u/FoulVarnished wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Thanks for breaking down your thoughts further. For 1. I'd guess non graduation rate is fairly accurate reflecting who enters but does not finish a program, but to be honest I'm not sure how I could ever verify that. My reasoning for this is I have spoken to grads of a few boot
u/michaelnovati replied ·
I love this discussion btw!
Yeah I agree with everything you are saying about these factors being reasonable, I think that's why they are in the CIRR spec for the most part.
My problem with CIRR comes down to the "legalities" of the writing itself and the spec document looking like it's written by a "head of outcomes" at a bootcamp, rather than a lawyer or auditor who can write proper documentation. This leaves a very clever bootcamp operator, room to "follow the rules" and still portray things in the "best light".
For example:
1. There is no clear list of definitions of terms and concepts, like almost every legal document begins with
2. A list of all possible values for each item we are recording. They have a list of codes specified for outcomes and then refer to those in double quotes inconsistently.
3. Lots of "X states" or "if Y", but then the collection of documentation is a separate section that doesn't cover all the documentations for all possible X, Y, Z states and cases, and dates/rules for how to accept those things. Every single piece of information should have a indicated way to collect it.
Anyways, timebox responses, and have infinitely more to say.
For all the crap that Hack Reactor gets for leaving CIRR, their standard is written a lot more like like a legitimate legal document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OJqKJSd4tBcG5j7sWQjVr5gGceSVAtmQ/view