Great article James. I think that suing schools is a different problem from suing universities.

In the era of intense rivalry between universities for funding, universities do not keep track of graduate outcomes because it’s not a good marketing ploy to advertise that only 20% of your graduates secure employment in the field. Those that are successful have to start in the unglamorous positions at the bottom.

If DEET and universities tracked graduate outcomes then we would have a better picture of how to build Australia into a modern democracy that will be economically sustainable in the 21st century.

This is a bit of a rant. The total number of places in law faculties is clearly larger than the number of jobs on offer by the law firms, but law graduates can surely find other jobs. The universities are responding to demand for places in law - how could they do otherwise? The demand is created by the prestige of high-flying lawyers, their earning capacity, the publicity generated by media, the pressure to take advantage of high ENTER scores etc. Hard to see what the universities can do about it except be realistic in responding to inquiries and in writing their PR material.

Michael T

Of course Education is a product. Universities in Trade and Commerce come under the Trade Practices Act. Moreover, educators can be liable for not implementing curricula, as written, if the lower quality delivery and assessment reflects adversely of on the author.

When I was involved in Banking (1980s) one attitudinal problem was that branch managers saw their role to be only rationers of credit. Similarly, tertiary educators all to often see themselves merely as custodians grades to be given and rationers of degrees; without paying adequate attention to their moral and legal responsibilities to the student.

With the increasing dependence of so called sandstone unis on o'seas student, they should be scared in this litigous world. As a highly educated former o'seas student myself, i'm starting to regret spending over $90,000 in Australian education, only to be knocked back over and over for more than a year on interviews due to lack of "australian experience".

Combine the local firm's reluctance to employ o'seas student due to prejudice about their lack of commitment, and the 20 hours work limitation, these unis produced a large number of disadvantaged ( and very disgruntled ) former customer, which lack of work-experience opportunity during their uni days will haunt them long after they graduated.

Mine end up with a happy ending, employed as an accountant ( a junior one )with an almost decent pay, but at least i'm working on my field. For every story like mine, there's hundred of unsuccessful ones, things which are not promoted when the Australian unis held their expos overseas.

You wouldn't expect them to say " oh by the way, you would be paying more tuition fee, don't get travel discounts, discriminated against in work experience, and lacking opportunity when you graduated. Now can i interest you in this special double degree package, for only an extra $ 28,000?"

I, for one will warn my sister to stay away from Australia, saving our parents at least another $36,000 and another big dissapointment. Singapore would be a much better choice for her.

If the litigation at Sydney Unis lack of student service is successful, i will say good on them, as those unis ( and the government who feed them )only have themselves to blame.

Speaking with some authority on the matter, having been a student, and having done the complex mathematical equations required, I can assure the reader that 50% of all primary and secondary students are below average.

This suprisingly large figure should be taken into account when any matter of education is taken before a court.

James has raised three important discussion points:

1) education as a product
2) education as a means to a job
3) the change resulting from less focus on content and educators and more on marketing officers

Evaluating education as if it were a mining enterprise or banking misses the ponit completely. By treating the creating, dissemination and preservation of knowledge as a commodity, it allows the appearance of respect for knowledge to paper over the reality of gutting the public knowledge institutions (as the universities are meant to be) by forcing academics to dumb down the curriculum, teach overly large classes, and treat students as customers lined up for degrees, instead of co-learners in the larger societal enterprise of creating a knowledge base for society to last through the ages.

Education never was and never will be a product. Regardless of how much time and money is put into any education, unless the student has initiative and ability she or he will never achieve a high level of knowledge. Private time dedicated to student discussion, debate and counselling make great contributions not found elsewhere in society. These efforts and times are simply not truly measurable, and more importantly, nor is the great benefit derived from such. To classify this as a product is as silly as stating “All vegetation is food. Therefore, all humans must eat all vegetation.” The notions of cooking, balanced nutrition, poisonous vegetation etc. are completely lost.

Education has many important outcomes, one of which is employability. A tertiary education that focuses only on employability fails to be “higher education”. Higher education requires the student to develop critical thinking skills, engagement in intellectual activity and the intellectual tradition of which our society is a part. Yet, as pointed out, universities would do well to pay more attention and find better ways to support student entry into the workforce.

As the o’seas student pointed out, selling degrees at prices accessible only to the privileged as tickets to upper-crust positions will undoubtedly lead to “dissatisfied customers” when they fail to deliver