You're entitled to profit if the service was advertised that way, yes. Stocks aren't advertised as neccessarily profitable, because that'd be false advertising. By contrast, the entire system is set up to paint university or college as a path to a good job or career. The public school system does it, the schools themselves do it, the government does it, the businesses do it.
In this case, I've given one explicit and one implicit example of schools which state that their product will lead to a career. Given the ridiculous amounts students pay for their degrees, it's actually fairly reasonable to expect a return on that, especially when the schools are saying you will, and advertising that way. No other business could make the claims universities or their proxies in the public service sector do.
I agree with you. The heart of this case will be demonstrating that she wasn't supplied the same tools other students were. If she can, then she stands a chance of winning. If she can't, I don't see how she could possibly win.
That said, GPA shouldn't be the measure of school. When I went to school, we were told to enumerate the skills we had, and list the things we could actually do on a resume. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if I got an A or a C in linear process control(I got an A), I can write on my resume that I can control a linear process using a variety of controllers. Employers were looking for skills, not for a piece of paper (ironically, I was hired more because of my CAD skills rather than my control engineering skills)
Going into debt for decades working minimum wage and trying to pay off $70k-$100k will cost you years of your life, and will cost you the freedom to pursue your dreams.
Don't talk to me about value while advocating people throw their lives away to pay some professor's salary.
Also, you need to realise that the cost of college is different than when you went. Cost of living increased roughly 3-fold during this time; medical costs inflated roughly 6-fold; but college tuition and fees inflation approached 10-fold. Another way to say this is that whereas medical costs hyperinflated at twice the rate of cost-of-living, college tuition and fees hyperinflated at three times the rate of cost-of-living inflation. Thus, even after controlling for the effects of general inflation, 2008 college tuition and fees posed three times the burden as in 1978.
Try again. The country I'm in only spends 15% of gdp on the federal government, about half of what the US does. Of that, a very small portion of the federal budget is paid for with debt, compared to at least half of the US federal budget.
See, usability is my problem with anything 64-bit, and vista in particular. If my applications don't run, I don't care what attributes the OS has. If that weren't the case, I'd throw linux on my gaming PC and that'd be that.
One of the reasons I love my netbook is I can replace it without any huge amount of financial planning. "Oh, guess I lost my Aspire One. Guess I'll buy another one."
Gotta second you on the portability thing. My Aspire One is about the perfect size. You can't type on the eee, and anything bigger is creeping into desktop replacement territory, which isn't great for kicking back and surfing.
I don't think you've ever worked in industry. There's plenty of suing going on over things of this sort, pretty much on a daily basis. I recall a big boiler project where they're in the midst of a lawsuit because they didn't see the results they wanted.
Universities nearly always pimp their practical value in finding a job. They HAVE to, because if people saw school as a luxury, nobody would ever go six figures in debt to go. The local university, for example, uses "One University, many futures" as its catchphrase. The college I went to has billboards showing the successful people who went to the school. They're advertising and selling a career. When that doesn't happen, it's only natural that someone will step back and go "Wait a moment, I didn't get what I was sold!" and sue like this.
Also remember, in 1970 university cost 1/10th of what it does today(accounting for inflation). It's only natural for something so expensive to come with much greater expectations.
Jews were definitely guilty of the crime of being Jews. You could have all the trials you wanted, it wouldn't change the verdict, because it was the legislator's hand that was unjust, not the application of the resulting rules.
In 1939, being a Jew in Germany was illegal. The punishment was death. By your logic, that's perfectly just.
Surely you mean there's a difference between liquefying people and locking them up with rapists and murderers for a decade.
In this case, copying someone's game is analogous to being a Jew. It's the trivial imagined offense which brings about the disproportionate punishment.
No, you're mistaken. She's not getting this service above and beyond. Having the college help her get a job is part of what she's paying for, and she's getting less service than someone else who paid the same thing.
You're basically saying it's free market for me to get a nicer big mac because I'll use the energy from it more efficiently than anyone else. That's not the case. We both paid our 3 dollars, we should both get the same burger. In this case, both of them paid their $70,000, they should both get the same help marketing their new skills to prospective employees.
Maybe things are different in Australia, but in the US and Canada, tuition is high enough that you MUST appeal to people's sense of utility, because as a luxury few can afford it.
Just think, this girl is suing for $70,000USD in tuition. If not for the promise of better employment, an 18 year old making minimum wage taking out that sort of debt would be completely reckless. Hell, I'm an established professional, and I wouldn't take out $70,000USD in debt for a luxury.
It all sounds great in theory, but you're not the one who just dropped six figures on tuition.
Yeah, after dropping as much as a new house, I'd say it's fair to hope for wages high enough to compensate for the equivalent to a mortgage payment every month.
