Student sues Anglia Ruskin over "Mickey Mouse" degree

Trolololololololololololol

Just like the Oxford Grad who tried to sue Oxford University 16+ years on after 'only' getting a job at Clifford Chance or some magic circle firm.

Hope she's being represented pro-bono or she has a big stack of money to burn, because it's just going to go nowhere and cost her a lot of money.

I wonder what her argument would be

Well i suppose to some extent it's the universities fault for not properly advising her, but I don't really think she should have sued

Two Wongs don't make a right (sorry, sorry)

I did.

First of all, it is not for just that course but all the bus studies courses.

Two, nobody knows what the hell is a professional or managerial job. I could not find any explanation on the website on what the categories were and i did not want to assume falsely to create a wrong understanding.

That is true, but i think this story may not benefit her more than the university industry. This is the second public suit, so kids and parents are beginning to wake up.

If my speculation is correct, i think there will be more lawsuits. Sooner or later, one will be successful and that will spell doom for dodgy unis.

Pok Wong, who graduated from Anglia Ruskin in 2013, in International Business Strategy, is demanding £60K return of fees and living costs in the London County Court.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/student-anglia-ruskin-university-mickey-mouse-degree-pok-wong-tuition-fees-a8250441.html

Wong claims that the degree “does not play a role to help secure a rewarding job with prospects” and that the prospectus had promised the course would leave graduates “well equipped” for jobs in the business world, following two years of “high quality teaching” - claims she regards as false.

She hopes the case will create a precedent for other students.

Anglia Ruskin currently ranks 72nd in the Guardian league table of UK universities and 38th for all business courses.

I'd have to disagree. The moment one of these cases is allowed, the moment the courts will see the floodgates open and everybody bringing claims in relation to their education(s). The fact of the matter (I think) is that there are uncapped spaces at university, so the job market is becoming 'more educated' and people are struggling to get to where they think they should be after university.

In my opinion, Anglia Ruskin didn't advertise in such a way that they guaranteed the individual to get a job or be significantly high up in her career path. Nowadays, jobs are based on so much more than your education. Who's to say that this individual hasn't got the necessary work experience to get the job she wants? Or that she hasn't done as well in written applications/interviews as you might expect for the role? To me, there are so many extraneous factors, I just do not think it's a plausible argument.

Short of Anglia Ruskin guaranteeing her a job in a particular field by a certain time, I really do not think this type of argument will succeed in the near future (or ever, if I am brutally honest).

I understand how professional can be ambiguous. But there's nothing confusing about a managerial job lol.

I agree that unistats can be misleading though. For example "Engineer" isn't a legally protected term in the UK like in other countries. Some companies advertise those roles when they're not really engineering after all.

Ffs i once saw a listing saying sanitation engineer and they just meant a cleaner

Tbh, if the university is making claims about how good (employment wise) its degree is, it deserves to be called out for it, if it's reasonably concluded that the graduate is optimal for jobs in every other aspect, and that it's the course/uni who is at fault.

But in this case, I doubt the above applies. It's not the case where someone (for example) embarked on an engineering degree that (during the course) lost its accreditation which consequently damaged job prospects. That then implies something important is missing from the course in the view of the accrediting body.

Or, to an nth degree, a medical school losing GMC accreditation - all hell would break loose.

Yes, I agree, but some universities have been lying for years while the public and private organisations have supported such claims with bogus or unclear results.

I still struggle to grasp what the heck is a “managerial” role. The unistats page claimed that “27% of graduates go on to professional or managerial roles”, but nobody really knows what it really means.

Is the managerial role a position as “Manager of the Loading Bay at Asda” or is it a relevant role like “Manager of the Business Design at IDEO or WPP”?

I am tired of this BS, everything is so ambiguous that the universities can avoid a lawsuit.

Accreditation is a fair point. However, if a university’s top student which they have given their highest honour to and claimed should have good post-education prospects then struggles to find relevant employment then what was the point?

This issue, to me, seems that the University has made claims which may or may not have had an effect in luring the girl to that uni. Then at the end, the student has contested some of the claims such as “excellent teaching” or “high proportions of students in relevant work and employment”.

On this thread, it seems there is victim-blaming. Some people have argued that she should have gotten a higher First, others have suggested that she should have sought relevant employment. Very few people have pointed the finger at the real culprits, ARU, for making such bogus claims and having what it looked like to be an abysmal education.

I told you how to find out what the roles mean. No to the former, yes to the later.

And don't forget those are after 6 months after graduation.

You are the one creating BS.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, you did. They were “typical” roles which rang alarm bells in my head. Alright i will stop stating that they were outrightly lying, but they pushed the boundaries of “truth”.

The problem is, is that a lot of the mediocre universities follow this practice of vague generalisations to get bottoms on seats; others will use a beneficial statistic from a given league table, survey or website to sell their course.

@Doonesbury has pointed out that employment for the course is "decent", and so instead it may be a case of exaggeration, rather than a definitive lie on ARU's part.

Good for the accuser if they get the compensation, I just doubt their chances.

A First class from ARU can lead to a graduate course at a top/good uni, so at least that's an option

Who's "they"? The roles are defined by HESA not ARU.

The first “they” was HESA roles and the second was ARU. I think Theresa May should have a comprehensive review of education and ban any dubious practice.

What a ridiculous lawsuit. If you make a bad purchase decision, that's your fault. Unless the university's course was flawed or mis-sold (e.g. they advertised it as accredited in some way and it turned out not to be), I don't see why she deserves anything. A degree is not a free pass to a good job.

Also, how can someone sue for the full value of the fees? If they aren't earning much, they won't be paying much...

She will only actually stand even the slightest chance at this if other students agree and back up the claims. But as there is no evidence about anyone else speaking out on the subject she won't win and land herself a huge court bill I expect

Could be the case if they comment on future employability. Or to say "world leading"