An Insider’s View of Placements, Sales, and the Business of Hope in EdTech

Krish Khatri

The Gap Between Promise and Reality

Following the pandemic, India’s education technology sector emerged with ambitious claims of transforming how students learn. Companies positioned themselves as bridges to global opportunities, offering courses in high-demand fields such as data science and artificial intelligence. Each program carried two fundamental promises: practical skills development and guaranteed job placement.

However, beneath these attractive offerings, a different picture has begun to surface—one characterized by unfulfilled expectations, high-pressure enrollment tactics, and practices that prioritize revenue over genuine student welfare.

This case study examines the operations of the Boston Institute of Analytics (BIA) through direct observation during my five-month tenure as a Business Development Executive in their sales and student acquisition division. What initially appeared to be an opportunity to help students advance their careers revealed itself as a system built on questionable practices and misaligned incentives.

The findings presented here are based on firsthand experience within the organization’s sales operations. They offer insight into how certain education technology companies operate behind their public-facing promises, and why prospective students and their families should approach these offerings with careful scrutiny.

The Mechanics of Enrollment

My role as a Business Development Executive centered on three core activities: identifying potential students, building relationships through sustained communication, and ultimately securing enrollments in analytics and artificial intelligence programs. The operational approach involved managing multiple phone lines to maintain high call volumes throughout the day. While this was presented internally as a method to provide personalized attention to prospective students, the underlying purpose was to maximize the number of enrollment conversations we could conduct.

The sales process relied heavily on understanding and leveraging student anxieties. Our conversations were structured around specific psychological triggers: the fear of falling behind peers in a competitive job market, the pressure to justify expensive undergraduate degrees with meaningful employment, and the anxiety about lacking relevant technical skills in an increasingly automated economy. These were not accidental talking points but deliberate elements of our training and script development.

The courses we promoted ranged from ₹ 75,000 to ₹ 2 lakh rupees, representing substantial investments for most families. During enrollment calls, we positioned these programs as direct pathways to employment rather than educational opportunities that required continued effort and favorable market conditions. The implication, though rarely stated explicitly, was that payment guaranteed placement.

We emphasized terms like “industry-relevant curriculum” and “placement assistance” without clarifying the significant gap between assistance and actual job guarantees. Students were encouraged to view these courses as solutions to complex career challenges that, in reality, required far more than a single certification program to address.

The promise being sold extended beyond education into the realm of economic security and professional identity. For many students and their families, the decision to enroll represented not just a financial commitment but an emotional investment in a specific vision of the future—a vision that the sales process actively cultivated without adequate disclosure of risks or limitations.

The Placement Promise: A Closer Examination

Placement assurance has become the cornerstone of education technology marketing in India. At BIA, this promise formed the central pillar of our enrollment conversations. However, my time at the Thane campus revealed a substantial disconnect between what was promised during sales calls and what students experienced after course completion.

During routine campus visits, I encountered numerous graduates who had finished their coursework but found themselves without clear direction or support. A recurring technical issue involved the institution’s mobile application, which featured a resume upload function that frequently malfunctioned. Students reported that the system would either enter endless loading loops or crash entirely when they attempted to submit their documents. Whether this represented genuine technical incompetence or intentional obstruction remains unclear, but the effect was the same: graduates could not access the placement support they had been promised.

The resume preparation process revealed additional systemic failures. Students received standardized templates but were provided minimal instruction on how to adapt these documents to their individual backgrounds or target roles. Many lacked a fundamental understanding of how to present their newly acquired skills in professional contexts. The institution appeared to fulfill its obligation by providing a template while avoiding the more labor-intensive work of actual career counseling.

One conversation with a recent graduate remains particularly striking. He acknowledged understanding that he had been misled but expressed an inability to communicate this to his family. His father had invested a significant amount of money based on explicit promises made during the enrollment process. The student now carried the dual burden of unemployment and the knowledge that revealing the truth would damage his family’s trust in his judgment. This transfer of responsibility from the institution that made false promises to the student who believed them represents a particularly troubling aspect of these business practices.

The fundamental misunderstanding centered on what “placement assistance” actually meant. Most students interpreted this term as a guarantee of employment following course completion. They believed, based on our sales presentations, that finishing the curriculum would automatically trigger a job placement process. The reality was far different. Placement assistance typically meant access to job boards, occasional company presentations, and perhaps resume review services—a far cry from the guaranteed employment outcomes suggested during enrollment conversations.

These were not contractual commitments but marketing language carefully constructed to create specific expectations without assuming legal liability. Students and their families, unfamiliar with such distinctions, took these statements at face value and made financial decisions accordingly.

