Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Could be the case if they comment on future employability. Or to say "world leading"
    Most of their key claims are on their About page.
    https://www.anglia.ac.uk/about-us/why-aru

    I imagine they've had all of those pretty carefully checked and whilst one feels inclined to doubt their 'global university' claim (what does it mean anyway - being one of 350 listed on QS?), they are probably hard to challenge.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm not sure it's true that she needs testimonial from other students - I don't have legal training, but I would think the crux of the matter is misrepresentation, eg, did the college mislead her as a student when she signed up. This case doesn't seem (afaict) to be like the previous Oxford one, which swung on poor delivery of the course.
    The other students are relevent though, if it said increased job proospects and the majority of them have good jobs and she doesn’t, then she’s the exception. Just because it hasn’t happened to her doesn’t make the claim or advertising untrue.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    The other students are relevent though, if it said increased job proospects and the majority of them have good jobs and she doesn’t, then she’s the exception. Just because it hasn’t happened to her doesn’t make the claim or advertising untrue.
    I assumed witness statements would be about course quality, not post-graduation employment. As Doonesbury is pointing out, that is fairly well documented in the stats according to accepted current standards.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    HESA has adopted SOC2010 for role definitions. That's the ONS standard, nothing to do with education.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/c...ionsoc/soc2010

    The horse is dead, please stop flogging it.
    Alright, I will stop.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    The other students are relevent though, if it said increased job proospects and the majority of them have good jobs and she doesn’t, then she’s the exception. Just because it hasn’t happened to her doesn’t make the claim or advertising untrue.
    I suppose if she could show a pattern of employment fundamentally different to the university's claims, then yes.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I suppose if she could show a pattern of employment fundamentally different to the university's claims, then yes.
    Hmm, but again we don’t know the full information. She could have had job interviews that otherwise she couldn’t have got without the degree, but flunked them. Not the unis fault.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Hmm, but again we don’t know the full information. She could have had job interviews that otherwise she couldn’t have got without the degree, but flunked them. Not the unis fault.
    Yes, I was talking there about identifying a pattern of poor post-graduation employment affecting a number of ARU students, such that it would show that it wasn't just an individual set of experiences that she had. It would probably be difficult to get that, but if she did obtain such statements, I would think that alone would make quite a difference to her case, since it would point to widespread dissatisfaction, which itself would contradict ARU claims. All speculation, however.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I imagine it will be very difficult for her to win it (not sure though, I'm not a lawyer - I expect nulli tertius will be able to assist us), but I would personally like to see a case like this succeed, as I don't believe that many university course offerings are either worth the money or correctly described. I also think universities are charging far too much in many cases and that far too much of that money is being spent on overpaid top managers and their expenses.
    It is clear from the article that she is bringing the claim as a litigant in person, and not a well focused one.

    She has brought a complaint to the Independent Adjudicator's Office. From the language used, I think she has won, but nor accepted, a trivial victory. She has lost an ICO complaint. She has had a costs order made against her at a directions hearing in the present court proceedings.

    She has made life difficult for herself by alleging fraudulent misrepresentation; proving lying in circumstances where negligent misrepresentation would be sufficient win a claim.

    The principal difficulty with her claim seems to be an inability to identify clear representations of fact of which the university are in breach.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Haven't been keeping up with the specific debate on this thread, but if anyone wants to kill some time, here's the recently published judgement of the guy who tried to sue Oxford on the basis that the "bad" teaching he received led to his later "failures" in life (and unsurprisingly, lost): https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...l-judgment.pdf

    A really interesting example of just how difficult it is to establish causality b/w a degree and later attainment - or lack thereof - in the legal system.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Who are the idiot lawyers taking people like this seriously?
    They probably read "Law Studies" at Anglia polytechnic.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It is clear from the article that she is bringing the claim as a litigant in person, and not a well focused one.

    She has brought a complaint to the Independent Adjudicator's Office. From the language used, I think she has won, but nor accepted, a trivial victory. She has lost an ICO complaint. She has had a costs order made against her at a directions hearing in the present court proceedings.

    She has made life difficult for herself by alleging fraudulent misrepresentation; proving lying in circumstances where negligent misrepresentation would be sufficient win a claim.

    The principal difficulty with her claim seems to be an inability to identify clear representations of fact of which the university are in breach.
    She may have done better following TSR and seeking the advice of Nulli Tertius before acting.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kulchur)
    Haven't been keeping up with the specific debate on this thread, but if anyone wants to kill some time, here's the recently published judgement of the guy who tried to sue Oxford on the basis that the "bad" teaching he received led to his later "failures" in life (and unsurprisingly, lost): https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...l-judgment.pdf

    A really interesting example of just how difficult it is to establish causality b/w a degree and later attainment - or lack thereof - in the legal system.
    Thanks for this I didn't want to have to go through Legal Cheek (blurgh) to find it.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    To your points, that is fair. However to the point of further studies, isn’t that more money to waste?
    Waste is subjective; it will end up teaching the student more, and vastly increases their chances of a job if the course is high quality.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    Waste is subjective; it will end up teaching the student more, and vastly increases their chances of a job if the course is high quality.
    The key word is “if”. Most students would probably assume that their course is high quality. At least that was what the university wrote and told them. Very few students will enrol at University X just for laughs.
    •  Official Rep
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
     Official Rep
    We are well aware of the claims made by this former student and we are robustly defending the current litigation.

    Her complaints have been through the full Office of the Independent Adjudicator process (http://www.oiahe.org.uk/). She then made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (https://ico.org.uk) which was rejected after a thorough investigation. Subsequently she has launched legal action against us and has been required to pay our costs at an earlier hearing.

    As this case is before the court we will not be saying anything further at this stage.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Official ARU Admissions Representative)
    As this case is before the court we will not be saying anything further at this stage.
    Probably wise...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Official ARU Admissions Representative)

    She then made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (https://ico.org.uk) which was rejected after a thorough investigation.
    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...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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's not a universities job to secure you a job immediately after you graduate, that's completely down to the student

    Sounds like this idiot needs to enter the real world
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    The timing on cases like these always seems very suspect - it would be one thing if she'd done it during or immediately after completing her course, but when it's some years after, it seems more as if she's just looking for something else to blame.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 14, 2018

2,992

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.