Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 1251 +-   Student Sues University Because She's Unemployable on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:39AM

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:39AM
from the want-fries-with-that dept.
humor
education
government
court
news
digitalhermit writes "A C student (not the programming language) has sued her former school because she has been unable to find a job in the three months since her graduation. Yup, some schools are degree mills, but this just seems... bizarre."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by RogueyWon (735973) * on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:41AM (#28938045) Journal

    As Thompson sees it, any reasonable employer would pounce on an applicant with her academic credentials, which include a 2.7 grade-point average and a solid attendance record. But Monroe's career-services department has put forth insufficient effort to help her secure employment, she claims.

    "They're supposed to say, 'I got this student, her attendance is good, her GPA is all right -- can you interview this person?' They're not doing that," she said.

    Words fail me (briefly).

    The best thing to come out of this story is that Ms. Thompson has sent out a nice big red-flag warning to any potential employers not to touch her with a barge pole. After all, if she does this, you can pretty much guarantee she'll sue her employer the moment she gets passed over for a promotion (after all, she shows up for work most days and her last project wasn't a total disaster).

    "It doesn't make any sense: They went to school for four years, and then they come out working at McDonald's and Payless. That's not what they planned."

    It might not be what they planned, but it is the reality of the job market. The huge expansion in higher education, along with widespread dumbing down of course material and grade inflation, has created a market where many apparently middling graduates just aren't going to have a chance at getting a job that genuinely requires graduate skills. A lot of students who 20 years ago would have been considered middling (but would have gone on to get graduate-level jobs) are now clustered around the top of the class.

    At the same time, the self-esteem and all-must-have-prizes philosophies that now pervade much of education have convinced everybody that they deserve to walk right into their dream job, just because they've done nothing more than show up for class and turn in assignments most of the time. The entitlement mentality is right out on show in this story. I do a fair bit of recruitment for my employer and I see plenty more applicants who seem to feel the same way. They don't get very far.

    There is an unfortunate side to this. A lot of teens and their parents are still duped into believing that a degree will still lead to a guaranteed "good" job. There's plenty of material out there to counter-act this view and show that in many (possibly even now a majority) of cases, it's a waste of time and money. Unfortunately, this usually gets dismissed as right wing ranting (which I will no doubt get accused of in the replies to this post). The other unfortunate side is that some employers with vacancies that could be filled by a bright high-school graduate seem to feel the need to advertise for a graduate just to "keep up with the Jonses", though I've noticed a slight reversal of this trend recently.

    I'd advise Ms. Thompson that with her achievements and attitude, she needs to lower her expectations. She mentions McDonalds sneeringly, but the fact is that they have a general corporate policy of promoting most of their talent internally. If she is as capable as she thinks she is and went to work there with the intention of proving herself (and the attitude to match), she could have a perfectly reasonable career. The same is true of any number of other employers that she probably considers below her social status. Of course, she won't.

    • by Nursie (632944) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:53AM (#28938097) Homepage

      "just because they've done nothing more than show up for class and turn in assignments most of the time."

      That was what I did.

      But then I have natural wit and charm, a willingness to admit I slacked off at university, plus I did computer science. Little miss entitlement got a "Bachelor of Business Administration" in "IT". What the hell does that even mean?

      • by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:19AM (#28938235) Homepage Journal
        That she expects to earn a large amount of money by being immediately put into a "management" position and paid vast sums of money solely due to the fact that she is such a wonderful person and "deserves" to be a manager with a large salary.

        God, the sense of entitlement in the US is making me sick...
        • by Xenographic (557057) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:51AM (#28938849) Homepage Journal

          > That she expects to earn a large amount of money by being immediately put into a "management" position and paid vast sums of money solely due to the fact that she is such a wonderful person and "deserves" to be a manager with a large salary.

          What are you talking about? Any half-competent career services department should be able to see that anyone that lawsuit-happy who has that big of a sense of entitlement has a bright future at the RIAA (or any of the other MAFIAA franchises).

          This is just a simple matter of matching up the person's personality and skill set to the right organization...

          • by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:03AM (#28938481) Homepage

            Uhm, did you try comparing that map of yours to the actual terrain ?

            Yeah, unemployment is up here, in that part of europe with the highest education (Scandinavia), why we're at above 2% now, which is a lot more than the comfortable 0.8% we used to enjoy prior to the current crisis.

            How high is your unemployment again ?

            • by limaxray (1292094) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @07:16AM (#28939075) Homepage
              0.8% unemployment? 2%? Really? I know that sounds great, but that's no more healthy than 15% unemployment. In fact, if you really had that low of an unemployment rate, the rate of inflation would be through the roof as employers paid increasingly ridiculous salaries to try to fill positions. Such a low unemployment rate simply means you're lacking an employable workforce. You want there to constantly be people in transition otherwise the economy has no where to grow. That's just ECON 101.
              • by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @08:08AM (#28939667)

                I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 2% unemployment is more healthy than 15% unemployment, because it means more people are being productive, so more wealth is being created than in the society with 15% unemployment (e.g. Detroit, MI). Also, assuming the companies paying "increasingly ridiculous" salaries are reasonably sane, they will only pay those salaries if it will help them increase their revenue or reduce their costs at least as much as the cost of the salary, so there's a limit to how much they are willing to pay.

                Also, if you go from the assumption that a society in which people have good salaries, a good amount of time off, good health care, and so forth is better than a society where people work 60 or 70 hours a week for minimum wage and no benefits, you prefer the 2% unemployed society to the 15% unemployed society. It's a question of whether you think that people exist for the economy, or the economy exists for the people.

            • by niklask (1073774) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @07:58AM (#28939541)

              Yeah, unemployment is up here, in that part of europe with the highest education (Scandinavia), why we're at above 2% now, which is a lot more than the comfortable 0.8% we used to enjoy prior to the current crisis.