A Real-time Case Instance

One incident during my time at BIA’s Thane campus crystallized the ethical failures inherent in our sales model.

A student arrived with his parents, a middle-class family from a smaller town who communicated primarily in their regional language. They had come to enroll in our Data Science and AI program, which cost ₹1,75,000 and required strong English proficiency and laptop access for practical work. Within minutes of the conversation, it became clear that the family met neither requirement.

Despite this obvious mismatch, I received explicit instructions from management: create urgency by claiming this was the last available seat in the batch, requiring immediate registration. The initial payment required was ₹20,000.

When I gently inquired about their financial readiness, the father revealed they had less than ₹5,000 in savings. What followed remains difficult to recall without discomfort. The parents emptied their wallets on my desk—₹1,500 in worn currency notes—and promised to arrange the remaining ₹18,500 within two to three days by borrowing from relatives.

Throughout this interaction, we had positioned the program using our standard script: a guaranteed pathway to a seven lakh per annum placement upon completion. For a family struggling to gather ₹20,000, this figure represented transformation. What we did not mention was the reality behind such promises.

India currently has over 4,450 education technology startups, most offering similar “job-assured” certifications. The market has become saturated with credentialed candidates, while actual employment opportunities have not expanded proportionally. Current data indicate that only 43 to 55 percent of Indian graduates possess skills employers consider adequate. Youth unemployment for those aged 15-24 stands at approximately 16 percent, with 40 percent of under-25 graduates remaining jobless despite holding various certifications.

I later learned their education loan application had been rejected due to insufficient credit history—a common barrier for families with limited formal banking relationships. The family had been willing to borrow from relatives to pay for a program they fundamentally could not benefit from, based on assurances they had no means to verify.

That transaction left me with profound unease. A colleague who had conducted similar enrollment sessions eventually resigned, stating he could no longer justify the moral compromise the role required. This was not an isolated incident but rather a representative example of how the business model functioned: identifying vulnerable families, creating urgency through artificial scarcity, and securing payments before buyers could fully assess what they were purchasing.

The Internal Sales Structure

The organizational culture at BIA functioned as a high-pressure sales environment where traditional boundaries between departments dissolved in service of a single objective: enrollment numbers. Regardless of official job titles or departments, all employees participated in cold-calling activities. This included not only business development executives but also those in administrative and managerial positions up to the director level.

The performance measurement system operated through a daily credit allocation model. Each employee received fifteen credits per day, with each credit representing a required outcome-oriented call. Failure to meet these targets resulted in direct salary deductions, creating a financial penalty system that ensured compliance through economic pressure rather than professional motivation.

New employees faced particularly harsh conditions. Those hired into sales roles were expected to generate measurable conversions within their first ten days of employment. Individuals who failed to meet this threshold received formal warnings, and termination typically followed by the fifteenth day. This rapid turnover model became standard practice rather than an exception reserved for poor performers. The institution maintained a continuous hiring pipeline specifically to replace employees who were systematically filtered out through this process.

The work environment offered no meaningful training period, mentorship structure, or gradual skill development pathway. The evaluation criteria focused exclusively on immediate results. Employees quickly understood the implicit terms of their employment: deliver enrollments consistently or face removal. This created an atmosphere where the quality of student interactions, ethical considerations in sales conversations, and long-term relationship building held no institutional value compared to short-term conversion metrics.

This internal pressure directly shaped how employees interacted with prospective students. When personal financial security depends on enrollment numbers, the incentive structure inevitably pushes toward aggressive tactics and overstated promises. Employees facing salary deductions or termination have limited capacity to prioritize student welfare over immediate conversions.

The workplace dynamic revealed a troubling parallel: just as students were manipulated through emotional appeals and exaggerated promises, employees operated within a system designed to extract maximum productivity through insecurity and fear of job loss. Both groups found themselves trapped in exploitative relationships with an institution that prioritized revenue generation above all other considerations.

The Silence of Dissatisfied Students

A striking pattern emerged during my tenure at BIA: despite widespread dissatisfaction with course outcomes and placement support, formal complaints remained remarkably rare. Most students who failed to secure employment or struggled with course material internalized these failures as personal shortcomings rather than institutional failures. This self-blame served as a powerful mechanism for protecting the company’s reputation while leaving students isolated in their disappointment.

The psychological dimension of this silence cannot be understated. Students had made significant financial commitments based on explicit promises about career outcomes. Admitting that these investments had failed to produce results meant confronting not only financial loss but also questions about their own judgment and capabilities. Many found it easier to assume they had not worked hard enough or lacked sufficient talent rather than acknowledge they had been systematically misled.

