Previously -> if you go bankrupt you still owe us.
Now -> if you go bankrupt you don't owe us.
On the face of it this seems like it would make Lambda school _more_ attractive than less.
Note, the clause in question is "qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code."
The ISAs are, as far as I know, capped at 30k, and only apply if you're making 50k/yr. I can't imagine a situation where someone's decision of whether or not to declare bankrupcy comes down to the 30k-max ISA; either it's the majority of your debt, and you're making >50k/yr, or it's a small amount relative to your other debt, in which case you should proceed anyways.
One of the biggest reasons student loans can't be forgiven in bankruptcy is because, after school, chances are the graduate has zero assets and can go bankrupt with the only downside being destroying their credit for 7 years. Whether or not you think this is justified or fair is up to you, but the situation before this ruling simply [de-]elevated Lambda School to the same playing field as other educational institutions - the only difference being that those institutions don't offer student loans themselves.
It’s exactly this. Lambda School customers tend to be young and financially ignorant, with very few resources. If a graduate is in a position where, say, they can’t find a software job, they could be functionally bankrupt, and their dwindling income/savings will still be going towards outstanding Lambda School payments.
From this perspective, it’s extremely shitty for LS to deceive students that they would have to make the payments, with no legal options, even if they were stressed about rent and groceries.
Technically sure. On the face it tells me something about their branding - that their offering may be more deceptive than I might realize. Especially since its a new economic model for education, the customer probably hasn't thought through everything, so trust is important here.
