SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the probably-should-have-researched-this-better dept.
The World Socialist Web Site reports
[...] a former student of Anglia Ruskin University [...] is suing the UK institution for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.
[...] Graduate Pok Wong is claiming £60,000 compensation--her estimated cost of her university education--on the basis that her degree did not offer the "quality education and prospect of employment after graduation" claimed by the university.
This suit demonstrates the corrosive consequences of students being encouraged to view themselves as consumers entering into contracts with universities for economic advantage. The collective endeavour of learning is replaced by a purely financial and adversarial relationship between two parties, in which each is incentivised to push the other for maximum "cost efficiency".
In comments to the Sunday Telegraph, Wong explained her hopes that the case would "set a precedent so that students can get value for money, and if they don't they get compensated".
Her comments accept the principles of marketised education and attempt to leverage them for individual students' self-interest.
[...] Wong refers in her legal papers to Anglia Ruskin's claim to carry out "world-leading research". In fact, the university is ranked in the 301st-350th bracket for quality of research by Times Higher Education. A number of other institutions have promoted themselves with similar lies or distortions.
Last November, the Advertising Standards Authority watchdog ordered seven universities to change false claims about their status made in advertisements to students. The University of Strathclyde, for example, was told to change its claim, "We're ranked No. 1 in the UK" for physics. Teesside University had to stop calling itself the "Top university in England for long-term graduate prospects".
[...] in 2013, [...] replies to freedom of information requests at 70 universities found that [...] Anglia Ruskin was listed as one of a number of institutions, particularly newer ones, whose spending [on marketing themselves] skyrocketed in these years. It spent £1.76 million in 2012-13, about £1 million more than in 2010-11.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Monday March 19 2018, @06:14PM (2 children)
Indeed. Far be it for a university to provide anything useful to a student, especially for an inconsequential sum of 60k pounds and years of their life.
According to Wikipedia, the university has around 23k students in the UK (according to this almost report [anglia.ac.uk] almost 40k students with about 17k being overseas). So that's less than 100 pounds, marketing per student. Not seeing the big deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)
Why do you wish to divvy the costs per student? It's not like it's composed of xeroxing pieces of paper or some other such antiquated activity that would justify doing so.
Also strange evaluation: 60k is a lot but 1.76M is not...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:29PM
Because that is the smart thing to do. Else it's just a number with no context. That's a lot of money for a 20 student college, and small amount of money for a 20+k student college.
60k pounds per student versus less than 100 pounds per. That's almost three orders of magnitude difference.