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: 1, Flamebait) by arcz on Tuesday March 20 2018, @12:44AM (1 child)
Agree 100%. Greedy academics are at it again.
Academics say university is about learning, but if it's about learning then why can't we have our money back? It's all about learning for students and teaching for professors right? ;)
Actually no, professors and academics are greedy pieces of shit most of the time. Truth is, if the university fails to deliver, it should be held legally and financially. I would love to be able to get a refund for the bad classes I've taken. Nothing against the good professors, but 80% aren't worth thier salt.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday March 20 2018, @02:17PM
Unless you go to an NCAA heavily slanted school; in which case the time spent is about playing sports and the university is 'about' making a buck off the back of an academic athlete.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge