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

So if I buy an expensive box of breakfast cereal and it turns out nobody in the house wants it, I should sue the shop that sold it to me?

Maybe I missed something.

Perhaps this is why the smart money is in Scientology and Hillsong.

After all, if your members fail to "clear" their Thetans for the next life, or fail to get into heaven - they can't exactly sue you, can they?

:D

But seriously, schools and universities have nothing to fear from well-heeled parents litigating, if they just apply a bit of hard-nosed commercial nous (granted, this is in short supply in most schools). After all, if these families are going to insist upon treating education as a product and a private consumer good, then the principles of caveat emptor will apply.

It cuts both ways.

Applying the principle of buyer beware to the experience of FMP81: if FMP81’s parents had done their homework, they might have learnt sooner that in Australia (and the USA, and Ireland, and the UK), education at the “right” university or in the “right” qualification has never really been a guarantee of getting the “right” job, and was never intended to be.

However, the educational cultures of Japan, Germany and France are somewhat different, and in those countries most universities have direct links with employers and tailor-make their degrees accordingly. (Also, it’s a two-way street as the employers adjust their training programs to the level of the graduates they know they will get.)

It’s not quite so cut-and-dried as I’ve portrayed it, but it’s a definite tendency that has been empirically supported in a number of substantial comparative OECD studies.

So if FMP81’s parents were looking for a rolled-gold career matched to a tertiary education degree, they would have been better off sending their children to Japan or Germany.

Perhaps price also had something to do with the decision...?

At bottom, FMP81’s experience looks like a case of expectation mismatch. It is unfortunate, but hardly surprising, if people misread the cultural cues of a foreign country or assume that the way education works in their country will be the equivalent here in Australia. Buyer beware? Or do the education marketers need to manage expectations more carefully? Probably a bit of both...

What a load of nonsense.It is about time the learners and the educators took responsibility for their own actions.To bring the notion of litigious,parasitical lawyers as a solution to educational standards,just demonstrates how bereft we all have become of original ideas and innovation.

Get the lawyers involved and they will destroy education,just as they have destroyed the social frabric in our society by selling us rights,rather than pushing the notion of personal responsibility.

Education is a two way street,both the learner and the educator have to dedicated.This happens because of the ethics and dedication of our society in general,not because of the scum sucking bottom feeders that dwell in the weakness of our humanity.

People have been threatening schools with the possibility of litigation for decades. But it hasn't gone very far, and is not likely to.

What education aims at is complex (and highly contended). What methods are teaching are appropriate are also highly contentious. The causes of any student's outcome include the nature, aptitude and attitudes of the student, the attitudes (and education) of the parents, and government policies and policy changes.

Except in the case of quite ludicrous irresponsibility, it will be extraordinarily hard to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that it was the failure of a teacher or of a school to act in a particular fashion has produced an inferior result.

As for universities, the long bitter struggle to maintain standards--or rather to slow their decline--continues. It is a struggle against governments, treasury and education departments, and often vice-chancellors as well. And then there are go-getting collegues.

Even so, I don't know of a university which guarantees jobs.

<humour>
It's about time people like Arjay stopped blaming the lawyers for destroying "the social fabric of our society" and accepted "the notion of personal responsibility" for it.

It's the lawyer-blaming attitudes of people like Arjay who have led us to today's degenerate society where nobody takes personal responsibility for anything.

If only those "scum sucking bottom feeders" hadn't started "selling" us the foolish notion that we have rights, then those pesky asbestos victims would be put right back in their place and leave great companies like James Hardie alone.
</humour>

Jus' keeping you ideologically pure, Arj.

Arjay,

Hi,

"our society by selling us rights,rather than pushing the notion of personal responsibility"

If we rearrange your words a littl,e we can ask for rights to personal responsibility. Both as a student and a university lecturer, I have seen some pretty poor peers in both camps. I see nothing wrong with failing an under performing student nor suing an underforming university.

It is a two way street.