This dynamic was reinforced by the institution’s approach to quality control. During one documented incident, a professor teaching Chartered Financial Analyst content was unable to answer a student’s technical question during class. Rather than acknowledging the limitation or promising to research the answer, the instructor openly consulted ChatGPT in real time to generate a response. A student who witnessed this incident posted details on Reddit, describing the experience and questioning the quality of instruction they were receiving for substantial fees.

The post disappeared within days, buried under what appeared to be coordinated spam reporting. Given the company’s sizeable sales team and demonstrated concern with public perception, organized reputation management seemed the most plausible explanation. This incident illustrated how institutions with sufficient resources and motivated staff can actively suppress negative feedback on public platforms, creating an artificially positive digital presence that misleads prospective students researching the institution.

The students most vulnerable to these practices often came from smaller cities or middle-class families with limited exposure to corporate hiring processes. For many, the EdTech course represented their family’s first significant investment in professional education outside traditional degree programs. They approached these decisions with trust and high expectations, lacking the contextual knowledge to evaluate marketing claims critically or recognize the difference between placement assistance and employment guarantees.

These families understood that technical skills had become essential for career advancement, but they had limited frameworks for assessing whether a particular program could deliver on its promises. The information asymmetry was profound: sales teams possessed detailed knowledge of actual placement rates and student outcomes, while prospective students relied entirely on marketing materials and sales presentations that strategically omitted unfavorable data.

This silence, born of guilt and lack of awareness, allowed problematic practices to continue without external accountability. Each disappointed student who remained quiet became an inadvertent participant in misleading the next cohort of enrollees.

Frauds and Unethical Activities Affecting Students in Edtech

Students often face placement scams, fake guarantees, loan frauds, subpar content, and non-refunds. Dropout rates hit 20-30%, with many left in debt, see reference list. 

The Decision to Leave

After five months of observing the systematic disconnect between institutional promises and actual student outcomes, I reached a point where continued participation became untenable. The gap between what we communicated during enrollment calls and what students experienced after payment had grown impossible to reconcile with basic professional integrity.

I had accepted the position, believing I would contribute to bridging a genuine need in the Indian job market—helping students acquire relevant technical skills and connect with employment opportunities. The reality proved fundamentally different. Rather than facilitating meaningful education, I found myself operating within a system designed to convert student anxiety into revenue while delivering minimal substantive value in return.

The decision to resign represented more than a career transition. It reflected a recognition that remaining within the organization meant continued participation in practices I had come to view as ethically indefensible. The experience fundamentally altered my understanding of how certain segments of the education technology sector operate and the human cost of business models built on manufactured hope rather than genuine educational value.

Understanding What Went Wrong

My experience at BIA illuminated several troubling realities about how segments of India’s education technology industry function. The most fundamental insight is that emotional manipulation consistently outperforms honest communication in driving enrollment decisions. Students and families respond more readily to fear-based messaging about competitive disadvantage and promises of guaranteed transformation than to accurate descriptions of what courses can realistically deliver.

The business model depends critically on information asymmetry. Families investing significant portions of their savings in these programs typically lack the industry knowledge necessary to evaluate marketing claims critically. They cannot distinguish between legitimate placement assistance and empty assurances. They do not understand that completion of a certification program, regardless of quality, provides no guarantee of employment in competitive technical fields. This knowledge gap creates the conditions under which aggressive sales tactics succeed.

Perhaps most concerning is the recognition that fear-driven business models contain inherent instability. An industry that grows by exploiting student desperation rather than delivering measurable educational value will inevitably face a reckoning as negative outcomes accumulate and public awareness grows. Short-term enrollment growth built on exaggerated promises cannot substitute for the sustained reputation that comes from genuine student success.

However, the experience also reinforced my belief in education’s transformative potential when delivered with integrity. Technology genuinely can expand access to high-quality instruction and create pathways for skill development that traditional institutions struggle to provide. The problem lies not in the technological tools themselves but in the business incentives and ethical standards of the organizations deploying them.

Specific to BIA

BIA has been accused of placement scams, non-refundable fees, fake guarantees, and franchise fraud. Mixed reviews: 4.2/5 on AmbitionBox, but Reddit/Quora flag “scams.” 

