For-Profit Tech-Ed Programs Need Uniform Standards of Transparency and Accountability (And the Fox…
Jim Deters

Darrell makes a good point that these aren’t mutually exclusive. As a member of CIRR and looking at the Galvanize audit report I do notice a huge difference between their audit and the CIRR audit. Section C defines gainfully employed as including students your members hire themselves as well as start up founders.

So while we’re discussing conflicts of interest I’d love to hear an explanation regarding the potential conflict of interest that comes from publicly reporting a single placement number such as 88% for your 2015 web development program without separating those two categories out. Seems to me that employing your own students would be a huge temptation if your placement rate was slipping. It would also seem to me that if someone intends to form a company that you don’t have anything to do with their placement. I could make the same argument for someone who is sponsored by their company to attend.

I would like to point out that the CIRR standard REQUIRES schools to break out these categories of employment. Here is a sample CIRR report:

The difference in the detail level is significant. It will be important to educate the consumer on the differences between reports and what questions they should be asking to get an apples-to-apples comparison.

Regardless, the author’s points about the potential conflict of interest is relevant. I hope all organizations go broad and maintain rigorous checks and balances.