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: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday March 20 2018, @02:54AM (2 children)
Sounds pretty unrelated to me. I'm assuming from context that "didn't get a first" is something akin to "didn't graduate with honors" or similar - which frankly is the *expected* outcome. If many/most people graduated with honors, they would have basically no value. Unless the university gave him good reason to believe he would get such things going in, it's a baseless complaint - oh boo hoo, I wasn't given the honors that my record clearly shows I didn't earn. News flash - paying tuition doesn't magically get you a premium degree - if it did, the degree wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.
The basis of this case seems completely different - Wong claims the university fraudulently misrepresented the value of a degree from their university, which is a legitimate complaint. Frankly, I'd like to see a LOT of universities dragged through the coals over that - seems like just about all of them paint a MUCH rosier picture of the financial value of their degree than a sound statistical analysis of alumni outcomes would justify, and I can't think of any reason why false advertising should be tolerated any more for universities than it is for any other product.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday March 20 2018, @08:14AM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:27PM
That would be the question though, wouldn't it? She's not accusing them of not giving her a good enough degree, she's accusing them of overselling the value of the degree in the first place. IF they are indeed overselling the financial value of a degree from their institution, or especially the value of a buggy-whip manufacturing degree, then she has a good case. Of course, her specific results don't really matter to that accusation - you'd have to do a statistical analysis and see if graduates from the university are in fact, in general, performing as well as the university portrays.
The difference is that (as I recall) he accused his university of not giving him the gold-plated special bonus degree that he didn't earn, and thus hurting specifically his prospects. And it's a pretty fair bet that that those honors ARE in fact worth something - I'd be willing to bet that a statistical analysis would show as much. But they are valuable specifically BECAUSE they have to be earned through exceptional performance, and aren't given out just because you managed to eventually pass all the required classes.