No job? Just sue your school

August 10, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Can’t find a job? Sue your school! That’s what one graduate in New York City has decided to do. She thinks it’s her school’s fault she can’t find a job because its office of career advancement hasn’t provided her with leads and the career advice it promised.

The Monroe College IT graduate wants her $70,000 in tuition back. The college claims it helps graduates in their careers and argues the lawsuit is without merit.

When I first heard this story and before I knew what her degree was in, I thought this story had to be about a law student. But perhaps a law student would know this kind of action may end up being deemed frivolous or quickly tossed out.

It took me more than 6-months to find a full-time job after graduating, and it wasn’t even in my major. When my bank account was running low and my student loans were coming due, it would have been nice to have the university reimburse me for the money I paid. After all, I went there to become skilled in a specific field with the goal of working in said field. It took me longer than I thought it would to score a full-time journalism job.

But I want to know how a graduate who hasn’t found “gainful employment” since graduating has the money to hire an attorney. If she’s not working, who’s paying the attorney? I doubt an attorney would take on this case pro bono, but maybe one has. Perhaps the grad is proceeding pro se in order to save money.

I know you can’t be guaranteed a job after graduating because jobs are dependent on so many factors (qualifications, economy, competition, etc.). It’s not the school’s fault she can’t find a job. Perhaps it could be more helpful in trying to find leads, but it’s up to each individual to score employment. For those of us who struggled for months or years to find a job in our field, wouldn’t it be great if you could sue your school and get back that tuition if you couldn’t find a job in your major within a certain time period?

I know that would in essence give some a free education and reward them for being jobless, while graduates who found jobs would still have to pay for their education. But when you’re broke, sitting at home all day (possibly at your parents’ house), or working at the same job you did in high school, getting back your tuition, even through a lawsuit, would be a nice dream, wouldn’t it?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT