Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-couldn't-make-this-stuff-up dept.

An Oxford graduate's failure to get a top degree cost him a lucrative legal career, the High Court has heard.

Faiz Siddiqui alleges "inadequate" teaching on his modern history course resulted in him getting a low upper second degree in June 2000. He blames staff being absent on sabbatical leave and is suing the university for £1m. Oxford denies negligence and causation and says the case is "massively" outside the legal time limit.He said: "Whilst a 2:1 degree from Oxford might rightly seem like a tremendous achievement to most, it fell significantly short of Mr Siddiqui's expectations and was, to him, a huge disappointment."

Mr Mallalieu said his employment history in legal and tax roles was "frankly poor" and he was now unemployed, rather than having a career at the tax bar in England or a major US law firm. Mr Siddiqui also said his clinical depression and insomnia have been significantly exacerbated by his "inexplicable failure". Julian Milford, for Oxford University, told the court Mr Siddiqui complained about insufficient resources, but had only described the teaching as "a little bit dull".

Perhaps he might find employment with "This is Windows calling..."


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:29PM

    by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:29PM (#600278)

    A loser trying to earn loser money. He'll probably fail at that, too.

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by zocalo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:29PM

    by zocalo (302) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:29PM (#600279)
    After this washes out I think something like that's going to be about his best remaining option, or maybe ambulance chasing if he's still determined to pursue a legal career. A degree really only helps you get a foot in the door, and a 2.1 from *anywhere* reasonable reputable is enough still (just about) enough to achieve that, let alone Oxford. Assuming you achieve that, then the rest of your career success is entirely down to you on how well you do in the interview, then how much effort you put into it, and what you achieve in the process. My last few interviews with employers haven't even discussed my education - it's been entirely about the stuff I've done in past roles and the professional qualifications obtained in the process. Maybe the tuition just didn't live up to expectations, maybe it really wasn't up to scratch, but that's clearly not the sole culprit here.

    Failing to take responsibility for your own failings, demonstrated propensity to sue, clear failure to grasp some basic concepts of his chosen profession (the UK statue of limitations is a most twelve years, and usually six or less unless he's claiming fraudulent breach of trust), *and* getting it splashed all over the media to make any prospective employers aware of the fact? Yup, that crater over there contains the shattered remains of any prospects of a decent and reputable legal career, let alone the stratospheric one sought. Then again, there's always "right to be forgotten".
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:31PM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:31PM (#600280)

    modern history course

    employment history in legal and tax roles

    So an educator is responsible for poor employment history in fields you never even studied? How did somebody this fucking stupid ever make the grades required for Oxford admission?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:50PM (#600286)
      2.1 GPA.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:13PM (#600408)

        2.1 GPA.

        I bet they give him a 4.0 GTFO now

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:09PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:09PM (#600350)

      Because, believe it or not, if you can survive the tedium, getting a degree is trivial; they hand them out like candy. A substantial majority of people in these schools should not be there, since they're there for impure reasons (partying, making money, forming corrupt social connections) instead of having a deep interest in learning. The ones who do deserve to be there mostly self-educate anyway. We must get rid of the trash if we wish to improve the quality of the education.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:07PM (7 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:07PM (#600378) Homepage Journal

        A substantial majority of people in these schools should not be there, since they're there for impure reasons (partying, making money, forming corrupt social connections) instead of having a deep interest in learning.

        HAHAHAHAHAHA!

        Oh, wait, were you serious? You know what they call knowledge without purpose, yes? Trivia.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:06PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:06PM (#600405)

          Oh, wait, were you serious? You know what they call knowledge without purpose, yes? Trivia.

          Oh? I thought they called it "basic research."

          Pretty much everything useful we know today was once considered useless knowledge at some point before somebody figured out how to make it useful. For example, "what possible use could there be in knowing that when you rub these two materials together, your hair starts to fritz out in funny ways?"

          Surely you aren't proposing that researchers trying to detect gravitational waves or neutrinos need to explain how their research will turn a profit by 2019... are you?

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:22PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:22PM (#600416) Homepage Journal

            Nope, we call it trivia. If your ass is going hungry because you did not think to yourself "how is spending years of time and many thousands of dollars learning X going to help me in life", it's because you either have that leisure because you're already financially secure or because you're a fool.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:15PM (#600412)

          You know what they call knowledge without purpose, yes? Trivia.

          Would that make the pursuit of knowledge without purpose a game?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:53PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:53PM (#600432)

          Not everything is about rote memorization, which is what is usually meant by the term "trivia". If you don't understand the material at a very deep level and have simply memorized facts, then you have failed. Schools at all levels frequently fail to encourage understanding, which just shouldn't be the case.