This is a fairly new development. Today's six-figure tuition would cost around $17,000 in 1970 -- but in 1970, tuition was actually closer to $1,300 for a 4-year course. Part of the entitlement of this generation comes from having some of the highest standards in history to live up to, some of the largest price tags in history for basic things like a home for your family, school we're told you can't get a job without, or even basic medical care. You leave high school, accumulate a lifetime worth of debt, then these kids get people saying they don't deserve jobs despite running up these huge debts.
To be fair, different classes really have different difficulties.
I had a GPA back in school around the average previously cited, but relative to the rest of my class I was near the top, because it was a hardcore program designed to pump out people who knew their shit and to force people who couldn't keep up to simply drop out.
If my company spent six figures on an investment that was supposed to pay for itself and we saw no returns, we'd be suing the organization that sold it to us. Why is an individual who spends six figures on an investment any different? If you're paying as much as a small house on tuition, it seems not that ridiculous to assume you're entitled to some sort of benefit.
A bigger reason is likely the ease of access to student debt. All areas of the economy where there's easy access to debt will find high inflation. Housing is a great example -- people couldn't even afford to pay back their million dollar mortgages, but house prices kept going up because the debt flowed so freely. Education is another great example. No kid on earth can actually afford to go to school, but let them take on enough debt to pay for their first house and suddenly it's perfectly reasonable to have prices as high as they are. It distorts the usual supply/demand curve.
Just watch and see what would happen to tuition costs if kids couldn't get out of high school and take out six figures of debt.
To be fair, part of the sense of entitlement likely comes from the simple fact that it's a massive investment.
If a company paid $70,000(the tuition this girl is trying to get reimbursed) and was promised a quick payback, and that payback never materialised, they'd sue. Why is this individual suddenly evil for doing exactly what any company would, given an investment that didn't pay off as advertised?
Honestly, if I'm a young person making minimum wage, and an education is going to cost many multiples of my annual income, I want to know there's a payback. All the poetry in the world isn't going to make the phone calls from creditors stop.
Slashdot Mirror
You're entitled to profit if the service was advertised that way, yes. Stocks aren't advertised as neccessarily profitable, because that'd be false advertising. By contrast, the entire system is set up to paint university or college as a path to a good job or career. The public school system does it, the schools themselves do it, the government does it, the businesses do it.
In this case, I've given one explicit and one implicit example of schools which state that their product will lead to a career. Given the ridiculous amounts students pay for their degrees, it's actually fairly reasonable to expect a return on that, especially when the schools are saying you will, and advertising that way. No other business could make the claims universities or their proxies in the public service sector do.
LEAVE MARY JANE ALONE! SHE HAD TO LEAVE SPIDER-MAN, DON'T TRY TO CHEAPEN THAT WITH YOUR PARLOUR TRICKS!!!
Yelling? Why yes. It is like yelling. That's the point of capslock. Well, that and cruise control for cool.
I agree with you. The heart of this case will be demonstrating that she wasn't supplied the same tools other students were. If she can, then she stands a chance of winning. If she can't, I don't see how she could possibly win.
That said, GPA shouldn't be the measure of school. When I went to school, we were told to enumerate the skills we had, and list the things we could actually do on a resume. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if I got an A or a C in linear process control(I got an A), I can write on my resume that I can control a linear process using a variety of controllers. Employers were looking for skills, not for a piece of paper (ironically, I was hired more because of my CAD skills rather than my control engineering skills)
Money is freedom.
Going into debt for decades working minimum wage and trying to pay off $70k-$100k will cost you years of your life, and will cost you the freedom to pursue your dreams.
Don't talk to me about value while advocating people throw their lives away to pay some professor's salary.
Also, you need to realise that the cost of college is different than when you went. Cost of living increased roughly 3-fold during this time; medical costs inflated roughly 6-fold; but college tuition and fees inflation approached 10-fold. Another way to say this is that whereas medical costs hyperinflated at twice the rate of cost-of-living, college tuition and fees hyperinflated at three times the rate of cost-of-living inflation. Thus, even after controlling for the effects of general inflation, 2008 college tuition and fees posed three times the burden as in 1978.
Nope.
Try again. The country I'm in only spends 15% of gdp on the federal government, about half of what the US does. Of that, a very small portion of the federal budget is paid for with debt, compared to at least half of the US federal budget.
I had a lot of problems with gametap, lots of older games were coming up with issues, and a friend's game didn't work right.
Some of the issues may be gone now, but I left Windows 7 on my netbook and kept XP on my gaming machine.
See, usability is my problem with anything 64-bit, and vista in particular. If my applications don't run, I don't care what attributes the OS has. If that weren't the case, I'd throw linux on my gaming PC and that'd be that.
I was with you right up 'till the vista64. Anything but XP 32-bit for gaming means leaving too much of the world in the dust.
So really, it's x 150 times hotter than y, because y 150 times colder than x doesn't make any sense.
Cost is important too.
One of the reasons I love my netbook is I can replace it without any huge amount of financial planning. "Oh, guess I lost my Aspire One. Guess I'll buy another one."
