Lawsuits that aren't as dumb as they first appear to be

I've heard people hold up a lot of examples of faults in our tort system, from suits over McDonalds hot coffee to the most recent example of a graduate suing her school.

I just should remind everyone that there is a judge or jury deciding every case, one which has more facts than will be reported in the press.

Here is a deeper examination of the woman suing her 'college'. While I'm not sure if I'd rule in her favor, the details are not as cut and dried as the news channels report them.

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/money-trail/2009/08/12/sue-school

Have you heard the joke about the new grad suing her college because she can't find a job? There's a good chance you have. First reported by the New York Post, the story gained juice last week when it was picked up by New York's TV stations and by CNN's Prime News, where anchor Mike Galanos shook his head in amusement and told viewers, "I don't see how this one can be legit." The Onion satirized it; countless blogs chimed in to label Trina Thompson, the 27-year-old who filed the lawsuit, an idiot or worse; and even the Chronicle of Higher Education, a publication not known for its sense of humor, got in its digs.

As should be very clear to anyone who's taken a look at what Monroe College is really about, however, what's at stake is not a "liberal arts" education as anybody understands it. The difference between what Thompson was offered and what a traditional vocational school-the kind of "business institute" that Monroe once billed itself as-proposes comes down mainly to her education taking longer, costing more, and offering far less certain outcomes.

The fact that it's a shit school makes me think even less of her.

Brilliant article, rich. Even I, one who should know better, did not think of this side.

A description of Monroe that you will not find on its Web site is one that Thompson herself-who spoke to me reluctantly after the drubbing she's taken in the press-proffered: "a vocational school." Monroe is what the education industry euphemistically terms a "proprietary institution" or, in ordinary language, a for-profit school. It is accredited as a college by the regional organization responsible for these things-a fact that an offended Monroe spokesman confronted with Thompson's words insisted meant Monroe must be a college and not merely a "vocational school." But it does not by any stretch of the imagination exist for the sake of the advancement of learning.

@Bruce:

There are those who will say that in choosing colleges, as in so much else, the principle of caveat emptor applies. But the whole thrust of the promotion of schools like Monroe-down to its bragging about a "division one" baseball team (that's Division I in the junior college league, not the NCAA, though you wouldn't know it from Monroe's ads) is to obscure the distinctions between a Monroe and traditional nonprofit schools dedicated to higher education. This they do quite successfully: If CNN can't tell the difference, it's not a surprise that young entering students can't, either.

In my line of work, one must be very careful in dancing around advice (which I am asked outside of work, at least a couple times a week, running into people who know my field) pertaining to value of institutions, and a "what do you think I should do?." I advise them things like "make sure the credits transfer, whatever you decide. You might decide to one day go even further in your education and you need to know if those credits are accepted by...blah blah blah."

So maybe they should get a reality check, and be brought to the public knowledge, if indeed the "profit" far outweighs things such as "learning" and "viability" and "commitment to community" etc and so on.

Here's my problem though: okay, so perhaps she has a legitimate beef in that Monroe is falsely representing itself in advertisements and will not actually provide her with a true college degree, either in the sense of actual knowledge gleaned or in the sense of added value to employers. However, one would imagine this is something she would have figured out in the first semester, when she began attending these classes and found them to be vocational. That is when she should have sued, not after slogging through 4 more years of coursework. Obviously she thought she was getting her money's worth during that time.

Someone with no prior knowledge of what college, or academia, should be, many having been less than stellar HS students, might not discern the difference.

My hope is that this incident might educate the general public to make them more apt to realize what they're getting into before they get into it, not after a couple years of still being filled with promises and after spending thousands of dollars.

There are those who will say that in choosing colleges, as in so much else, the principle of caveat emptor applies. But the whole thrust of the promotion of schools like Monroe-down to its bragging about a "division one" baseball team (that's Division I in the junior college league, not the NCAA, though you wouldn't know it from Monroe's ads) is to obscure the distinctions between a Monroe and traditional nonprofit schools dedicated to higher education.

She probably believed Billy Mays and bought everything he pitched, too. Maybe she'll win a big settlement and can assure her financial future by investing in Amway. :rolleyes:

Eh, Monroe's Campus in New Rochelle is about four blocks from where I grew up. You could tell just by driving by that is wasn't a college, but a vocational school. OTOH, their website describes the NR campus: "Monroe College's two campuses offer the best of both worlds: an idyllic, quiet, suburban campus in New Rochelle..."

Yeah, compared to Calcutta or Hong Kong, sure that part of NR is quit and idyllic. When you look under descriptions of the campuses, they contradict themselves:

"Located in downtown New Rochelle, NY, a thriving suburban community in Westchester County, the Monroe College New Rochelle campus is nestled in a diverse area that includes small shops and large stores, neighborhood restaurants and chains, and the mammoth New Roc City entertainment and shopping complex that contains movie theaters, a skating rink and arcade."


Which is right across the street.

I feel bad for anyone who was bilked by that place.

Here is an update related to this thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/education/edlife/01forprofit-t.html?_r=1

The pitch is particularly appealing to older and low-income students, some of whom have given up on traditional publics and privates. Almost a quarter of federal Pell grant funds for needy students go to for-profit education, according to a new analysis by the research firm Student Lending Analytics.

But for-profit colleges — especially those (University of Phoenix, DeVry University) run by publicly traded companies — invariably invoke concerns that sales, not education, is the prime mission. And that they serve a pool of vulnerable students who take on large debt and are unable to make enough to pay it back.

According to the College Board, of four-year graduates who take out loans to attend for-profit colleges, 60 percent have amassed at least $30,000 in debt. To attend publics, only 20 percent of borrowers owe that much. And more graduates of for-profit schools default on their loans: 11 percent within the first two years, compared with 5 percent of nonprofit graduates.

Read and heed, folks, read and heed.