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *nods* litigation, while it has a wonderful DIY feel to it, puts the burden of enforcement on people with slim resources. Regulation on the other hand involves a funded group who's full time job involves ensuring entities are obeying the law.

      This is what drives me crazy about people ranting at how 'sue crazy' america is. Of course we see lot of lawsuits, a significant number of our laws are not enforced until someone starts a civil case. Many things that people assume the police and prosecutors would handle in fact can only be triggered by a private lawsuit, thus if one is wronged the state will not help (much less proactively investigate) on your behalf unless one is willing to invest the capital in bringing a civil case.

    11. Re:California by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. This is exactly right. All I can say here is thank god it is California.

      We already have laws against fraud. There is no good reason that anyone should need a priori permission from the state to teach something to another person. This kind of bureaucratic overreach is the reason we have 8.7% unemployment.

    12. Re: California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *nods* litigation, while it has a wonderful DIY feel to it, puts the burden of enforcement on people with slim resources. Regulation on the other hand involves a funded group who's full time job involves ensuring entities are obeying the law.

      Unfortunately, it also often leads to 'regulatory capture', the phenomenon in which the 'regulated' group actually ends up controlling the regulator in practice. (See the financial industry's recent mess as an example.) The trick to fixing this, however, isn't getting rid of the regulation. It's making sure that those who *enforce* the regulations are rewarded for doing so.

    13. Re:California by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Strangely, many deep-red states are also struggling with poverty and high unemployment. If "this kind of bureaucratic overreach" was a simple explanation for high unemployment rates, then the problem would solve itself as non-California states became prosperous utopias of full employment. Real-world evidence indicates this isn't the case --- there must be big structural factors besides California's regulations responsible for the nation-wide (not just California and "liberal" states) employment issues.

    14. Re:California by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This doesn't require any more regulation.

      It isn't "more regulation", it's "applying the regulations that already exist."

      Deceptive advertising is fraud. Don't "regulate" --

      Prosecuting for fraud IS regulation. And when statements like this appear:

      At Hack Reactor, where tuition costs over $17,000, 99 percent of students are offered a job at companies like Adobe and Google. According to Phillips, the average salary for a computer scientist at these firms is over six figures.

      it isn't fraud (assuming the 99 percent claim is true.) It's YOUR fault if you misread "a job" as meaning "a computer scientist" job. It certainly IS your fault if you think that you can teach someone to be a computer scientist worth a six figure salary in just ten weeks.

      And I hate to say this (no I really don't) but any outfit that charges $17000 for a ten week course needs some kind of overview. Even if the first two or three companies doing this are legit, such ridiculous amounts of money are going to draw hucksters like iron filings to buckey cubes. Legit course providers should have no problem with the regulation because it will help keep the less legitimate players out.

    15. Re:California by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Strangely, many deep-red states are also struggling with poverty and high unemployment.

      Except that is not true. There are five states with unemployment worse than California, and none are red (they all voted for Obama in 2012).

      If "this kind of bureaucratic overreach" was a simple explanation for high unemployment rates ...

      Nobody said it was a "simple explanation", but it is certainly part of the problem. In no other state is a business required by law to inform their customers that they may get cancer if they eat the toner powder from the laser printer in the back office.

      If a school (or any other businesses) appear to be using fraudulent advertising, then the state attorney general should investigate. But they should not be throwing up hurdles to everyone that wants to start up a business and generate jobs.

    16. Re:California by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the federal government is working hard to prevent companies fleeing to these states like, for example, hassling Boeing for building a giant plant there claiming it's anti-union to poor souls inWashington state.

      I'm sure meme oh race to the bottom oh my meme savior of worldviews. Worldviews are schizophrenic, or at least neurotic: they hold logically incompatible philosophies as simultaneously true.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:California by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that is not true [bls.gov]. There are five states with unemployment worse than California, and none are red (they all voted for Obama in 2012).

      And other states near the bottom of the list: Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia. Also, "voted for Obama" is a poor measure for intrusive state regulations --- one of your "bottom 5" states is Nevada, the place that allows brothels and pretty much anything to go (an "anti-California" when it comes to pervasive regulations). In other words, the picture is far less clear than you claim. Your statement was "This kind of bureaucratic overreach is the reason" (emphasis mine), which is demonstrably false. Fine, if you want to walk it back to "one small part of the problem" --- but it was your own words clinging to the simplistic distortion to support your ideology.

