£60,000 paid for claim ‘ of exagerating prospects of employment after degree’. Surely the student would have had some idea before the course finished over career prospects during the course. It’s not easy for any graduate. Did she think someone would just hand her a job. Pathetic.

Blackrod wrote:£60,000 paid for claim ‘ of exagerating prospects of employment after degree’. Surely the student would have had some idea before the course finished over career prospects during the course. It’s not easy for any graduate. Did she think someone would just hand her a job. Pathetic.

Part of the blame society. When I first went to Uni I was promised a job for life on one of the initial Media Degrees... mid second term the Tories made the independents re- buy their franchises and so no money to employ.... I await the result with interest

I’d love it if the judge finds “Sh!t Happens”

If this is the only way to blow open the scam that is the HE sector, so be it.

Blackrod wrote:£60,000 paid for claim ‘ of exaggerating prospects of employment after degree’. Surely the student would have had some idea before the course finished over career prospects during the course. It’s not easy for any graduate. Did she think someone would just hand her a job. Pathetic.

Care to share a link?


"Surely the student would have had some idea before the course finished over career prospects during the course."

Erm... do you think the university was trying to convince her to fork out for the degree during her degree, not before it?

And where do you think she'll find reliable information if universities and industries are allowed to just lie and exaggerate employment prospects without consequence?

I'd start with the complete university guide. She undertook a degree with well below average post grad employment prospects at very average uni.

Imploding Turtle wrote:
And where do you think she'll find reliable information if universities and industries are allowed to just lie and exaggerate employment prospects without consequence?

Hi IT, it's reported on BBC - and elsewhere at a guess.

Anglia Ruskin University. Degree in International Business Studies.

Student is described - on BBC - as international student, possibly that's how she described herself.

Out of interest, why do you state "universities AND INDUSTRIES are allowed to just lie and exaggerate employment prospects...." What do "industries" have to do with this?

Interestingly the court actually ruled against her and ordered her to pay towards the university's legal costs.
It was the university's own insurers' legal team that offered the out of court settlement of £15K plus nearly £46K towards legal costs.
The student has also suggested that she was offered more - which she rejected due to it being conditional upon signing a non-disclosure agreement.
Quite why the university's insurers' legal team would do that one can only speculate.

!aiboforceN wrote:Interestingly the court actually ruled against her and ordered her to pay towards the university's legal costs.
It was the university's own insurers' legal team that offered the out of court settlement of £15K plus nearly £46K towards legal costs.
The student has also suggested that she was offered more - which she rejected due to it being conditional upon signing a non-disclosure agreement.
Quite why the university's insurers' legal team would do that one can only speculate.

Same as insurers will agree knock for knock on car smashes when they are clearly not. Fighting and losing is massively expensive, no matter the justice of it, mitigation is at the forefront of there thinking.

Paul Waine wrote:Student is described - on BBC - as international student, possibly that's how she described herself.

What are you querying? Do you think she lied about being an international student?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRDgihVDEko" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thatdberight wrote:What are you querying? Do you think she lied about being an international student?

Hi, no, just being careful not to mis-quote the BBC report - without checking whether the BBC said she was an international student or she describes herself as an international student - i.e. someone who has come to the UK from another country to study at one of the UK's universities.

I don't support UK universities exaggerating the career prospects of their students - or the quality of their degrees in enhancing their graduates career prospects. I'm uncertain whether this is even more regrettable if it's an international student who is required to pay higher fees than local students - and doesn't have the advantge of the UK's student loan repayment scheme - or if we should take the view "caveat emptor" and assume that the international student should (a) do their own "due diligence" on the real quality of the course and (b) given the high fees payable by international students, assume that such a student comes from a privileged position in their home country and so is "fair game."

I'm also curious how a degree in "international business strategy" differs from a degree in "business strategy" - and how you make a degree subject out of either of them.