Well lawyers make are very well represented in our political system and pass legislation that is slanted towards the well being of our legal disease.
Just imagine George Bush senior sueing a University because GB Junior had failed the exam because his eyes were too close together and thus there was no room for brains.The result would be that because of the threat of litigation,no one would be allowed to fail!

I must have hit a few raw home truth nerves,to have two bloggers take me to task in succession!
I think that the legal profession is basically a waste of human intelligence,since they in their symbiotic relationship with insurance companies,create the need for insurance,and then feed off the system they have created.A very cosy and snug relationship that creates cowards in our Govt Bureauracies who generate more red tape and destroys small business enterprise.Basically litigious lawyers are making our society very oportunistic and corrupt.That is the reality.

Ajay,

I do have feel for where you are coming from given, as I have heard of children being asked to their Lemonade stand off the street lest a council be sued. Today, we are often too quick to go to court and arbitration is under used.

Just the same there has to be accountability for rip merchants, including universities, if,(ahem), the cap fits.

When in Banking, I once went to a no pens and no pads meeting, where we were told that the Bank would simply outspend the litigents until it won. Bad news. But this does not mean that students cannot have a rightful case against a university

Australian universities as understood are no longer polishing the brightest but just supply degrees to kids of bosses for sheltering their inherited corporate positions.

That is one of reasons for Islamists to feel their hand on top in a few decades in decaying Anglo-crown-world.

Perhaps the ligitation problem can be best confronted by a bit more old-fashioned conversation rather than by employing more know-it-all lawyers, marketing and PR people who only want to talk in monologues of meaningless corporate slogans and propaganda.
Excerpt from a full reply that can be found at:
http://selby.edublogs.org/2006/08/29/response-to-schools-and-universities-coming-soon-to-a-court-near-you/

This one is for FMP81...

I have recently graduated from a University that is largely funded by full fee paying overseas students (like yourself). Generally (but not always), I found that these students were below average students. I don't know if it's because such students come to study in Australia when they fail to gain entry at universities in their home countries, if it's because of cultural difference in terms of learning material, or if it is a simple language barrier problem, but that was my experience.

Additionally, I have it on good account that lecturers are instructed to pass a high percentage of full-fee paying overseas students regardless of the quality of their work to keep their 'customers' happy... afterall, they know who is paying their wages.

FMP81, I am sure you are a great person, and I am sorry that you didn't enjoy your experience with the Australian education system. However, from your post alone I can tell that your English is fairly patchy. Top law, accounting and other business firms can't afford to tarnish their reputation by hiring graduates with imperfect skills of any kind - and that includes English. Languages are incredibly difficult to master so it is unsurprising that your grammar is not completely correct. But you can't sue a university because you didn't get one of the best jobs on the market.
I'm sure in the Singaporean job market your English skills would be to your advantage in job applications.

You are absolutely incorrect, FMP81, suggesting “the o v e r s e a s students are discriminated”: they are in a much better position than local non-Anglo-kids/professionals of whom graduation and employment are only matters of their biological origin and a caste they belong in Australia.

Anyway, what sort of “education” does one suppose getting in a place, where mutually awarded professors have in generations no slight practical involvement and expertise in matters they lecture upon decades, “mateship” rules and people have been qualified and employment on biological/caste considerations only?

Is it unclear, the better engineering and science overseas-the lesser foreigners to profit Australia-based English crown owned multinational companies for peanuts? And an influx of illegal and semi-legal “visa 457” potential slaves could decrease, upsetting profit-related expectations of inherited their positions and perks at first stage?

Singaporean friend of mine asked me of Canada, moving with her family there-I told that to me it did not look as a place opportunity to grab but for young professionals of Chinese descent it might be luckier. However, Canada, a mere agricultural Americanized British semi-colony, is a cream-of-the-job-cream in comparison with Australia living out natural resources while on international loans consuming much more than producing.

All these usual English-proficiency-as-a-matter-of-intelligence explanations are a simple cover up for local traditional colonial Anglo-bigotry, xenophobia and racism.