          What I'm saying is that you should be deeply interested in the subject you're supposed to be studying instead of primarily motivated by other, shallow things. Otherwise, enjoy your mediocrity (or worse, as is often the case).

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:23AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:23AM (#600469)

            Schools at all levels frequently fail to encourage understanding, which just shouldn't be the case.

            This. I'm surprised TMB wouldn't be in agreement -- don't think anybody on this site would disagree as we all learned our lessons and are therefore "self-taught".

          • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:48AM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:48AM (#600477) Homepage

            The parents have a larger role to play than schools in "understanding," and they have failed their more recent generations miserably.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:46AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:46AM (#600476) Homepage

        Here, at least, foreign students are BIG money for the universities, and modern American universities are more businesses than they are institutions of learning, so they let them in (often to the detriment of domestic students being denied slots). And it is well-known that Chinese and Arabs (I have not witnessed Indians cheating, though, in fact the ones I've seen alongside me were very capable) cheat like a motherfucker, and yes, both the student body and professors know that.

        Chinese male students are especially rotten because the ones who make it here are often not only only-children, but golden-sons. They bullshit all day over the professor, grabass, and are generally a distracting nuisance to everybody around them. Worst of all, they know that they are not going to suffer beatings or any other consequences, and even though everybody knows they cheat they also know the school needs the money from them continuing to pay tuition there, so there is nothing to stop them from shitting-up every education system they manage to get into. The best a professor can hope is that they graduate and go back to the third-world and stay there.

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:04AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:04AM (#600576) Journal

        Because, believe it or not, if you can survive the tedium, getting a degree is trivial; they hand them out like candy

        A degree? Maybe. If you pass the entry requirements for Oxford or Cambridge the drop-out rate is so low that you are almost certainly guaranteed to get a degree. That said, degree classifications in the UK are first class, upper second class (2.1), lower second class (2.2), third class, or pass without honours. Getting a first requires a lot of work and getting a 2.1 is far from guaranteed. Most employers require a 2.1 or above.

        --
        sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:16AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:16AM (#600612) Journal

        A substantial majority of people in these schools should not be there, since they're there for impure reasons

        So what level of ignorance is acceptable just because people do things for reasons that you choose not to accept? It seems far easier to require one particular AC, that would be you, to pull their head out of their ass rather than drive millions of people to poverty and ignorance just because they don't have the proper zeal.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:25PM (3 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:25PM (#600386) Journal

      He IS Indian. India has a checkered history of academic wrongdoing. Their MEDICAL students were top notch, world class professionals for most of my lifetime. Then, that all went to hell when the medical industry was restructured, and recent medical grads may or may not know how to pour piss out of a bedpan. Other industries have had their ups and downs. Just do a search on India academic cheating. You'll only find the bad stuff, because no one found it noteworthy when India was doing well.

      Let me find a link or two . . .

      http://www.latimes.com/world/great-reads/la-fg-c1-india-testing-scam-20150717-story.html [latimes.com]

      http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-c1-india-cheating-20140416-m-story.html [latimes.com]

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/600-students-expelled-for-cheating-on-school-exams-114126604867.html [yahoo.com]

      College entrance and college grades carry an entirely different weight in most of Asia, than here in the US, or even throughout the "Western world". The pressures are impossible, so people do the things that people do to reduce that pressure. In India, bribery and cheating are common, and even somewhat acceptable.

      It would be great if they could roll back the craziness in the medical profession. But, it will probably take several decades to undo all the crazy that has happened in the last 15 years or so. And, as the title of the second link suggests, a lot of people are going to die because of the crazy.

      • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:40PM (1 child)

        by Nuke (3162) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:40PM (#600428)

        India has a checkered history of academic wrongdoing. Their MEDICAL students were top notch, world class professionals for most of my lifetime.

        I don't think the history was chequered : I believe it was pretty solid.

        I don't know when your lifetime was, but Indian doctors were a joke a long time ago in the UK. Before the National Health Service, back when people paid to see a doctor, Indian doctors were cheap and worked in poor areas. Very often they were not actually qualified but only advertised that they had taken some sort of medical course. "Doctors" with brass plates on their door that said "BA Calcutta (Failed)" were a standing joke that even made its way into a post war popular cartoon strip (The Perishers [wikipedia.org] - search for "calcutta") that would be illegally racist today. I thought "BA Calcutta (Failed)" was just a joke, but I knew an old guy who had actually seen such doctor's brass plates in Liverpool in the 1930's.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Demena on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:50PM

          by Demena (5637) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:50PM (#600431)

          Some were still in existence in the ‘50s. I remember being shown one when I was a kid but I was too young to understand

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:30AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:30AM (#600472) Homepage

        I don't think he's Indian, in origin at least. His name is obviously Arab. Arabs, like Jews, are natural born shysters but without the intelligence Jews possess. If he is concerned about his employment prospects I think he should pick a different career field, one of which his kind is better-suited: used-car sales or liquor store operator.

  • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:42PM (4 children)

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:42PM (#600283)

    I'm not familiar with British grading methodology. Can anyone explain what this signifies?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by tizan on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:53PM (1 child)

      by tizan (3245) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:53PM (#600287)

      2nd class and upper division

      1st class, 2nd class and 3rd class are defined differently in different courses...In science in the 80's and 90's 1st class was usually an aggreate of 70% marks and above. 2nd class would be from 50% to 70%.....a 2:1 means may be 60% to 70%...in that scheme. but where the cutoff is varies from school to school and the subject matter etc..

       

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:10AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:10AM (#600578) Journal
        Above 70% probably sounds quite low to Americans, where a lot of the university exams expect averages of 80-90%. When I was an undergrad, it was quite common to have good exchange students from the US being very disappointed by getting only 75% in an exam when they were accustomed to 95% in exams in their home institution and 75% being close to a fail. Most UK universities design exams aimed for a normal distribution centred around 55-60%%, with the grade boundaries around 70+% for a first, 60-70% for a 2.1, 50-60% for a 2.2, 40-50% for a third, and sometimes 35-40% for a tolerated failure (and 35-40% overall for a pass without honours). This means that getting a 2.1 or above indicates roughly that you are in the top half to two thirds of your cohort, getting a first means that you are in the top 10-30% (depending on course and institution).
        --
        sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:55PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:55PM (#600290)

      A 2:1 is the most common degree. [wikipedia.org] Actually some employers bin CV's from those who graduate with a 1st class, especially where the role requires social interaction. Anything lower than a 2:1 is (in reality) considered a failure. Every child gets a trophy, the fact some are engraved with "3:1 == retard" should not concern anybody.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by Gaaark on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:41PM

        by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:41PM (#600297) Journal

        Shouldn't use the 'R' word:

        please apply a re-do as "3:1 3=D"

        D, of course, for dumbass: much more socially acceptable.

        ;)

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:57PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:57PM (#600308)

    Who the fuck is Mr Mallalieu?

    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:05PM (2 children)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:05PM (#600315) Journal

      From the linked article: "His counsel Roger Mallalieu told Mr Justice Foskett that Mr Siddiqui had been a "driven young man" aiming at a postgraduate qualification at an Ivy League university."

      Apparently, not driven enough.

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:53PM (#600371)

        My point is that the editors need to make sure all references are resolved when they condense the story.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:27PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:27PM (#600422)

        > had been a "driven young man" aiming at a postgraduate qualification at an Ivy League university

        I'm a driven man aiming at a trillion dollars net worth.
        Been at it for a little while, but it's tedious and I'm far from my goal.

        Who's got enough cash so I can sue?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:21PM (8 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:21PM (#600325) Homepage

    How to destroy your career in one easy step:

    Blame your school from 17-years ago for all your failures since.

    And, sorry, but unless they guaranteed you a job, in writing, you probably have no leg to stand on.

    At the very least you need to have complained 17 years ago and kept it going all that time.

    Maybe if you'd passed your degree, you'd know that.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:15PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:15PM (#600411)

      I had one prof that showed for exactly 2 classes. Then let his TA who did not speak English very well teach the rest. Needless to say only the 5 indians passed (strangely with As) everyone else failed out (40 Fs). We all had to re-take the class everyone at that point understood the material and got A/Bs.

      A bad prof can sink a class. I have seen it in action. We also made sure everyone knew about it and would drop his classes from then on. He did not last long.

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:37AM (1 child)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:37AM (#600475) Homepage

        I believe that it should be a law, in America at least, that professors should not only be fluent in English but also understandable in it. You're never going to solve the problem of professors being autistic retards, but at least they can work on their accent.

        I know for a fact that there are accent classes (for professionals and outside of school) geared toward specific cultures (Orientals) so that they learn how to sound less Chinky when speaking English. But by far the worse accent person I worked with was an African, one of those really Blacks ones who are so Black that they are actually blue, like the bluing on a gun-barrel. It was straight Ooga-booga even though the guy was the best technician in the company.

