If Carson truly is motivated by by the proliferation of knowledge to the underprivileged, then more power to him. But I still think there are better ways of contributing to such a global effort. I mean, there are better ways than attempting to monetize atop crumbling home lives and shameful education voids. For example: http://www.codeclub.org.uk/ (what a cool initiative!)

In an industry so blessed with the huge amount of free knowledge available online, open to both public scrutiny and moderation, like Coursera & Khan Academy, you'd think that there'd be no possible niche for Treehouse to serve. But there is. There is a niche of people who simply don't know better. They don't know of the freely available content nor the millions of hours freely spent by programmers worldwide contributing constantly.

Instead of creating a private monetizable bubble of ignorance around the underprivileged, how about letting them learn through the already existing freely available content?

So congrats and all, but I just, on a personal level, want more for the future of education.

Can you replace a 4-year CS program with a 6 month course? No offense, but I doubt so. I figure the best you can do is have students to know their way around Ruby, know how to build simple apps relying on Rails, some basics about algorithms, familiarity with git, etc. That might be enough for some jobs, but I doubt that’s the kind of engineer companies like Facebook are looking to hire.

Again, I’m not saying that teaching these kids how to program is bad. It’s great. But please think about the expectations that you’re setting.

(I would’ve written more to express myself better, but I don’t have time!)

Indeed. What is he talking about?

Teaching coding to high school kids in under-performing schools is great, and may help some of them find an excellent career path they might never have thought about. But I think Carson is raising false hopes in many of the kids by exaggerating the potential impact of the program in their lives.

He seems to have totally forgotten the reality of supply and demand. It may be true that right now entry-level developers can command $40,000 a year. However, whenever it becomes well known that workers in a certain field can command high salaries, it motivates many more people to enter that field in anticipation of earning those salaries themselves. This tends to cause a glut in workers, and salaries fall as the competition for jobs increases.

One sign that this is already happening is the rapid increase in enrollments to computer science undergraduate programs over the last several years.[1] Adding thousands more to the pool of available workers will only bring salaries down farther.

The more high schools this program is successful in, the more this effect will come into play, especially if the program gets "rolled out to every high school in America" as mentioned in the article.

Also, companies naturally seek to minimize costs by looking for cheaper sources of labor through outsourcing to other countries or by bringing workers from other countries here on H-1B visas. This is already happening.[2] As time goes on, these efforts will likely be increasingly successful, and will impact entry level jobs the most.

I think it would be much fairer to the students to tell them this is one skill they might be able to base a successful career on, if they have an aptitude for it and are willing to put in the effort to get really good at it. Otherwise, he's placing unrealistic expectations that might eventually hurt the students if they don't become reality.

[1] http://cra.org/govaffairs/blog/2012/04/undergrad-computer-sc...

[2] http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/30/visa-program-h...

Yes, there are entry-level developer positions that pay $40,000, and more. However I think you'll find it difficult to locate many that require just six months of participation in a high school vocational training program. And you'll find even fewer in the economically depressed regions where this program may be most appealing.

Thanks to the current tech boom there is higher demand for more senior development positions, but those positions require a lot more experience and skill. Hard-to-find intangibles, not programming ability, often make these harder to fill.

It's funny that Ryan mentioned Facebook. As big a name as it is, the company only employs a few thousand people and from what I have seen, most of the developers there, even in the entry-level positions, have college degrees. At many of the big tech companies where you will be most likely to find six-figure salaries post-boom, college degrees, including those from particular institutions, are favored if not required.

So the question remains: just what evidence backs up your assumption that there are significant numbers of entry-level technology jobs paying above national averages for high school graduates with less than a year of vocational training? That seems to be a big part of your pitch, both to schools and to students.

The issue was that they bundled people together into the same computer class. We used to have people who didn't even know how to turn on a computer, much less make a Pascal game.

Good luck!

