Is Tech getting more elitist ?

Number 2: It took me a while to wrap my head around this one too and quite frankly, I'm still confused. The main point was that CIRR could just ask straight up the number of people who started in the half and the number of people who graduated. And It could be very clear that not everyone who started in that half was expected to graduate in that half, but it gives some idea of what the starting point is because you'll see below, there are a lot of ways people cannot be included in the graduation count. 1. Withdrawals: CIRR is very clear to anyone who withdraws needs to be marked as such, but their worksheet has not a single withdrawal example or a column to do this. So it looks like only people who actually graduate end up being included in the report. I'm not sure how withdrawals end up being reported to be honest. If someone withdraws for failing a test, they could be included in the worksheet, and if they are currently still in the program, they could be, but someone who leaves entirely doesn't have a clear field in there IMO. They make it clear in the variable length program template, which is based on start date and not graduation date, that people withdrawn are included but their template for fixed length programs, which is almost every boot camp, doesn't have a column for withdrawal and all the people in the example graduated. So even if the example isn't demonstrating the intention of the words of the spec, it's confusing. 2. Not included in the report. There are numerous reasons why someone might be excluded. like the country that they're in or that they had intended to do the program only for education or the person started a company instead or the person had a personal issue and was unable to job hunt. Specifically the health or family issues that prevented you from job hunting that is mentioned in the spec in words doesn't have some kind of code or appear in the legend inside the worksheet they provide. Again similar to 1, like a competent person can try to piece together the intention and do something reasonable, there's just a lack of clarity in the details. At the end of the day, I think all the schools that are reporting are trying to do things consistently and fairly but I'm just pointing out that the spec itself is not written clearly and has issues that if someone were very smart and strategic they could try to work around to make their numbers look better. Or put another way, someone very strategic could maybe interpret things in their favor and have a valid excuse if the consensus was that they were not following the spec. I might just be looking at things wrong, but I could see how someone using the example worksheet, and "trying to follow the spec" could end up making mistakes.