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."

33 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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
    17. 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
  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.

  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. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?"
  9. 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
  10. 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=

  11. 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).

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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?
  15. 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.