Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch
Does this lawsuit really bother you? I'm not saying it has merit, but it doesn't seem all that far-fetched. (At least, if you ignore the tinges that the article gives it.)
In California at least, this sort of conduct by schools -- lots of promises, especially oral promises, by admissions reps -- led to a regulatory scheme that requires all kinds of disclosures to prospective students, with heavy emphasis on the %% of graduates in recent years who actually found jobs. (And, as in so many cases, those disclosures are often rendered worthless by the complete failure of most people to read things they have to sign.)
|
That regulatory scheme was caused by two related things: the near-collapse of the student loan industry in the 1980's, and the rise of diploma mills, often catering to minority and/or low-income students. Reforms across the country led to stricter attendance policies and other safeguards for almost all vocational schools. For some schools, the regulatory costs were too much to bear and there was a lot of consolidation of private, for-profit vocational schools, especially in California.
Having said that, if the school back East has sensible administrators, they'll produce her admissions documents where she initialed a stack of disclosure forms which promised
career assistance, not a career.
The problem with the newspaper article is that it lists her name. What would you do with her resume if you were in HR? If I ran a company, I'd make sure she never got an interview there.
The opposite problem exists with RT's youtube link. Em? Is "Em" short for Emma? Emmy? Emily? Until last year Emily was the most popular girls' name. It had held that title for the past 12 years. And what name usurped Emily? Emma! That's not helpful. We don't know anything about this woman except that she's (1) a bad listener, (2) crazy.
