If a company has a proven and efficient trading system, elaborated through thousands of backtesting hours and years of brainstorming and team work, I am quite sure that 5K or 10K dollars to invest in each candidate would be breadcums for them. I would not trust a firm that is asking me 2K dollars to teach me something I am supposed to use to earn tens of millions per year.
Also, I think this logic might seem intuitive upfront, but when you consider that the failure rate in the industry is near 95% over a 3-5 year period, the math doesn't work out.
If an institutional firm is working a structural edge (that is, not just a strategy but a market function where they are paid a premium for their service.. ie, a market maker who's capturing spread and has lower fees, or a commodities desk at a merchant bank brokering futures to cash transactions.. etc..) then they can afford to pay out a base salary and (invest) in their traders as their success rate per person is quite high (really just a matter of competence and not screwing up..)
However, here we're talking about traders deriving their edge from strategies they come up with in the open market without a structural advantage as its base. For this, the failure rate is high, and the risk is huge for firms to hire everyone and their dog with a base salary.
So really, it's an entirely different business.
Also, you're not paying to work.. all these scouting programs are very clear on what you're buying when you sign up (it's not a job.)