Wikipedia:

Anglia Ruskin University
Public University
Anglia Ruskin University is a public university in East Anglia, United Kingdom. It has 39,400 students worldwide and has campuses in Cambridge, Chelmsford, Peterborough and London. It also shares campuses with the College of West Anglia in King's Lynn, Wisbech and Cambridge.

https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide. ... ia-ruskin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Anglia Ruskin University offers students plenty of choice, whatever they want to study. Learn from lecturers with practical experience in their field, benefit from the university's strong industry links, and explore fascinating subjects while developing the wider skills needed to get on in the workplace. All in a central place that couldn’t be more supportive."

2020 League Table Ranking: 118. (out of 131 unis).

Do a doss degree at a shoite uni and get nowhere. Was it Tony and Gordon who said all kids entitled to a degree course?

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, it's reported on BBC - and elsewhere at a guess.

Anglia Ruskin University. Degree in International Business Studies.

Student is described - on BBC - as international student, possibly that's how she described herself.

Out of interest, why do you state "universities AND INDUSTRIES are allowed to just lie and exaggerate employment prospects...." What do "industries" have to do with this?

Because industries will lie even more than they already do if they know they can do it without consequence, and if you're expecting a prospective student to be able to research their job prospects in preparation for picking a degree how the hell are they supposed to get reliable information if the monied interests are just allowed to lie?

This is what happens with the marketisation of higher education. Students become consumers, and education a commercial product - rather than a country investing in its human capital.

AndrewJB wrote:This is what happens with the marketisation of higher education. Students become consumers, and education a commercial product - rather than a country investing in its human capital.

Having just retired from lecturing in academia you have hit the nail firmly on the head. Universities see students simply as ££££ revenue and go all out to attract as high an intake each year as possible even though internal resources may not cope with the numbers. It is truely sickening to have witnessed how much HE has changed to the detriment of student learning and development over the past 10 - 15 years. Universities are now run as businesses and HE in the U.K. is now a very competitive market place. I know one university that did not have lecture theatres large enough for the 200 odd students cohort intake - in the first few weeks students ended up sitting on the steps in the theatres!!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Because industries will lie even more than they already do if they know they can do it without consequence, and if you're expecting a prospective student to be able to research their job prospects in preparation for picking a degree how the hell are they supposed to get reliable information if the monied interests are just allowed to lie?

But, lie about what? What is the basis for industries getting involved with students choosing from a wide range of degrees at a wide range of univerisities other than, perhaps, to say they would most likely want to employ well qualified students in subjects that are relevant to their industries?

AndrewJB wrote:This is what happens with the marketisation of higher education. Students become consumers, and education a commercial product - rather than a country investing in its human capital.

Hi Andrew, I agree. It's a result of the "unwise" student loan arrangements and unis being able to offer limitless number of places. Government says "go to uni - and we will lend you the money - and you might not have to pay it back...." Many school leavers then decide they want to go to uni - even if the subjects they study are not ones that will set them up with a graduate job. Vice chancellors say, "no worries, if I bring in the money, sorry student numbers, I will get paid a lot...."

Of course, if we took the "human capital" approach, we may choose to limit student numbers and may also limit the range of degrees - with the aim of ensuring that the students graduated with high quality degrees in subjects that the country, and wider society, required.

Unless I'm missing something, the BBC article doesn't say what jobs she has applied, and been rejected for, or what the reason was for the rejection.

I've known people get degrees, then apply for jobs unrelated to that degree. Some successfully, others not. Some even rejected for being "over qualified".

Just because have a degree, doesn't guarantee a career in that area

Couldn't have been that bad as I read somewhere she works as a paralegal in Hong Kong!

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Andrew, I agree. It's a result of the "unwise" student loan arrangements and unis being able to offer limitless number of places. Government says "go to uni - and we will lend you the money - and you might not have to pay it back...." Many school leavers then decide they want to go to uni - even if the subjects they study are not ones that will set them up with a graduate job. Vice chancellors say, "no worries, if I bring in the money, sorry student numbers, I will get paid a lot...."

Of course, if we took the "human capital" approach, we may choose to limit student numbers and may also limit the range of degrees - with the aim of ensuring that the students graduated with high quality degrees in subjects that the country, and wider society, required.

I don't think university should be about "skilling" people up for the world of work. That is a very useful by-product, but I think the primary purpose should be to create informed, engaged, and critical citizens.