I am in no way saying that what Treehouse is trying to do is a bad thing, nor that we shouldn't be providing much better resources for learners, though I don't think such education should be paywalled for monetization. I'm very much pro-Khan Academy, Coursera, StackOverflow, etc. I've spent SO much of my free time in IRC channels teaching people and helping people with their problems and I've never asked for a penny in return, so I have a lot of resentment towards any company that wants to charge for access to basic education (https://teamtreehouse.com/subscribe/plans). I'm very much for proliferation of high quality teaching materials for learners of all ages and all levels, and so I am conflicted somewhat by this story, and I fully expect to get downvoted to hell for this, but I think it's worth considering motives here. Even the best of actions that are used to veil inconsistent or conflicting motives are questionable, and this seems like wolf in sheep's clothing.

>The school I’m most excited about is in San Jose. All the kids are from at-risk homes — they have single parents who are working full time; they’re from minority groups. … Out of 12 [students], we think four or five are going to be job-ready right away. These kids have never coded before, and I’ve talked to them in person, and I’m 99 percent confident we will be able to place them in jobs.

<snip>

>That pilot program, Carson said, went well, and he’s looking forward to the next phase: rolling out Treehouse to many other schools around the country. The program takes six months, and the total cost is just $9 per month, per student.

We jumped straight into a pivot or business expansion into virtual instruction (much the realm of things like KA/Coursera) announcement and talking about how this will help certain kids find jobs. That's great, and I hope it works out, but I'm confused. Are we trying to sell the goal instead of figuring out the logistics? I got the headline, and the summary, so why was discussion about logistics so far separated from the initial announcement of the program? How is this going to be structured? Who pays for this? We're talking about low-income families and at-risk children, so are we expecting them to opt-in to a $54 course? Is it the schools, so it's tax funded? Will it include every student at the school, or just some? If the latter, how is that selection made? If the former, what about people who don't want to pay for it?

Further: as a professional in this space I'd love to review the content and provide feedback, too. Why can't we involve the community at large and reduce the costs? But the biggest question, for me, is if Coursera is doing this with the college space where education is significantly more costly, and for free, what does Treehouse offer that Coursera can't?

>“This isn’t something we’re doing to get money,” Carson said as we concluded our talk. “This will change the world. And yeah, the company will make a lot of money in the process, but that’s a trailing fact.”

But is it, really? Given the target audience, I don't know if this can be considered a "trailing fact." It seems to be so insistent and damaging that it's worth putting in the spotlight. You're going to take money from an audience that is primarily under-privileged in hopes of pulling them up to some glorious $100k/yr salary point in 6 months, or more realistically just set them on that path? How are they going to get the further education necessary to make that transition from High School? The article includes a few anecdotes, which is great, but it's not statistical modeling. What kind of % of these students will be interested and capable of continuing education in this space to reach that goal? Is the idea to pitch the chance at high-salary jobs at under-privileged kids saying "learn this and have your life made?" That feels like a really crappy motivation, to be honest. Making $100k at a big company is definitely achievable for anyone with an aptitude, but there's a lot of work from having never heard about programming to being there.

I'm far from sold on this. I hope this is still very early in the planning stages so it can be evolved into something more workable.

  > Full disclosure: I very much dislike Jolie O'Dell 
  > (epitomized by this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ek4xXPOtlY), 

  > as well as the CEO of Treehouse, Carson (instigated by this:    
  > http://ryancarson.com/post/35939367603/you-can-do-it-alone).

I'm also having a hard time following your argument that for-profit online education companies are bad because Coursera does it all for free. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it almost reads as if you're feeling left out because Treehouse didn't consult with you.

In other forums, she is so often in a mood, rolling her eyes and making snarky asides about how we all know how sexist most developers are or how racist some conference was, or how over-the-hill some 50-something CEO is for not realizing that "young people today all [think Jolie's way]", followed shortly thereafter by "speaking out" against stereotyping. Her stereotyping of male developers or older CEOs or "corporations" apparently doesn't count as stereotyping, because stereotyping is bad, and it's not bad to criticize designated perpetrator groups. Anything that she can find a way to interpret as non-praise of a member of a designated victim group or the group as a whole seems to demand that Jolie "speak out," roll her eyes and sigh, and "not put up with it."

