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 4.
However, we will get no redress from our cowardly supposed representation on this issue which *will* continue to generated unemployable malcontents and bankrupt the country while doing it.
Your "nest egg plan" makes absolute sense.
If they said "Get XXX degree and you'll be making $100,000 a year within 5 months of graduation" I can see you point. Its just not presented that way in any of the colleges I've scrutinized with my kids...some of them some very notable institutions across the country too.
I didn't realize we were discussing sub-standard education. I thought the discussion was unemployed graduates and whether they should sue their universities. <----my answer to this is NO they should not sue their university due to 'implied promises' as you called them. I don't go off implications or assumptions. I also don't believe that promises are relevant either...words are wind....there was nothing put in writing by them guaranteeing me a job after I graduate.
Ultimately the choice of going to school was my own, to get the education required by my chosen line of work. If I don't get hired...it is not my university's fault, and I would not sue them. As previously stated. They have promised an education, which I have obtained. What I do with that education is not up to them.
If students are not learning the required skills to make it in the business world....then I wonder how much work they put into their education. One really couldn't blame that on the university system entirely.
No, I very definitely DO NOT think that taxpayers should have to finance the student loan debt!!
I would think, though, that in a lawsuit, any university would be able to coolly present enough of a percentage of students (in certain practical fields, of course) who were promptly hired upon graduation to dispel the claim.
As it stands now, I will fervently sneer at the majority of university education--but I would not want to sue...because we live in an overly "sue-happy" world as it is...and it is precisely because of litigation that entrepreneurs are becoming fewer and fewer. I think it should be obvious to people that university is mostly a scam...but it is no more illegal to advertise hope than ninety-five percent of all the "frivolous" products out there.
For the record, I plunk in $210 monthly into my four-year-old`s RESP--but I don`t think of it as an education fund, but rather a "Nest Egg fund." He has already over $15,000 in there due to this monthly budgeting. I fully hope that he pursues trades (which are presented as apprenticeships in public highschool for grades eleven and twelve) and then uses his "Nest Egg fund" for something like a down payment on a house. If he does choose to "squander" his (what will become) $50K fund on some kind of arts degree, then that is his choice--but I don`t think that anyone should subsidize us for that foolish decision, nor does it make sense to sue the university offering those flaky degrees in the first place.
I could care less about a strike three threat. I'm simply stating a position that looks like it needs to be made in this thread.
caveat emptor = the onus is on the buyer to how he/she spends her money (borrowed or otherwise).
I've interviewed hundreds and a degree does get a resume a look. I've submitted resumes and a lack of degree is often the reason for no return phone call despite decades of experience.
A school sells opportunity via intimacy with the subject matter of a chosen profession (perhaps some OJT as well), nothing more. How someone uses that information determines if his/her expectations are met. Many people get jobs outside their degree so the process of attainment itself may also be of value to an employer.
I've made this so plain that the only possible conclusion which I can come to is that you are trolling.
Please desist.
First warning.
Two strike policy in effect.
n. the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act. Example: "there will be tax advantages to you if you let me take title to your property," or "you don't have to read the rest of the contract-it is just routine legal language" but actually includes a balloon payment.
My point exactly.
They promise education and deliver indoctrination.
And they provide it on tax-payer backed loans.
So when they grind out their indoctrinated, unemployable sausages, who's on the hook?
We are.
Now, the US taxpayer is on the hook for the default, just like the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
This is the next "sub-prime" bubble to burst: sub-prime education.
And, IMO, it is just as purposefully manufactured as the sub-prime mortgage bubble was.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatte...
http://education-portal.com/articles/How...
http://fortune.com/2014/10/14/most-lucra...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co...
I see this whole matter as a way to blame someone else for an individuals lack of judgment and planning.
Yet you go because there is an implied promise that your attendance will better your chances of finding a job in that field, no?
Or are you financially independent and bored?
If so, so be it.
"I was made aware of the greater possibility of NOT getting hired in the state I live in, and would probably have to go elsewhere."
A lot of people have to move to pursue their career, that is not the point.
The point is that many universities are giving sub-standard education for the sake of first rate indoctrination.
If you insist that this is not your case, then bully for you, I hope that you are correct in your assumption.
"I CHOSE to continue with my education and do everything in my power to apply my knowledge into that field. If my best efforts get me nowhere, that is not my university's fault."
Unless, of course, the education that they gave you, without your realization, was crap.
"My future was never promised"
But an implied promise of increasing your chances at a career *was* made.
"A lot of the problem is that people feel as though they deserve a job because they have a bachelors or masters degree.... that isn't the way it works."
Agreed, however, that is not the point I'm making.
"It's hard work and dedication that land you a job, not your university."
True, but again, not addressing the original point.
"The unemployed like to have a scapegoat instead of taking responsibility for their own unemployment."
Also true, but also not addressing the original point.
But you have to admit taking out ANY loan (from any source) is legitimate to meet whatever your need provided you have every intention of, and do, paying it back.
Now if you took out the loan knowing you had no intention of paying it back thats another matter. But paying it back is still not the responsibility of the school (unless educated for dog grooming when geology was the degree sought after and loans taken out for).
they might find a job which they could deserve and hold. -- j
p.s. the school promised an education, not a job.
The only thing absurd is your reductio ad absurdum.
No, I did not.
Another one who sees my point!
+1
2. I'm not sure what you are saying here.
3. Nothing wrong with tax-payer backed loans as long as they are paid back. Again, what you do with the knowledge you obtained is your own responsibility. As for the marxist indoctrination, I haven't seen it, my kids haven't seen it, and if any of us did it would be called out immediately.
Load more comments...