As for how we pay for it, my solution would be a little different. Students aren't all equal financially, however there is one thing they all have in abundance. Time. I would create a program of national service for prospective students to complete which would then entitle them to free university. A program that would take them away from the area they live in, and out of the social surroundings they're used to. An aim of the program would be to teach them a degree of independence, and an opportunity to see and understand the country better. Three different activities over the course of a year, where they're housed, fed, and looked after from a medical and pastoral point of view, during which they might work in a hospital, on a farm, in the armed forces, serving the community, looking after the old or disabled (there are a lot of different menial, but meaningful activities out there). On completion, they can enter university, and likely will with a great deal more maturity and experience than they do now, and with no tuition debt on leaving.

Apparently the whole of the university system only gives payouts of about £400,000 compensation. If that student then why them and not everyone on the course, since the same blurb is for everyone.

I was thrown off my PhD in an academic sting. I asked for £100,000 compensation for the ruination of my career due to them. I was offered £1500.

I had no money for a lawyer but I went to see an education specialist one regarding a legal aid case.

It cost me £200 for a one hour consultation, most of the time taken in asking me my name, passport number all sorts as if I were a criminal.

They said that in the case of legal aid you have to win four times the amount of the cost and she said it would cost £40,000 to take them to court and I would not win £160,000 so I would not get legal aid.

They suggest I take the case instead to the Office of Adjudication for Higher Education.

They say the only deal with the facts of the dismissal and do not enter into academic judgment.

I was offered £3000.

They said the reason the amount was so low was because I would not have got the degree I had studied!!!!!!!!!

They also said the amount was low because I was only a part-time student!!!!!!!!!! (second class citizen , yeah).

I had two weeks to accept or not. I had no choice. When I tried to contact them, no reply.

When I contacted the national Union of Student, again no reply.

I've lost three years of my life in agony to get to that stage and my career never recovered, in spite of having my research published.

I presume the student here, has rich parents and connections to pull the right strings.

I deal with companies who do telecommunications fire, security and CCTV systems heating and ventilation etc who really struggle to get apprentices as everyone wants a degree. After 3-4 years a 16 year old school leaver can be on £22-£28k with a van and no debt.

AndrewJB wrote:I don't think university should be about "skilling" people up for the world of work. That is a very useful by-product, but I think the primary purpose should be to create informed, engaged, and critical citizens.

As for how we pay for it, my solution would be a little different. Students aren't all equal financially, however there is one thing they all have in abundance. Time. I would create a program of national service for prospective students to complete which would then entitle them to free university. A program that would take them away from the area they live in, and out of the social surroundings they're used to. An aim of the program would be to teach them a degree of independence, and an opportunity to see and understand the country better. Three different activities over the course of a year, where they're housed, fed, and looked after from a medical and pastoral point of view, during which they might work in a hospital, on a farm, in the armed forces, serving the community, looking after the old or disabled (there are a lot of different menial, but meaningful activities out there). On completion, they can enter university, and likely will with a great deal more maturity and experience than they do now, and with no tuition debt on leaving.

Hi Andrew, that's one of the best suggestions to tackle a national issue I've seen on here.

AndrewJB wrote:I don't think university should be about "skilling" people up for the world of work. That is a very useful by-product, but I think the primary purpose should be to create informed, engaged, and critical citizens.

As for how we pay for it, my solution would be a little different. Students aren't all equal financially, however there is one thing they all have in abundance. Time. I would create a program of national service for prospective students to complete which would then entitle them to free university. A program that would take them away from the area they live in, and out of the social surroundings they're used to. An aim of the program would be to teach them a degree of independence, and an opportunity to see and understand the country better. Three different activities over the course of a year, where they're housed, fed, and looked after from a medical and pastoral point of view, during which they might work in a hospital, on a farm, in the armed forces, serving the community, looking after the old or disabled (there are a lot of different menial, but meaningful activities out there). On completion, they can enter university, and likely will with a great deal more maturity and experience than they do now, and with no tuition debt on leaving.

The cynic in me can foresee the government selling indentured students to Tesco as shelf stackers.

It actually reminds me a bit of the Australian tourist visa (in order to get a second year you have to work in farming or similar for 88 days) which has mixed views.