Student sues Anglia Ruskin over "Mickey Mouse" degree

Wouldn’t the effect take place some time after her programme? If she sued during or immediately after the programme, she could have been accused of jumping the gun. Besides, i think she would have needed some time to fully appreciate how messed up her programme really was and then ask for compensation.

I don't think so, if there will be that significant an impact on future prospects, it would be apparent quite early on, in my opinion. I've reread the article, and it looks like she's had her complaints rejected on more than one occasion already; though if it's true about her being locked in a room for speaking out at her graduation, naturally something should be done about that.

The issue, as I see it, is that the if the teaching were the inherent issue at hand, surely there would be more widespread complaints, or a lawsuit from a collective of students instead of individuals? I'm not saying her claims are untrue, necessarily, just that it seems as if there should be a bit more substance to them,

That is a fair comment, but one must be careful in generalising in situations like these. Just becauee she was the only person complaining (we do not know whether others verbally complained and those were dismissed or covered up) does not mean that she is wrong.

That is not accurate though is it?

The Information Commissioner's findings included:

"82 The Commissioner notes that the University failed to respond to the complainant’s request of 30 August 2017 within 20 working days. The University also provided additional information falling within sections 4 and 6 of the request to the complainant in its internal review on 17 January 2017, and in relation to Part 4 on 13 February 2017, outside 20 working days. As such the Commissioner finds the University to be in breach of section 10 of the FOIA, which states that a public authority must comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the request.

83. The Commissioner further finds the University to be in breach of section 10 of the FOIA in respect of the clarified request dated 11 October 2016, in that it provided the complainant with information within the scope of the request outside 20 working days of receipt of the clarified request (in its internal review of 17 January 2017)."

Here are the full findings of the Information Commissioner

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2014372/fs50649446.pdf

You say "Her complaints have been through the full Office of the Independent Adjudicator process". You do not say whether or not any of her complaints to the Independent Adjudicator were upheld. Were they?

The issue, as I see it, is that the if the teaching were the inherent issue at hand, surely there would be more widespread complaints, or a lawsuit from a collective of students instead of individuals? I'm not saying her claims are untrue, necessarily, just that it seems as if there should be a bit more substance to them,

Well, if you think that you have no chance of succeeding in a complaint/it's not worth your time, you're hardly likely to complain. I don't think many students, especially from ARU, have the resources or inclination to take a multi-million-pound organisation to court. We don't know if her course-mates complained internally to their academic tutor or the director of studies.

Business and public service associate professionals 27%
Managers, directors and senior officials 26%
Business, research and administrative professionals 11%
Administrative occupations 7%
Sales occupations 4%
Customer service occupations 4%
Process, plant and machine operatives 4%
Quality and regulatory professionals 2%
Secretarial and related occupations 2%

5/9 of these are low level categories of jobs someone out of a-level could do.

also dubious about the "manager" category as it could mean pretty much anything.

associate professional basically means technician or some other lower level "assistant".

At best, 37% of the graduates are in decent jobs if we assume the 11% and 26% categories are actually in genuine, professional areas.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Wut?! If *you* or anyone, wants to see it you are free to do so by looking at LinkedIn. There's no mystery, just that Unistats (or HESA) doesn't record the info.

Indeed not - as I say, I'm not trying to dismiss her claims, or say they're untrue, simply that the timing and circumstance of claims like this often seem suspect. If it is true, I hope others speak out about it too, as something would certainly need to be done in that situation.

The govt knows most of these universities have 0 value to society or the economy.

At this point it is just a keynesian stimulus to improve the employment statistics. All those lecturers, admin staff and students with very high marginal propensity to consume creating jobs in nightclubs, fast food places etc

Add in a few hundred international students and it also helps finance the current account deficit.

It is not clear (from a cursory reading of the decision) whether she complained about the uni not replying within the time limit.

I don't get her issue. Surely, you as a student, should do your research before applying? And how is it the university's problem if your degree doesn't get you anywhere?

If this continues to happen, I don't think international students would want to study here.

I think most international students can tell the difference between good and bad universities, alot of them choose to go to bad universities because its still better than quality of teaching in their home country / chance to live in england for a few years at parents expense

Yes she did; it is in para 6, but there is slight confusion due to typos in para 82. The request was dated 30 August 2016 not 2017.

As with many ICO complaints, what starts out as a complaint about no response evolves into a complaint about the content of the response, once the ICO forces the public body to give a give a response.

Yes, the decision is poorly written. Apparently the university responded to her initial request from 30 Aug 2016 on 7 Oct 2017, says a decision dated 26 June 2017.

I don't agree the ARU rep's statement is necessarily inaccurate.

The complaint was issued on 24 Feb 2017 (para 13) and this complaint is the basis of the IOC's decision. It was about how the request was handled and she wanted the ICO to "encourage" to respond fully. There is no specific mention of time limit and it only appears under "Other matters" which the ICO "noted" (no mention of claimant's bringing it to their attention). Para 6 wasn't a complaint, and it wasn't the basis of this decision. In effect, it does not necessarily follow that that ICO accepted some of her complaint.