Gotta second you on the portability thing. My Aspire One is about the perfect size. You can't type on the eee, and anything bigger is creeping into desktop replacement territory, which isn't great for kicking back and surfing.
...With hookers! And blackjack!
In fact, forget the Large Hadron Collider!
As an aside, how do you come up with a measure like "150 times colder"? I mean, what metric do you use to determine 1 times colder or 2?
I don't think you've ever worked in industry. There's plenty of suing going on over things of this sort, pretty much on a daily basis. I recall a big boiler project where they're in the midst of a lawsuit because they didn't see the results they wanted.
Universities nearly always pimp their practical value in finding a job. They HAVE to, because if people saw school as a luxury, nobody would ever go six figures in debt to go. The local university, for example, uses "One University, many futures" as its catchphrase. The college I went to has billboards showing the successful people who went to the school. They're advertising and selling a career. When that doesn't happen, it's only natural that someone will step back and go "Wait a moment, I didn't get what I was sold!" and sue like this.
Also remember, in 1970 university cost 1/10th of what it does today(accounting for inflation). It's only natural for something so expensive to come with much greater expectations.
Problem.
Jews were definitely guilty of the crime of being Jews. You could have all the trials you wanted, it wouldn't change the verdict, because it was the legislator's hand that was unjust, not the application of the resulting rules.
In 1939, being a Jew in Germany was illegal. The punishment was death. By your logic, that's perfectly just.
Surely you mean there's a difference between liquefying people and locking them up with rapists and murderers for a decade.
In this case, copying someone's game is analogous to being a Jew. It's the trivial imagined offense which brings about the disproportionate punishment.
No, you're mistaken. She's not getting this service above and beyond. Having the college help her get a job is part of what she's paying for, and she's getting less service than someone else who paid the same thing.
You're basically saying it's free market for me to get a nicer big mac because I'll use the energy from it more efficiently than anyone else. That's not the case. We both paid our 3 dollars, we should both get the same burger. In this case, both of them paid their $70,000, they should both get the same help marketing their new skills to prospective employees.
HOLD IT!!!
If this is a free market, then why doesn't she get the same level of service as the 4.0 kids? She paid the same $70,000 they did.
That's like saying my Big Mac should taste better than the other person's because I'm smarter and better.
Maybe things are different in Australia, but in the US and Canada, tuition is high enough that you MUST appeal to people's sense of utility, because as a luxury few can afford it.
Just think, this girl is suing for $70,000USD in tuition. If not for the promise of better employment, an 18 year old making minimum wage taking out that sort of debt would be completely reckless. Hell, I'm an established professional, and I wouldn't take out $70,000USD in debt for a luxury.
It all sounds great in theory, but you're not the one who just dropped six figures on tuition.
Yeah, after dropping as much as a new house, I'd say it's fair to hope for wages high enough to compensate for the equivalent to a mortgage payment every month.
This is a fairly new development. Today's six-figure tuition would cost around $17,000 in 1970 -- but in 1970, tuition was actually closer to $1,300 for a 4-year course. Part of the entitlement of this generation comes from having some of the highest standards in history to live up to, some of the largest price tags in history for basic things like a home for your family, school we're told you can't get a job without, or even basic medical care. You leave high school, accumulate a lifetime worth of debt, then these kids get people saying they don't deserve jobs despite running up these huge debts.
To be fair, different classes really have different difficulties.
I had a GPA back in school around the average previously cited, but relative to the rest of my class I was near the top, because it was a hardcore program designed to pump out people who knew their shit and to force people who couldn't keep up to simply drop out.
If my company spent six figures on an investment that was supposed to pay for itself and we saw no returns, we'd be suing the organization that sold it to us. Why is an individual who spends six figures on an investment any different? If you're paying as much as a small house on tuition, it seems not that ridiculous to assume you're entitled to some sort of benefit.
A bigger reason is likely the ease of access to student debt. All areas of the economy where there's easy access to debt will find high inflation. Housing is a great example -- people couldn't even afford to pay back their million dollar mortgages, but house prices kept going up because the debt flowed so freely. Education is another great example. No kid on earth can actually afford to go to school, but let them take on enough debt to pay for their first house and suddenly it's perfectly reasonable to have prices as high as they are. It distorts the usual supply/demand curve.
Just watch and see what would happen to tuition costs if kids couldn't get out of high school and take out six figures of debt.
To be fair, part of the sense of entitlement likely comes from the simple fact that it's a massive investment.
If a company paid $70,000(the tuition this girl is trying to get reimbursed) and was promised a quick payback, and that payback never materialised, they'd sue. Why is this individual suddenly evil for doing exactly what any company would, given an investment that didn't pay off as advertised?
Honestly, if I'm a young person making minimum wage, and an education is going to cost many multiples of my annual income, I want to know there's a payback. All the poetry in the world isn't going to make the phone calls from creditors stop.