      If a school (or any other businesses) appear to be using fraudulent advertising,

      Which is what these places appear to be doing, on a wide scale. Thus, the state is placing them under the oversight of the regulatory body with the mandate and expertise to evaluate claims and practices in education. This isn't "throwing up hurdles to everyone that wants to start up a business"; this is putting up hurdles to a very specific class of shady businesses that've raised attention through dubious practices.

    18. Re:California by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lawsuits and trials are about the most inefficient means of regulation imaginable. I say that as a lawyer. I know a lot of libertarians, have a libertarian bent myself, but I laugh every time I someone suggests that courts are the resolution for problems like this.

      Let's just pretend a person took their last $15k and spent it on a fraudulent school. How is that person going to get his money back? You really think the prosecutor is going to prosecute? That's a joke -- the entire court system would need to be 100s of times larger (which is of course paid for by taxes).

      OK, so a civil suit. Sure, you get a trial two to three years from the date of filing the case, because several times your scheduled trial date got bumped to make room for rapists' prosecutions and those take precedence. If you try to do it yourself, you'll almost certainly lose. There are outlier pro se litigants, but mostly, they lose.

      So you try to hire a lawyer to run the case -- good luck. The costs of discovery will probably cost more than $15k because tracking down all the students and interviewing them, developing hiring statistics, deposing the school officials, building a case -- it's all expensive. The effect is that you won't actually be able to get an attorney unless you pony up thousands, because the case will cost more than you can win -- an attorney isn't going to gamble his own money on a losing proposition. He might offer to do it on an hourly basis if you put $20k or so in their trust account, but at the end of the day, winning will cost you more than you'll win, the attorney will tell you that, and then tell you it doesn't make financial sense for you to hire him. You of course are broke, so this last horrid option isn't even an option.

      Finally, let's take the Lotto scenario, you win and get all your money back, and it doesn't cost you dime to get. You aren't getting back all the crap you went through for years -- like living in a homeless shelter and getting your eye poked out because you didn't have enough money for rent. Yeah, there's some tenuous connection to your eye, but if you think that you're getting back everything you lost while waiting for your case to resolve, you're an idiot.

      The ONLY way litigation could work as a regulation device, was if the court system was expanded radically -- 100s of times larger, maybe 1000s -- AND both sides provided state paid legal counsel and investigators etc to take costs and fees out of the equation. At that point, you might as well just have reasonable regulation -- it will be cheaper and definitely way more efficient. If you did have such a system where litigation was the main tool -- everyone would be in litigation all the time. It would be like that Farscape episode where 90% of a planet's population were lawyers. You think a little regulation is bad --- makes me laugh. Being in trial your entire life would suck beyond any known measure.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    19. Re:California by Xiver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe Red vs. Blue isn't the right argument here, as in most cases. Maybe the right argument is liberty vs. statism. Do you want to be free to chase your dreams or do you want the government to secure your prosperity?

      --
      10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
      20: GOTO 10
    20. Re:California by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's also a mistake to consider liberty as the opposite of statism. Just as reducing to a Red/Blue argument ignores how both parties frequently co-operate in bipartisan manners against freedom, so to assuming that liberty is the result of a minimal state ignores all the non-state systems of oppression. Establishing liberty requires critiquing, undermining, and dismantling all hierarchies of coercive power. The state is one --- but, so are, e.g., economic, racial, and gender hierarchies of oppression that can (and quite frequently do) arise in decentralized "free" systems where the strong are given free reign to oppress the weak. Dismantling state apparatus to make room for local feudalism is no step towards liberty. The assumption that the ideal "minimal state" is one that enforces Capitalist/market regulations (enforces contracts/property) is fundamentally flawed, because market systems are themselves unstable towards accumulation and collapse into tyranny. Rather, the need is to establish a minimal state that dismantles and devolves any accumulations of power to as many people as possible.

    21. Re: California by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is a very steep slippery slope you are standing on. School != "performing surgery" and simply going to school has never given a license to a doctor to perform surgery.

      If the Government does not charge for regulation, you may have a point. If they are doing so for the revenue, then it's not protecting the public that they are worried about. This is the problem with most of these types of regulations.

      Lastly, if a student signs up to a college that guarantees a job at X company and does not get job at X company they can sue the school. If they promise to teach you C programming and teach you finger painting you can sue them as well. You seem to be concerned about the people wasting time as much as money, and dding overhead to schools won't change that in the slightest.

