“no” in the sense of paying more if you take longer to pay off the amount, but “yes” in the sense that IF you get a decently paying job, you’ll pay more. so it’s more like selling an option on your future income, then using the money to pay for your tuition. If the course helps you make a lot more money, it’s a win-win; if it makes not difference to your income, you lost time but you basically sold the option for a lot more than it was worth; the only time you really lose is if you would have increased your income significantly without the course, but instead you sold that option a lot cheaper than the true value based on your future potential, and then wasted the money on a course that made no difference to your future prospects.
I would be curious about the proportions of the three groups among the plaintiffs - if you did badly afterwards there’s no financial loss, if you did well financially afterwards, I think it’s hard to argue that the course didn’t help?
There is a $40,000 cap, therefore the gamble does not sound that bad.
I guess the contention point is companies promising a 6 figure base salary with no experience or college degree. While there is precedent for this, it's not the median income for bootcamp graduates, and if it was, it would be restricted to specific geographic locations.
I would be curious about the proportions of the three groups among the plaintiffs - if you did badly afterwards there’s no financial loss, if you did well financially afterwards, I think it’s hard to argue that the course didn’t help?