• reddit.comNewspaper Article: “40 students duped by Surat institution on promises of tech courses” (Desh Gujarat, Jul 18, 2025) – BIA franchise scam; ₹52L loss. 
• Link: https://deshgujarat.com/2025/07/18/40-students-duped-by-surat-institution-on-promises-of-tech-courses/ 
• deshgujarat.comBlog Post: “BIA Global Edu Letterhead” (Scribd, Apr 23, 2025) – Response to ₹56L fraud complaint. 
• Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/844268533/BIA-Global-Edu-Letterhead-3 
• scribd.comReddit Post: “Data Science and AI course from Boston Institute of Analytics” (r/Indian_Academia, Feb 11, 2024) – Placement doubts. 
• Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Indian_Academia/comments/1ao1p5e/data_science_and_ai_course_from_boston_institute/ 
• reddit.comLinkedIn Post: “The BIA institute is completely fraudulent” (Vijay Gupta, Jan 14, 2025) – Threats to students. 
• Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vjgupta97_transparency-studentrights-education-activity-7285159349956583427-SuA3 
• linkedin.comQuora Post: “What is the quality of education like at BIA” (Quora, Apr 1, 2025) – Mixed, some call scam. 
• Link: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-quality-of-education-like-at-BIA-Boston-Institute-of-Analytics 
• quora.comTrustpilot Reviews: “Boston Institute of Analytics Reviews” (Trustpilot, ongoing) – Complaints of scams. 
• Link: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/bostoninstituteofanalytics.org

Recommendations for Meaningful Reform

If India’s education technology sector is to rebuild credibility and deliver on its original promise, several fundamental changes must occur. These are not minor adjustments but structural reforms that would require many current operators to fundamentally rethink their business models.

First, institutions must provide complete transparency regarding student outcomes. This means publishing detailed placement statistics that include the percentage of graduates who secure employment within defined timeframes, the types of roles obtained, average starting compensation, and the correlation between course completion and job placement. These figures should be verified by independent third parties and made easily accessible to prospective students before enrollment decisions occur.

Second, the industry must abandon the practice of treating sales performance as equivalent to educational effectiveness. Employee evaluation systems based primarily on enrollment numbers create incentives that directly conflict with student welfare. Success metrics should instead emphasize long-term student outcomes, including employment rates, career advancement, and satisfaction measured months or years after course completion.

Third, organizations must develop sustainable and ethical employment practices for their own staff. The high-pressure, high-turnover model currently prevalent in the sector produces burned-out employees who lack both the time and incentive to prioritize genuine student support. Building a workforce of experienced professionals who understand their field and can provide meaningful guidance requires investment in training, reasonable performance expectations, and job security that extends beyond the next sales cycle.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the industry must commit to honest communication about what these programs can and cannot accomplish. A certification course, regardless of quality, does not guarantee employment. It provides skills and credentials that may improve a candidate’s competitiveness in the job market, but employment outcomes depend on numerous factors including prior experience, overall qualifications, market conditions, and individual effort. Students and families deserve clear information about these realities before making significant financial commitments.

These changes would likely reduce short-term enrollment numbers and revenue for many current operators. However, they represent the only sustainable path toward building an education technology sector that commands public trust and delivers genuine value to students and the broader economy.

Conclusion

India’s education technology sector emerged with legitimate promise. It identified real gaps in the traditional education system and proposed innovative solutions for expanding access to relevant skills training. For a brief period, it appeared that technology might genuinely democratize high-quality education and create new pathways to economic opportunity for students historically underserved by conventional institutions.

However, in too many cases, this vision has been corrupted by business models that prioritize rapid growth and investor returns over educational outcomes. What began as a mission to empower students has, in significant segments of the industry, devolved into sophisticated machinery for converting family savings into corporate revenue through carefully crafted emotional manipulation and misleading promises.

Having witnessed these dynamics from within one such organization, I believe the sector faces a fundamental choice. It can continue on its current trajectory, extracting short-term profits from student vulnerability until reputation damage and regulatory intervention force contraction. Alternatively, it can undertake the difficult work of reforming business practices to align profit motives with genuine educational value.

The ultimate measure of education technology’s success will not be found in enrollment figures, funding rounds, or marketing reach. It will be determined by a simpler metric: how many students look back on their investment years later and recognize that it meaningfully improved their career trajectory and quality of life.

An industry claiming to sell education must first demonstrate that it understands education’s fundamental purpose—not as a transaction, but as a long-term investment in human capability and potential. Until that understanding shapes business practices as thoroughly as it shapes marketing messages, the gap between promise and reality will continue to define India’s education technology sector, leaving disappointed students and damaged trust in its wake.