      Consumers are always partially responsible for their decisions. The trickier the scam the less responsible the consumer would be. To be honest, I don't have much sympathy for people that sign up to these schools because they can always choose to do 5 minutes of research on the school before dumping 15,000.00 on them. Most of that is done in loans at insane interest rates, so the student does not lose money. They can recoup court costs in civil court so don't lose money there either. Further, what better way of educating people about the ole saying "if something looks too good to be true it probably is".

      This is not the same as tricking some poor ole lady out of her life savings. These "students" are trying to take shortcuts and getting suckered because they want shortcuts. It should take a whole 60 seconds to validate a schools accreditation, and another 4 minutes looking in Google to find people complaining about the scam schools.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:California by anagama · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Libertarians have lots of good ideas, but regulation by trial is not in that set. For example, I totally agree that the War on [Some] Drugs is beyond idiotic and ridiculously wasteful (and that people should be able to make personal choices about which drugs they use). But even if you subtracted every single drug case out of the system, the system wouldn't be able to cope with the onslaught of litigation that would be required under a "regulation by lawsuit" method.

      Secondly, any lawyer whose gone through enough trials will have lost cases he or she thought was a total winner, and won cases categorized as "total dog." A jury trial is a kind of gambling in the most literal sense. You put up your money to cover the costs of building a case, then get a jury pool randomly selected from the community, and then try to weed out the worst potential jurors --- but it sometimes happens that the entire pool from which you get to pick, sucks. When you draw names out of a hat, sometimes you get reasonable people and sometimes you get crazies. Occasionally, every name drawn from that hat is a nut, and you are just looking for the least worst options.

      Then even if you win, the cost of trials is immense. It really is a terribly inefficient method of regulation -- it's as good of a last resort as we've been able to dream up, but for everyday stuff, it would be ridiculously expensive. If people lived in a system where day-to-day regulation, the assurance that businesses operate fairly, was done by trial, we'd all be broke from the endless lawsuits -- or more likely, all the little guys would just have to suck it up even more than we have to now.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  2. Curious where he'd draw the line by barlevg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What are the regulations regarding wilderness survival camps? What about rock & roll fantasy camps? Is he going to start going after knitting retreats?

    1. Re: Curious where he'd draw the line by Dan+Lyke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that it's probably about advertising: They're claiming 99% job placement, waving around the idea of six figure salaries, for $17k and 10 weeks. I'm not sure where you draw the line, but having tried to help counsel some lower income people who were looking at nursing schools, this is way the hell over the line.

    2. Re: Curious where he'd draw the line by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and the spirit of those laws is encapsulated in the regulation of postsecondary education. These bootcamps are trying to skirt the regulations designed to prevent fraud in the education market. They're being asked to comply with the anti-fraud regulations.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  3. No Accredited Credential, No Regulatory Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If these places are not offering a recognized credential of completion (such as a degree or certificate recognized by the prevailing accreditation bodies), then they are not an educational institution subject to state regulation. Instead, they fall under Federal Dept. of Ed Work Training facilities.

    Federal Law is settled on this, and there are at least 100 cases that I can find that set this precedent.

  4. All the cyberlibertarian rage... wrong questions.. by Improv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, what does compliance involve? That's the first question we should be asking.

    If your local libertarian hot dog stand guy rages at you about maybe being shut down because the health department is on his back, instead of saying "fuck guvment", maybe you should figure out if it's something as simple as them having hygiene standards for how he cooks, and some small fee for a license. I mean, maybe there is something unreasonable or crazy, and there are some industries that corrupt government and do rent-seeking in order to limit competition, but these details matter.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  5. Re:Big $$$ by tibman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe if colleges could teach software development there wouldn't be a need for these code bootcamps.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  6. Re:If they charge $15,000 for a ten week course... by andyring · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? Is there a specific price point at which regulation should be automatic?

    On what do you base your premise that regulation is both necessary and positive?

  7. Postsecondary Education? Description fits the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary makes it sound like these are people in makerspaces getting free skills. The article says that these places are charging tuition $15k - $19k for an intensive (~ few months) training course, presumably with a certificate of completion. The state and the public have a vested interest in ensuring people get their money's worth. The article also states that the bureau doesn't not demand immediate compliance in 2 weeks, but that they show progress towards attaining compliance. Look around you. Experience shows that the free market is not effective at eliminating scammers. Sometimes regulation and auditing is good.

  8. Re:If they charge $15,000 for a ten week course... by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So should every technical training course for firewalls, networking, VMWare, etc. be regulated similarly? Those are $5k+ a week.