And yet in this video, she's not castigating the tech industry for political infractions but just trying to learn some tech herself. She's a lot more likeable in this role.

And unless she's different off camera than on, then the fact that you met her "in person" twice wouldn't make any difference. I've seen her express her opinions on camera more than twice, which is enough to make up my own mind.

I'm interested in useful technological insights, not in her hunt for political offenders, so she's not a pundit I look forward to hearing from.

I don't like being lied to, especially not by journalists.

Sounds to me like these feelings are motivated by jealousy or envy or one of those other terrible emotions.

Meanwhile, the alternative proposal still seems to be "we need people to do these things out of the goodness of their heart AND to simultaneously be ready to sacrifice living a comfortable life in the process. That's reserved for frivolous ventures. Make a choice: get rich or help people." Good luck with that. No wonder education is in the state its in.

Additionally, so what if there are already free offerings? There's room for both. I agree people should look into all the options before choosing one, that's just common sense. Perhaps the free one is better, perhaps not? This is a purely voluntary thing here, so I see no harm in a paid-for alternative. You'll for example see many people on Hacker News telling startups "please charge for your product so I know it won't go away in the future." It's possible that the same applies here. By pricing this product the motivation I see is a clear incentive to continue improving the product full-time, as opposed to when you can find people to help out.

"Fast-tracked to $100K"? How is it that his programming class is going to get them into this special express lane to big bucks a couple of years out of high school? Is this some affirmative action program certain employers have agreed to? Or is this supposed to be a description of our industry in general? What percent of new high school grads who took a programming class does the industry consider "good" and fast track to $100K in a couple of years? If the answer is that, well, it DOES happen, well so does becoming a millionaire before you even leave high school. It happens. But the question is, is it likely enough to be sold as a significant benefit of the program?

I'm happy to see good vocational training in high school. I'd just be much happier to see it sold for what it should be: a way to give kids enough of a start on a useful skill that they can see with their own eyes that they really could, if they continued, become valuable enough to others that they could earn a good living with their own skills. They should then also be taught HOW to continue on to a professional level (including ancillary skills such as writing and math) after the program ends so that the claims can be about helping most of those who continue succeed in a realistic way rather than being an infomercial about a few outliers on a fast track.

Also, you seem to be saying that after some high school courses you're going to be dropped into a job immediately. I don't think so. One, it's a huge hurdle to bypass college. You're going to have to spend a lot of time refining your skills and then more time building some portfolio if you don't go to college.

Also, it's not normal to get 60% raises your first and second year in the workforce. You have to be exceptional and changing jobs. More likely the student will be earning $42.5K the third year if they stay at the same job. Even transitioning jobs, it's going to be hard (outside of the valley microcosm) for any hiring manager to give you a 60% pay raise for an entry-level position.

I think a better sales pitch and more realistic one is that after your courses and with several hard years of refining your programming skills, you can expect to make the median US household income your first year ($50K). And that with changing jobs, you can expect to be in the top 35% of income in a few years ($70K). (edited: percentiles and clarified I mean household... and doing some pot odds of failures rates of 66% never grasping advanced programming, their expectation is $16K/yr, or, right where they were headed anyway)

Nope. Our app team is distributed across the USA and we've been paying $80k from the start and several of those folks have earned raises that have brought them up to $100k+ in under two years. Every tech startup I've spoken to has similar patterns.

> Also, it's not normal to get 60% raises your first and second year in the workforce.

The tech industry is not a 'normal' sector.

> More likely the student will be earning $42.5K the third year if they stay at the same job.

Nope. I've interviewed many non-valley based startups and they've verified they will pay $40k for an entry-level, young developer.

