Hi Steve,

I just had to comment on this entry...how in the world can a person decide in their mind that someone is responsible for their shortcoming??  People need to think and realize that a college success does not come with a promise or a guarantee, it comes with the potential.  I like to think of a degree as gravy on buttery and creamy mashed potatoes.  With experience it's great, but w/that degree on top, makes it even more tasteful.  Shame on that girl, and if that university settles, then that opens the door to college grads all over the U.S to sue their institutions, especially the classes of 2009.  

Although looking to government to "make it didn't happen" might be a slippery slope to the depths of madness, we already are in that particular madhouse.  Perhaps, if the loser of a civil suit paid court costs and the legal costs of the winner of the suit, we would see a lot fewer lawsuits.  This case is not about legal reform; it is about academic malpractice.

In the English-speaking countries, we operate under the assumption that everyone deserves an academic degree.  This is laudable on the surface, but it fails on two points:

a) It tacitly denigrates trades and crafts as fulfilling careers.  Not everyone is best suited for a career in law, medicine, engineering, education, science, or middle management.  Instead of selling the promise of a Business Administration career in Information Technology to C students, schools would serve their students better if they had professional alternatives in trades and crafts, and they treated those programs with respect.

b) Academic programs are designed by individuals, and each is unique.  Some programs are strong; some programs are weak; some are laughable.  If standards for academic programs, instruction, and assessment existed, complaints like the one addressed here would be without merit by assumption, and possibly even by definition.  Sadly, attempts at standardization lead to cries of "McEducation," and students are awarded at different schools degrees that have the same name and bear almost no resemblance to each other.

The problem lies with admissions departments at many schools that prey on the naive and the gullible, and the deck is stacked in favor of the schools. As soon as a student signs a student loan agreement, that student is stuck with that debt; it cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. The school gets paid, regardless of the quality of its programs, and the student commits before services are rendered.

So, while we probably all agree with Steve's rhetorical point, and we would not hire this young lady - or anyone with same or a similar name, just to be safe - this happened at Monroe College and not at MIT.

The school bears some responsibility here.

This case is about academic malpractice.  

Ms. Thompson claims that Monroe College failed to uphold its side of the bargain; Monroe College's administrators no doubt disagree.  In all likelihood, the courts will side with Monroe College.

As for moral high ground, just as Ms. Thompson does not have the moral high ground here, Monroe College's admissions representatives and administrators do not have the moral high ground, either.  They might not have stated explicitly that Ms. Thompson would get an executive position upon graduation, but they did have her sign student loan application forms that compelled her to pay for classes, before she ever saw the inside of one of Monroe College's classrooms.

A pox on both their houses!

My original point is that sanctimonious twits are what is needed to send a signal to sleazy 'education' purveyors that the madness must end.  If the madness does not end, then sleazy 'education' purveyors should bear some of the cost of their actions.

From what I have seen, everyone seems to be coming down hard against Ms. Thompson.  She is not the only guilty party here.

CWE