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, Insightful) by canopic jug on Monday March 19 2018, @06:35PM (7 children)
I believe it has merit.
I strongly disagree. There is no merit. That is because there's no possible way she could have missed all the signs that she was enrolled in a business "degree". It was probably right there on her application from day 0. Even if she missed the paperwork warning her of her chosen major, she would have definitely had few years to notice the mickeymouse, content-free nature of the courses themselves.
If one wants to get all philosophical she has finally learned (or should have learned) several important business lessons that otherwise escape most people and probably most of her classmates: caveat emptor, a fool and her money are soon parted, it's hard to cheat an honest person, and there's one born every minute.
What I'd like to see is an after action report from the dot-com era and crash. I bet there is more than enough data to show an inverse relationship between business "degrees" and value to a profitable business. Sort of like how aeron chairs were similarly a stupidity barometer [archive.org] then, too.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday March 19 2018, @07:48PM
Especially in the UK, where you are offered a place to study for a specific degree. Not a place at the university, but a place in a specific department, for a specific course of study (there will be options on courses of course, but all courses will be aimed at a that specific degree).
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @09:42PM
> That is because there's no possible way she could have missed all the signs that she was enrolled in a business "degree".
Well, there is at least one other possibility. The student could have worked hard (by her lights) and gotten all A's. I can believe that someone from the right sort of sheltered environment could be fooled into thinking that this was a good education.
And then been really pissed when discovering that the U was a sham to begin with, and that this particular degree/diploma wasn't worth the paper it came on.
Plenty of room for fault with both parties to this case.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday March 19 2018, @11:28PM (2 children)
I don't believe in letting advertisers off with a defense of they should have known we were lying. If she had any mis-understandings, it was exactly what the school intended for her to mis-understand. She took them at their word and they didn't deliver. Why should they profit from that?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday March 20 2018, @05:26AM (1 child)
I don't believe in letting advertisers off with a defense of they should have known we were lying. If she had any mis-understandings, it was exactly what the school intended for her to mis-understand. She took them at their word and they didn't deliver. Why should they profit from that?
I agree but that is a separate matter. The university should definitely not profit from that misbehavior and the other accreditited institutions nearby should band together to re-assess its accreditation, in an ideal world. Universities are supposed to adhere as closely as possible to empirical facts and stay away from trends except for the purpose of analysis and evaluation. However, I'll admit that view has become wishful thinking, if it were ever true for many departments at many institutions. Critical thought and analysis is skipped in many institutions, efforts fought against bringing it in/back, and in a growing number it is hunted down and rubbed out. That applies to most parts of the world. Though in the EU, some of the major causes are known: Bologna Process [europa.eu].
Both she and the institution that ripped her off are in the wrong.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 24 2018, @07:59PM
Nevertheless, she was ripped-off and so should be compensated. I don't see how that is a separate issue. The measures you wrote about would prevent future rip-offs, but don't address the current ones.
It's up to the courts to determine what fraction of the value claimed was actually given to the student in exchange for the tuition. That fraction was probably neither 0 or 100%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @12:13AM (1 child)
Sometimes, you sound like English isn't your first language.
(Eastern European? Russian?)
"Had few years" would likely be interpreted as "had only a few years".
ISTM you were going for "had a few years", where "few" could be interpreted as "several".
The 2 constructions are polar opposites and your syntax leaves it in some doubt.
For a cinematic example, I'm reminded of Robin Williams' character in "Moscow on the Hudson" where he refers to Duke Ellington's (more likely, Billy Strayhorn's) "Take the A Train" as "Take a Train".
...then again, it could simply be that your brain works faster than your fingers.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by canopic jug on Tuesday March 20 2018, @05:32AM
The 2 constructions are polar opposites and your syntax leaves it in some doubt.
In that instance I'll blame both poor proofreading and these new-style low-quality keyboards that click but don't trigger. It's definitely hardware related, not just wetware, and quite common these days. I'm seeing that kind of miss a lot on some lists and forums.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.