  9. Re:If they charge $15,000 for a ten week course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On what do you base your premise that regulation is both necessary and positive?

    Experience. History. Fraud.

  10. Re:Let Us Control You! by keltor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not sure if you realize, but these camps are typical of private education that doesn't give you "credits" in that they cost an arm and a leg. They cost as much as my Master's Degree cost me.

  11. The Alternative Is Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's actually a pretty good reason there are accredation standards in education. People are paying a lot of money. It's hard for someone to know (without actually taking the course) if the course is valuable or worthless. There are plenty of shysters out there who couldn't care less if you learn - they're just out for your money, and provide as little education as they can get away with ('For Profit" online universities are, IMO, more scam than educators).

    Whether it's a government or a private body, setting clear expectations on curriculum standards and certifying compliance with them is a highly useful service to keep students from getting victimized. Which means "compliance" with someone else's idea of what a reasonable student needs is not only not anathema, it can be a Very Good Thing.

    Being free to dupe people into paying a lot of money for a worthless service isn't exactly in character with a "free society" in any but the most extreme laisse faire ideologies.

  12. Re:If they charge $15,000 for a ten week course... by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Is there a specific price point at which regulation should be automatic?"

    Any financial transaction. This is fairly standard.

    Why? Should garage sales be regulated? Why does the government need to be involved in every facet of your life?

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  13. Flea markets? ANY cash transaction? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any financial transaction. This is fairly standard.

    If I beat you every day your whole life, it's "fairly standard" but does not make it right.

    There's lots of transactions that are not really regulated, especially cash ones...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Re:Compliance by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno, but compliance is not necessarily a bad thing.

    I want all of my electrical and electronic devices to comply with appropriate standards and regulations so they all work together and are safe to use.

    I want vehicles and buildings to comply with the myriad of safety regulations.

    I want my food and food preparation/handling facilities to comply with best practices.

    I don't know what the BPPE requires with respect to compliance (article does not say in what way these places are not in compliance), but maybe I want that too.
    =Smidge=

  15. Re:All the cyberlibertarian rage... wrong question by Akratist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I do find the luv/hate libertarian thing kinda funny when these things come up. Statist sorts believe that since people are fallible, there needs to be people to regulate people. Libertarians believe that since people can't be trusted to run the lives of other people, then we need to trust individuals instead of groups. Both sorts miss the fact that the basic problem is that we recognize there are people we can't trust. Anyway, as far as regulation goes, I've gotten salmonella twice in my life, both times from large corporate food chains that were regularly inspected by the health department, had food handling standards in place, etc. I've eaten plenty of time at mom and pop greasy spoons and have not gotten sick from them. Likewise, I didn't go to a coding boot camp, but got my degree from an accredited four year college. While most of my professors were good, the guy teaching the .NET class I took had simply gone to a weekend seminar on coding in .NET and copied all the .ppt slides and used them as his own (I knew more than he did about .NET). I had another professor for calc who, while not intentionally being a fraud, absolutely could not communicate the subject matter in a way that was comprehensible. In both of these cases, I figure I was out money because of fraud, so it can happen anywhere. If the coding boot camps are making false claims, then it seems more like grounds for a hefty lawsuit by former students, than grounds for another layer of regulatory compliance, particularly when the products of the four year colleges may or may not be subject to the same type of scrutiny in terms of product quality (disclaimer -- I don't know what the process for this is in CA).

  16. Re:“Our primary goal is not to collect a fin by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "We don't want money. They need to bow down and acknowledge us as Lord."

  17. Remember MCSE Bootcamps? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in the late 90s / early 2000s, training companies were making tons and tons of money funneling people with zero computer experience through MCSE certification bootcamps. Basically, they would do the entire set of certification exams in 2 weeks, and not all of them were 100% honest to students about their chances of passing or even getting a job once they were done. These bootcamps still exist, but from what I've experienced, they're only for people who actually know the material and just need to update their skills quickly. The earlier iterations of these were definitely certification mills though. I went to one around 2001 because I wanted to update my certs. The class was split -- some of us were there to just do a quick skills upgrade, and others had obviously been suckered in by a dishonest recruiter. To get these folks to pass, instructors would give them copied exam questions to study and pay for these students' extra chances to pass the exams. The school would then be able to tout their super-high pass rate for the exams. And these weren't cheap either -- some were $7K or $8K in 1990s dollars. Even when you factor the cost of a hotel stay, meals and an instructor, the profit margin is huge.