But that's the big "if." It just doesn't seem realistic that any but a tiny minority of students would be qualified for even an entry-level position at that salary right after graduating from such a short vocational program.

There's nothing wrong with saying that this training program can well prepare them for an eventual career in tech, but selling it as, "You'll be able to make $40k/year as soon as you graduate." seems quite disingenuous unless you honestly believe it to be true. If so, I hope you're right. I am very doubtful.

Selling educational materials to schools in the form of textbooks has been going on for a long time. If you replace "Treehouse" with "textbook", your rant reads like it was written by a crazy person.

There's an entirely different rant about textbook sales in schools, more to do with corruption, greed, and sweetheart deals than trying to provide quality materials for learning. I definitely believe those materials (the ones marketed at the expense of students) are entirely bad, no doubt.

If you look at Khan Academy, really the forefront in this area, you quickly realize that someone is absorbing the cost. In this case, Bill Gate's foundation and others. As a result, you have someone with the calibre of John Resig working for the organization and they are putting out job postings.

I really like Coursera. I like the open-course offerings from MIT, Harvard, etc. Someone is definitely paying for these as it is not cheap. In this case, the universities are paying (and implicitly the students).

So, I definitely agree with your sentiments but I do believe we will get high-quality when there is a profit motive. I am not saying free and high-quality cannot co-exist with educational materials but I don't believe its very common.

In addition, my hope is that there is enough traction that the subscription plans stay low for these learning companies. One of the benefits in this area is that it has become very competitive and hence costs are coming down. Just take a look at what Pluralsight was charging five years versus now (or even Tekpub). There is a definate downwards pressure on how much these companies can charge.

I tried the Treehouse lectures when I started learning how to code and found them long-winded and basic. A friend of mine also came to the same conclusion independently; he even called to warn me to avoid Treehouse if i hadn't tried it a already... I already had.

In their marketing, Treehouse makes a lot of promises their material is unable to deliver which for me is the big problem here.

Their "perceived value" comes from the fact that they package their basic content very well in a pretty wrapper but these kids would be better off with code-academy, code-school and then the django book or Hartl's Rails tutorial.

That would put them on a path to 100k/year, not Treehouse but as usual, the school officials wont do their research well so they'll just pick the shiniest option.

The only winner here is Treehouse; good for them.

Way to go in writing off a significant portion of the startup community !

Have you ever even spoken to Ryan ? I've met him a few times - he's a genuinely nice guy, passionate about running good businesses which are successful and provide real benefits to his customers.

Not quite. I don't believe it's necessary to have a co-founder to run a successful company. I agree completely with the headline. But the primary arguments for why this was done were to maintain equity and control. It came off as though he wasn't sharing equity with early employees and wanted to keep an extraordinary level of equity. It seems to me like the company is being set up for an acquisition in which 1 person and exactly 1 person benefits. Additionally, it felt like there was an innate distrust in all employees and potential business partners, and a need to assert dominance and complete control. What kind of professional relationships do you have to suffer through before the only thing you are interested in is total ownership? A company should be much more than a bunch of people being paid to do your bidding, and that's what I took away from the post.

> Have you ever even spoken to Ryan ? I've met him a few times - he's a genuinely nice guy, passionate about running good businesses which are successful and provide real benefits to his customers.

No I haven't, but I'm not sure I see it. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's not a nice guy (I have no idea), but I disagree strongly with some of his views from a leadership role, and it feels to me there are other motives than just making a great product and providing benefits to customers.

> It seems to me like the company is being set up for an acquisition in which 1 person > and exactly 1 person benefits. Additionally, it felt like there was an innate distrust > in all employees and potential business partners, and a need to assert dominance and > complete control.

Treehouse is my fourth company. I sold two and one failed. I have no interest in "setting up for an acquisition". Treehouse is the most meaningful thing I've ever done and probably will ever do. I'm fortunate to live comfortable and to be doing something that I passionately believe in. Why would I engineer the company for a sale?