        What is needed is a real-time translator that one can wear on their head or chest, even if it has to go into the cloud to do the translating. I would rather hear broken English in a good accent than fluent English that sounds like a drunkard with 5 dicks in his mouth.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:30PM (#600691)

          Try comprehending someone from the Louisiana swamps. It's a French/English/Drunken/Slobber accent.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by TheRaven on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:15AM (4 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:15AM (#600580) Journal
      The Oxbridge system is a little bit weird, in that teaching is split between centralised departments and federated colleges. The departments provide lectures, the colleges provide small group teaching ('supervisions'), typically one per 3 hours of lectures in groups of 2-3. He is alleging that his college failed to provide this, which means that he didn't get an important part of the teaching required for a degree. I don't know if this is true (and, if it is, I don't know if he'd be able to prove it after 17 years), but if it's true then he might possibly have a case, because the supervision system is a big part of how Oxbridge advertises its degrees.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:45PM (3 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:45PM (#600708) Homepage
        After the first year, half of my pure maths tutorials, and all of my applied maths tutorials, were 1-on-1. Then again, I went to a small college (3 mathematicians in my year), and I was the only one taking some of the courses. Talking to others in other colleges, 1-on-1 wasn't that unusual. Things may have become "cheaper" over time, but this guy was a couple of decades back too.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:14PM (2 children)

          by TheRaven (270) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:14PM (#600744) Journal
          One-on-one is less common now, because some research done by Oxford has shown that groups of three are best for supervisions in most subjects (maths may be an exception). It's easy in one-on-one supervisions for the supervisor to do all the talking and in groups of two it's fairly common for one student to dominate to the detriment of the other. Groups of three are less stable and so tend to promote more discussion between the students (and as a supervisor, the ideal thing for supervisions is when one of the students is explaining something to the others, because explaining something that you've just learned is the best way of cementing that knowledge).
          --
          sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:23PM (1 child)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:23PM (#600870) Journal

            some research done by Oxford has shown that groups of three are best for supervisions in most subjects

            I'd be interested in this "research." Did they look at higher numbers of students? ...because "best" seems hard to define here, depending on your goals. I'm very familiar with the Oxbridge system, even though I never went there. And I knew the ideal there is often thought to be 1-3. But over the years I've done independent studies one-on-one with profs, and I've been in or taught classes with 3 students and up, with a lot of classes with between 3 and 8 students or so.

            My personal experience as a student and then as an instructor is that the ideal number depends greatly on the number of students, but if I really want good discussion, 4-6 is actually my ideal number. Three or fewer can work, but it's still quite likely with 2 or 3 students to end up with a situation where the instructor is doing most of the talking. Just by the odds, by the time you get to 5 students or so, you're much more likely to get at least one "talker" in your group, who will spur on discussion and participation with the others. Two or three can get very awkward -- much more so than one-on-one -- unless the personalities mesh well and the supervisor can figure out how to make the dynamic work well consistently. Obviously, though, the more students you add in, the harder it becomes to ensure all are on-task and learning everything. But it's still generally pretty hard to "hide" in a group of 5 or so.

            • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 24 2017, @11:05AM

              by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 24 2017, @11:05AM (#601013) Journal
              It's been five years since I looked at the study, but I seem to recall that they looked at groups of 5-6. They also, as I recall, differentiated between supervision-style and seminar-style teaching, where the latter often wants larger groups. The problem with larger groups is that you end up needing a more fixed curriculum, whereas a supervision-style arrangement lets you wander off from the syllabus and teach things of greater interest to the students if you have a group that's already confident with the lecture material. The other problem with larger groups is that a dominant individual ends up monopolising the supervision (I saw this in my own undergraduate degree at a non-Oxbridge university where our weekly tutorials ended up being one-on-one lessons for me with a professor, with five spectators hoping that no one asked them a question). With a smaller group, it's much easier for the supervisor to steer the conversation towards the quieter students.
              --
              sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:47PM (1 child)

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:47PM (#600368)

    I can't wait to see his chances now that this idiocy has become public knowledge.

    This is a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He is very clearly too stupid to understand just how stupid he is.

    • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:37PM

      by SanityCheck (5190) on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:37PM (#600804)

      There is a lot of stupid people in the world in general. Before we used to give them a shovel and point out where they need to dig. Now we send them to universities, and the liberal-progressive-group-think that runs the campuses will rip your head-off and drink your blood if you tell any of these morons that perhaps they are wasting their time and your tax money. I have been a TA in comp sci at Community College and I dared not tell the fucking idiot taking the same class second time that was clearly guessing answers to basic questions I asked him that he should do something else with his time. I mean for fuck's sake he couldn't even say "I don't know," he had to make some shit up even though it made him sound even more retarded.

(1)