Reference

1. m.economictimes.com Newspaper Article: “Hacked dreams: 40 students lose 52L to fake tech courses” (Times of India, Sep 15, 2025) – Details a Surat franchise scam defrauding 40 students of ₹52 lakh with promises of cyber security and data science courses; branch shut down after payments. 
2. Link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/hacked-dreams-40-students-lose-52l-to-fake-tech-courses/articleshow/122669778.cms 
3. timesofindia.indiatimes.comNewspaper Article: “Fake cybersecurity course scam: How 40 students lost Rs 52 lakh to Mumbai-based coaching” (Financial Express, Jul 18, 2025) – Covers the same Surat fraud linked to Boston Institute of Analytics, with police FIRs. 
4. Link: https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-fake-cybersecurity-course-scam-how-40-students-lost-rs-52-lakh-to-mumbai-based-coaching-3919100/ 
5. financialexpress.comNewspaper Article: “Students accuse Bengaluru ed-tech firm of ‘fraud’ after it takes loans in their names but fails to provide jobs” (Indian Express, Aug 5, 2023) – Skill-Lync accused of loan frauds and no placements; 500+ students affected. 
6. Link: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/students-accuse-bengaluru-ed-tech-firm-fraud-loans-names-fails-provide-jobs-8873719/ 
7. indianexpress.comNewspaper Article: “Several Bengaluru students fall prey to online internship scams” (Times of India, Jun 19, 2025) – Students billed for fake internships; broader EdTech billing scams. 
8. Link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/several-bengaluru-students-fall-prey-to-online-internship-scams/articleshow/121938429.cms 
9. timesofindia.indiatimes.comNewspaper Article: “Millions of students at risk: India’s elite exams hit by corruption ‘scam’” (Al Jazeera, Jun 21, 2024) – NEET/UGC-NET paper leaks affecting millions; multimillion-dollar scams. 
10. Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/21/millions-of-students-at-risk-indias-elite-exams-hit-by-corruption-scam 
11. aljazeera.comBlog Post: “How Edtech Skill-Lync Pushed Students Into A Debt Trap With False Promises” (Inc42, Aug 18, 2023) – Details loan scams, fake salaries, and no jobs; 2,000+ students weekly. 
12. Link: https://inc42.com/features/how-edtech-skill-lync-pushed-students-into-a-debt-trap-with-false-promises/ 
13. inc42.comBlog Post: “The great Indian edtech refunds scam” (The Morning Context, Jul 18, 2021) – Refusal of refunds; social media complaints. 
14. Link: https://themorningcontext.com/internet/the-great-indian-edtech-refunds-scam 
15. themorningcontext.comBlog Post: “Is EdTech a Scam” (Ram’s Blog, May 17, 2021) – General critique of misleading promises. 
16. Link: https://blog.ramiyer.me/is-edtech-a-scam/ 
17. blog.ramiyer.meBlog Post: “Edtech startup entrepreneur arrested for defrauding students to the tune of Rs 4 crore” (Dazeinfo, Jun 4, 2023) – GeekLurn CEO arrested for fake data science promises. 
18. Link: https://dazeinfo.com/2023/06/04/edtech-startup-entrepreneur-arrested-defrauding-students-geeklurn/ 
19. dazeinfo.comReddit Post: “Basically all Ed-Tech companies are scams. Intellipaat, Simplilearn, CodingNinja all of them, I Lost 4L in total” (r/india, Apr 9, 2024) – User details losses from pre-recorded content and no placements; comments echo Byju’s/WhiteHat Jr. scams. 
20. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/1bzziiv/basically_all_edtech_companies_are_scams/ 
21. reddit.comReddit Post: “edtech is biggest scam in name of startup” (r/StartUpIndia, Aug 31, 2024) – Discussion on outdated videos and no value. 
22. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/StartUpIndia/comments/1f5f864/edtech_is_biggest_scam_in_name_of_startup/ 
23. reddit.comReddit Post: “fraud” (r/LegalAdviceIndia, Nov 2, 2023) – BIA accused of non-refunds and threats. 
24. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceIndia/comments/17m5apj/fraud/ 
25. reddit.comPodcast Episode: “Is This The Future of Education? AI Takeover, EdTech Scams, & Future of Learning w/@AmanDhattarwal ” (YouTube Podcast, Jul 4, 2025) – Discusses scams and unethical AI use. 
26. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DQwEIdrY8g 
27. youtube.comX Post: “upGrad_edu = Biggest FRAUD of Indian EdTech” (The wall Studio, Sep 2, 2025) – Accuses misleading promises. 
28. Link: https://x.com/studio_wal73961/status/1962758811304989175 
29. @studio_wal73961X Post: “EdTech Scam – Hold UpGrad Accountable for Misleading Students” (NaseerH, Sep 6, 2025) – Petition link. 
30. Link: https://x.com/_naseer13/status/1964234384006905887 @_naseer13

~~~

Krish Khatri is a business development professional and MBA postgraduate whose interests span global trade, SaaS innovation, digital marketplaces, and growth strategy.