Happy to battle it out with commenters on facts but your conjectures about my motivations for structuring Treehouse are silly unless you bother to ask me first.

My reasoning is based on what appear to be, to me, on the surface, primarily selfish reasons for wanting to be the sole founder. As I observed when this blog post was originally made, it seems to me that you're setting up a situation where you'd almost exclusively benefit if the company succeeds (or gets acquired). This certainly wouldn't inspire confidence in me if I were looking for a new startup, so I would assume others would feel the same way. Given that it looks like there's very little equity sharing, I'd expect a very high salary and potentially turnover given that there isn't long-term incentives, and I don't, as an outsider, see long-term plans for building something huge. I'd be wary, to say the least, but that's me.

Maybe I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, so while it may be a conjecture, it may also be true.

> I have no interest in "setting up for an acquisition".

Conjecture is fine, if you are able to change it in the light of new evidence. Otherwise you just look like an ostrich :)

-Centralized resources (Because I doubt the average child will go to IRC channels let alone know what they are)

-Consistency in service and access (Because even if a kid did use IRC / Stack Overflow, they're not guaranteed an answer)

-Tolerance and willingness to teach (Cough Stack Overflow "Closed because question isn't a proper format"; Flame posts like "Wow, you're an idiot, never use X technique")

-Quality of resources (Graphics, video, demonstrations project files vs. sifting through disjointed posts)

-Physical, Local Community (If you want to teach a kid to swim, put him in a class with kids his age. Not in an IRC full of varying ages and no faces)

From an educational standpoint this makes perfect sense. From an open-source hacker's perspective maybe not. But that's why this isn't geared towards open-source hackers. It be fo teh children dawg.

What would make sense to me is that the content is available freely, but if you need help, tutorship is a paid service, and potentially with credit that means something (affordable MOOC accreditation, pls?). That's a model I think would work great in education, not a premium on the content itself, because the focal point is "sale of content = money" not "providing excellent tutorship = money."

You already have the in-person tutorship in the form of teachers. The problem there is that they aren't paid well enough to attract people who really want to teach, and there isn't a surplus of them, either. There's an entire discussion here on education reform. I don't like to put the profitability in education in the content itself (I'm not entirely against it, though, but I'm especially against paywalled content or subscription content, which is why I still refuse to get an ACM subscription even though I could really use it, and instead use arXiv), but rather in the teaching/mentoring role. Then a business can profit but so can people who are passionate about teaching.

I personally hate that the only way to make a good living in this world right now is to go work for some company or startup in some crowded area, or to do something dangerous. In 20-25 years, I'd love to teach, but that means I'd have to finish my Ph.D., then maybe make 60-80k (where I'd like to end up) after a long career, and given I'd probably have kids and maybe grandkids soon to follow, it seems ridiculous that I'd have to accept the cost of grad school + a terrible salary, and that's in a university where ALL the money is. <jackiechan.jpg>

However, the problem is that the vast majority of these kids are turned off by anything related to school. The answer lies in consumer hardware. Computers are interesting because they're either horribly closed-off, but attractive (Macbooks) or very open but with such a steep learning curve that they would have a hard time knowing where to start (Raspberry Pi).

Something new needs to come out that is immediately accessible and attractive, but with layers of depth that can be readily exposed as the user wants to know more. Oh, and this new thing cannot be a consumption device - games and media will always win in the battle for a child's attention these days.

I've never met him, but I love that guy!

Are you guys interested in doing some Arduino classes? I think having software control physical things really works for kids who are kinetic learners.

So many wins here: 1. Win for the community 2. Win for the kids who participate 3. Win for Treehouse in the marketing department. 4. Win for society as a whole to have more critical thinkers in the world

But if you sell this company to DeVry or similar (because that's who's in trouble here, not 4 year universities), I'm going to be sorely disappointed.

High school is also probably a bit late.

If the pilot is successful, then the school districts will decide if they want to pay for Treehouse at around $9/mo per Student.