u/jcasimir wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
I think you've got all the key factors. If you were to look back to around 2018, there were actually some similar trends. Programs might not have been ceasing operations in the same way, but it was a downturn. In the 2014-2018 area you would see reasonably successful programs ge
u/michaelnovati replied ·
This is my partner's argument - but her views on education + investors/VCs.
1. The nature of VC is that you have to have a path to 10X, 100X growth to justify venture capital as opposed to other forms of loans or funding.
2. You can only get to that scale through code. We commonly see two failure paths. First, bootcamps have used their funding to scale their HUMANs and it's destined to hit a wall. Second, programs that go all in on code are using the code as a means to an end and are not TECH COMPANIES, but 'schools using tech' and the code isn't intrinsically valuable - think programs using Canvas vs programs building their own platform.
So really VC investing in bootcamps hasn't worked. VCs need to invest in TECH COMPANIES.
Next problem. Let's say you are a tech company and raise funding to give this a shot. Tech companies need a deep bench of tech and product talent to product a good product, not hopes and dreams. What top engineer is attracted to an industry where no company has proven out scale before? It's a big risk and you have to have something else going for you to attract that talent. Mission? Seeding the team with top talent that brings their friends? Compensating people highly? Nothing easy here.