    Now it seems that the focus is less on system admin skills and more on "web coding" like these schools are offering classes in. Seems like a perfect hook -- young students who use their iPhone or Android mobile constantly get sold the dream that they too can be the next great app writer and make millions. And it really does seem doable -- with all the web frameworks out there, there's very little a "coder" has to know about what's actually going on under the hood to make something that works. Problem is that paper MCSEs didn't work out so well when they got on the job, so I doubt these classes will help mint genius developers either. My boot camp class back in the day had a former bus driver and someone who was fresh out of the army in an unrelated field.

    Libertarians will say it's OK for businesses to take advantage of people, but I think education is a little bit different. Selling someone thousands of dollars in classes and telling them they're equivalent to CS graduates just isn't honest, and these schools profit off peoples' naivete and sell them dreams. The state gets to regulate educational institutions, so it makes sense that they're taking a look at them. And what if it was something simple like needing to publish student outcomes or pass rates? The libertarian free market would be all excited then, because the bad ones might be weeded out if students could be bothered to do research on statistics available from regulation.

    It took ages to weed the paper MCSEs out of the workforce, and it's still not 100% complete. Every time I meet an "IT professional" who has no troubleshooting ability, I think back to these bootcamps.

    1. Re:Remember MCSE Bootcamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Libertarians will NEVER say it's OK for businesses to take advantage of people. In What it Means to be a Libertarian, Charles Murray clearly states, "...the libertarian ethic is simple but stark ... thou shalt not deceive or defraud." Fraud and deceit are not accepted by Libertarians.

      Libertarianism promotes freedom from the majority of government regulation but NOT anarchy. In a Libertarian state there would be strong and effective civil courts to protect the consumers against institutions that aren't "100% honest to students about their chances of passing or even getting a job once they were done."

    2. Re:Remember MCSE Bootcamps? by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Libertarianism promotes freedom from the majority of government regulation but NOT anarchy. In a Libertarian state there would be strong and effective civil courts to protect the consumers against institutions that aren't "100% honest to students about their chances of passing or even getting a job once they were done."

      The main problem with a Libertarian ideal state is that it implicitly argues that all deterrence against fraud and other injuries to the public must be in the form of after-the-fact damage control via the courts (in which case the question of "How much justice can you afford?" frequently comes up) instead of by proactive government action.

      The purpose of regulation like this is to prevent people from being injured in the first place, because while they *might* be able to recover damages in court, and it *might* even break even financially, the opportunity costs are forever gone for those people. Worse, damage control is almost always more expensive than prevention, and some forms of damage simply can never be made up by the courts, as with birth defects caused by thalidomide or from Love Canal. It's better to prevent harm than to clean it up after.

      Courts simply do not work as a one size fits all means of deterring bad behavior.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  18. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are aware the constitution is not the only piece of legislation the regulates societal affairs, right?

    You are apparently unaware that both the US and California state constitutions are not pieces of legislation.

    Incidentally, the US Constitution does give the state of California the ability to regulate such "bootcamps" via the Ninth Amendment. The real issue is whether California's constitution does.

  19. Re:If they charge $15,000 for a ten week course... by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    " Should garage sales be regulated?"

    House sales are regulated, I don't see why garages should be any different.

  20. Re:Why? by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Informative

    10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Since the US Constitution doesn't prohibit the regulation of education, it is permitted to the states.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  21. Re:If they charge $15,000 for a ten week course... by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes. However those courses, while insanely expensive and not worth the cost IMO, do provide what they promise- a certain level of knowledge on the topic, so the vast majority are ok. The bootcamps promise that at the end of camp that you're ready for employment as a professional programmer and that a certain amount of their graduates (usually very high) receive jobs as a programmer within a short time of graduation. These are both false claims, and regulation should clamp down on them.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  22. Re:Let Us Control You! by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know what kind of developers bootcamp programs produce in 12 to 16 weeks. About 25% of them are useful as developers. 50% are useful as QA. And 25% are useful for converting O2 to CO2.

    Sooo. About the same ratio as a Masters in CS?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  23. Time for an IT / Tech apprenticeship system by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Time for an IT / Tech apprenticeship system that can be a good way to train people while at least keeping from being an outright cash cow with all kinds of marking BS about jobs that you will get and why you should pay 50K+ to go to classes hear.

  24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'd say Article 9 of the California Constitution. With a side of Article 4 and 5.

    ARTICLE 9 EDUCATION

    SECTION 1. A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being
    essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the
    people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the
    promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural
    improvement.

