Masterschool arrived with a pitch that is genuinely appealing on first hearing, which is the idea that you should not have to gamble a large sum of money upfront to retrain for a tech career, and that instead much of your tuition should be deferred and tied to your income, so that you pay the bulk of it only once you are actually employed and earning above a threshold. I like the instinct behind that a lot, because it tries to align the school's incentives with yours in a way that a pay upfront and good luck model does not, since in theory the school only really wins if you win, and that is a healthier starting point than a lot of the industry offers. The track choices are modern and sensible too, with software engineering alongside data and AI and cybersecurity, which are exactly the areas where demand is real, and the format is structured and mentor supported with actual cohorts rather than the lonely, purely self paced grind that causes so many people to drift away from cheaper alternatives, so the experience of learning is more supported than a pile of videos. The rapid growth and international footprint mean there is genuine momentum and an active community around it, and momentum is not nothing when you are choosing where to spend months of your life.
Where I have to slow down and be careful, and where anyone considering this absolutely must slow down, is the fine print of the payment model, because deferred and income share style agreements are more complicated than the simple and attractive headline suggests, with thresholds, caps, payment windows, and definitions that all deserve to be read closely and understood fully before you sign, since the difference between a fair deal and an expensive one lives entirely in those details. Being a younger and fast growing school also cuts both ways, because while the energy is real, the long term track record is still relatively thin compared with older institutions, which means its outcomes and reputation are less proven and you are to some extent trusting a newer promise, so verifying current, specific, and independently reported outcomes for the exact track you are considering matters even more than usual. There is also the awkward structural point that a model which depends on graduates getting hired in order to collect most of its revenue is inherently exposed to the health of the job market, and the current tech hiring environment for junior and career changer candidates is difficult, which puts pressure on exactly the mechanism the model relies on, and that is worth thinking through soberly rather than assuming the incentive alignment makes the risk disappear. Finally, because the brand spans multiple tracks and partner schools, the experience and quality can vary from one to another, so a good review of one track does not automatically transfer to the one you would actually take.
My honest view is that Masterschool is doing something worth taking seriously, that the deferred model is a real and welcome attempt to lower the upfront risk of retraining, and that the data and AI focus points at the right skills, so it belongs on the shortlist for anyone weighing a structured career switch. But the right way to approach it is with genuine due diligence, reading the tuition agreement carefully and ideally with a second pair of eyes, checking verified recent outcomes for your specific track, and going in clear that a promising newer model operating in a hard job market is an opportunity worth investigating, not a guarantee to be taken on trust.