Should unemployed grads sue their universities?
I've been thinking lately about the problem of the glut of unemployed college graduates.
The Marxist non-solution is yet another bail-out: to forgive student loan debt.
However, this does not address the real problem.
Universities are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the gateway to better jobs.
Students and their families go into ridiculous debt based on this implied promise.
Yet, when at university, students do not receive the training needed to succeed in the business world.
Instead, they are indoctrinated in the ways of anti-business agitation.
Soon, if it hasn't happened already, employers will begin to realize that hiring anyone with a non-tech degree or *any* Ivy League degree is risking hiring an anti-business agitator.
Google has already stated that they prefer hiring people who have not attended college because they are more intellectually curious.
At what point should unemployed grads sue their universities for fraud?
Your thoughts are welcome.
The Marxist non-solution is yet another bail-out: to forgive student loan debt.
However, this does not address the real problem.
Universities are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the gateway to better jobs.
Students and their families go into ridiculous debt based on this implied promise.
Yet, when at university, students do not receive the training needed to succeed in the business world.
Instead, they are indoctrinated in the ways of anti-business agitation.
Soon, if it hasn't happened already, employers will begin to realize that hiring anyone with a non-tech degree or *any* Ivy League degree is risking hiring an anti-business agitator.
Google has already stated that they prefer hiring people who have not attended college because they are more intellectually curious.
At what point should unemployed grads sue their universities for fraud?
Your thoughts are welcome.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 7.
These are the OWS people who whined "we did exactly as we were told." If it's not working, they need to do something no one told them to do. Most progress comes from doing stuff you're not told to do.
Not to be cantankerous but this is factual based on my own recent experiences with ASU, UofA, Glendale Community College, and others around the country.
There are core courses which are *required* for graduation: marxist discipline a, b, c, or d.
Its a bit like the weather forecast saying there is a 60% chance of rain tomorrow. Whether it rains or not, they are always correct.
There are no absolute go here and get a job, if it were then maybe you would have a leg to stand on, for contract non-fulfillment. However if you don't land a job, after getting a degree, and it wasn't a part of going to school, then sorry it's your loss.
The responsibility of someone's success is up to the individual. Choosing which college to attend and which degree to pursue is entirely the choice of the individual. I cant see any school getting sued.
And people who have been taken in by a scam should have known better and have no legal recourse?
We in the US have the right to pursue happiness. This doesn't guarantee happiness only an individuals right to pursue it. What constitutes "happy" is different for everyone and is greatly impacted by the individuals desire to achieve it.
The same can be said for college degree's. If sally wishes to take courses that only interest her and avoid the prerequisites, then she can obtain the majority of knowledge she wanted (perhaps not the depth) and still make a more informed go of it without the degree. Again, with or without the degree success is not guaranteed (but having the degree does make an impression on potential employers) As for the "potential" of the degree, that is CHOSEN by the individual. The student was free to choose from a multitude of degrees, no one forced her.
Caveat: If the school promises job placement. But thats not guarantee of success either, just initial placement.
Incidentally, My son studies classical guitar in college. He has to take math and english in addition to a slew of music oriented courses. Its entirely on him how he carves a living for himself. If he fails to do so, its his own fault based on the choices he made (not the school).
For too long, parents have raised their children instilling the belief in the child that it is the schools responsibility to teach and make ready for the adult world. They do the same for higher education, telling the child to just pick the right school and get a degree and their life will be great. Instead of asking the young to work and earn for their education, just borrow, take easy courses, get the degree, etc--everything will be fine.
Sorry, that's just not how reality works.
Premise 2) "If billy or sally chooses ancient south American philosophies to major in its their own damn fault"
So, if Billy or Sally choose a major which will not fulfill the university's promise of greater opportunity, it is their fault, not the fault of the school which advertises greater opportunity?
And when the universities now require "core curricula" such as South American philosophy?
West is a product and representative of our Ivy League system.
The Ivy League promotes the idea that it produces America's next generation of leaders.
However, the rest of the country, through efforts of West and his contemporaries, see the Ivy League as the producer of radical, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-business rabble rousers.
The value which they advertise to parents is *not* the "value" which they deliver to the student.
The issue is on the product which is advertised vs the product which is delivered.
Load more comments...