    So if the Legislature wishes to encourage the promotion of such activity by preventing fraud and dishonesty in such endeavors, it's certainly a reasonable interpretation.

    One might even take it as an obligation on their part to use all suitable means to do so.

  25. Missing the point by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Other posters seem to think this is centered around making sure the schools are on the up and up. I think it's simply a money grab by the State of california. Here's the law, taken right from their website:

    94930. Deposit of Fees, Adjustment of Fees, Reserve Balance
    (a) All fees collected pursuant to this article, including any interest on those fees, shall be deposited in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund, and shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for expenditure by the bureau for the administration of this chapter.
    (b) If the bureau determines by regulation that the adjustment of the fees established by this article is consistent with the intent of this chapter, the bureau may adjust the fees. However, the bureau shall not maintain a reserve balance in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund in an amount that is greater than the amount necessary to fund six months of authorized operating expenses of the bureau in any fiscal year.

    94930.5. Fee Schedule
    An institution shall remit to the bureau for deposit in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund the following fees, in accordance with the following schedule:
    (a) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution submitting an application for an approval to operate, if applicable:
    (1) Application fee for an approval to operate: five thousand dollars ($5,000).
    (2) Application fee for the approval to operate a new branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000).
    (3) Application fee for an approval to operate by means of accreditation: seven hundred fifty dollars ($750).
    (b) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution seeking a renewal of its approval to operate, if applicable:
    (1) Renewal fee for the main campus of the institution: three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500).
    (2) Renewal fee for a branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000).
    (3) Renewal fee for an institution that is approved to operate by means of accreditation: five hundred dollars ($500).
    (c) The following fees shall apply to an institution seeking authorization of a substantive change to its approval to operate, if applicable:
    (1) Processing fee for authorization of a substantive change to an approval to operate: five hundred dollars ($500).
    (2) Processing fee in connection with a substantive change to an approval to operate by means of accreditation: two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
    (d) (1) In addition to any fees paid to the bureau pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, each institution that is approved to operate pursuant to this chapter shall remit both of the following:
    (A) An annual institutional fee, in an amount equal to three-quarters of 1 percent of the institution's annual revenues derived from students in California, but not exceeding a total of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) annually.
    (B) An annual branch fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each branch or campus of the institution operating in California.
    (2) The amount of the annual fees pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be proportional to the bureau's cost of regulating the institution under this chapter.
    (e) If the bureau determines that the annual cost of providing oversight and review of an institution, as required by this chapter, is less than the amount of any fees required to be paid by that institution pursuant to this article, the bureau may decrease the fees applicable to that institution to an amount that is proportional to the bureau's costs associated with that institution.

    94931. Late Payment
    (a) A fee that is not paid on or before the 30th calendar day after the due date for the payment of the fee shall be subject to a 25 percent late payment penalty fee.
    (b) A fee that is not paid on or before the 90th calendar day after the due date for payment of the fee shall be subject to a 35 percent late paymen

  26. For what it's worth . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a student at Hack Reactor. I was pretty cynical about that 99% hiring rate number before I started here, but now I tend to believe it's accurate. I say that based on what I've seen from the graduates of the last 2 classes. As far as I can tell, everyone in the class that graduated 10 weeks ago has a job and everyone I've talked to from the group that graduated in December seems to be getting job interviews and having success moving forward in their job search.

    The trick isn't in how they do the math. If there's a trick to it, it's that:

    * Admissions are pretty competitive. They pick students who are likely to be successful.

    * They have chosen the right niche. It's all JavaScript all the time around here. There's a huge shortage of good JavaScript developers in the valley. A lot of companies see value in having someone who knows a bunch about JavaScript and is clearly highly motivated to learn even if they're weaker in data structures or some of the other areas.

    * The numbers are small right now. Hack Reactor is only 14 months old. There's only something like 120 HR graduates in the job market.

    But, and I'm in the minority around here on this, I also think coding schools should be regulated. CA passed a law to tighten regulation of trade schools in 2009 because there were lots of scams going on- a lot of bogus CNA training programs and cooking schools, etc. That law makes sense.

    And if there's a law that regulates trade schools, it seems like it should apply to coding schools just as much as sound engineering programs, barber colleges and cooking schools. Creating loopholes in a good law for one industry that thinks its special seems like a bad idea.

    Besides a little regulation will add legitimacy to a young industry and keep scam artists from moving into the space. There will be some compliance costs (paperwork is a hassle!), but I can't see it being much more than that.