              Apparently you have no connection with reality what so ever
              Norway ~3%
              Sweden ~9%
              Denmark ~5%
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate [wikipedia.org] How you get this to 2% for "Scandinavia" is beyond me. And remember that Norway has a fairly low unemployment due it that thing called oil.

          • by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross@NOspam.yahoo.ca> on Tuesday August 04 2009, @07:31AM (#28939211)

            I am sorry, but where are you?

            Sorry, many parts of Europe have apprenticeship programs, etc where people still do low-level technical jobs.

            I call BS in your argument!

            While you might not like socialism, what it does do is give menial jobs a pretty hefty wage. Instead of the scamming that goes on in North America.

            I am here in Switzerland and our cleaning lady makes 39 CHF (about 35 USD) per hour! We can't find anything less.

    • by Kokuyo (549451) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:22AM (#28938259)

      Not that I'm American, but when and how DO you get to your dream job?

      In this country, you can do an apprenticeship in just about anything. So I went into IT. I was good in school (top five of the class) and I showed above average skills in whatever I was doing.

      I'm at my third job now. Let's skip how good or bad that one is and just get to what's interesting to me at the moment: Looking for a job. Personally, I'm a guy who is honest about what he can and can not do. I somehow convinced myself that good jobs cannot be had through lying because hey, if you had to lie to get it, can you expect an honest work environment? Either they overstated their requirements and you CAN do the job (but then what else are they going to expect from you that is not part of the job?) OR they were serious, you CAN'T do the job and what then?

      For all three jobs, I've been working for sub-standard wage (meaning my salary was somewhere between 50% and 75% of what my work was worth), did unpaid overtime and was generally reachable at all times. I did not have the means to get certification and the companies had no interest in me having them.

      So now I'm hearing "Well, for someone in IT, you did remarkably little certification". Or what about "Ah, so you wouldn't call yourself a geniusHmm..."?

      Fact remains that doing honest and hard work brings you NOTHING. You must be a quack, a liar and just basically leech everything out of the company that you possibly can. Then you go to the next and rinse and repeat. It's what the managers do and it's what is expected of you. Being a carpenter is starting to sound bloody perfect just about now.

      • by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:51AM (#28938833)

        I recommend reading this article: How to do what you love [paulgraham.com]. There is a lot of truth in it. Getting your dream job is a matter of persistence, being willing to apply to companies, building contacts, and realising that you are unlikely to end up in your dream job straight away, it takes years of working towards the goal before it comes within reach:

        • I know lots of people who are not willing to relocate - this is a big problem, because their dream jobs generally aren't in the place they currently live. I know a handful of people who've actually been willing to relocate their entire lives for their career, whether it is moving across the country, or to another (off the top of my head, I have friends who relocated to Amsterdam, Brussels, London, Switzerland, Singapore, New York..). In every case, relocating brought them a slightly better job initially, and a hugely better job 5 years later. In contrast, I know a lot of people who graduated in their home cities, stayed there, and complain constantly about their jobs.
        • I know one guy who always wanted to work in Formula 1. He got an engineering degree, but there are tens of thousands of people with those who want to work in F1, and who have more experience. He then worked for a standard engineering company for a few years, whilst writing applications to any company involved in the automotive trade. He also travelled, met some guys who ran their own small teams, made contacts, offered to work for free during his summers, etc. Eventually he got taken on by a tier 1 automotive company, and from that point he managed to work his way from an engineer up to senior management within 8 years. Now, he still isn't doing what he wants to do, but he still has his goal, he has better contacts than he's ever had, and he has years of experience to call on. He isn't there yet, and may never get there, but at least he has maximised the probability that his goal will be achieved. How many of the rest of us can say that?

        Fact remains that doing honest and hard work brings you NOTHING. You must be a quack, a liar and just basically leech everything out of the company that you possibly can.

        Sounds like you're working for large corporations where that kind of behaviour can go unchecked. In a small company, you'd be thrown out very quickly.

      • by Aceticon (140883) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:57AM (#28938903)

        Fact remains that doing honest and hard work brings you NOTHING. You must be a quack, a liar and just basically leech everything out of the company that you possibly can. Then you go to the next and rinse and repeat. It's what the managers do and it's what is expected of you. Being a carpenter is starting to sound bloody perfect just about now.

        I've learned that on my first year in this profession (also IT).

        The belief that many of us gifted "techies" have that technical excellence, skill and hard-working will make us stand out from the mediocre crowds, be noticed and promoted is one big fat illusion more often than not kept alive by manipulative managers wanting to get extra free hours from us (so that THEY get fat bonuses).

        Even in the technical areas, the professional world out there is never a pure meritocracy based on one's technical excellence.

        In truth, non-technical skills are often also important (guess who's more useful: the guy that gets the requirements right from the client and implements them in a competent way or the guy that gets the wrong requirements and implements the wrong thing but with an exceptionally good design and code?) and those that evaluate one's abilities during the selection/bonus-evaluation/promotion-evaluation process are often not technically skilled enough to evaluate technical skills above a certain level (they're management, usually not technical, not-good enough techies or simply too far out from their technical days) or will simply outwit the less negotiation-experience techies into taking a lower pay.

        Consider the simple example of two equally good programmers:
        - One is quiet and reserved: the kind of guy that finds a critical bug, fixes it and checks it in source control without telling anybody
        - The other one is loud and outgoing: he'll tell to whomever is willing to listen that he found a critical bug, proceed to fix it and check the fix in source control and then let everybody know that the issue is fixed.

        Guess who will get the next promotion!!!?

        Another example would be two equally good programmers, both known in their company for the quality of their work. They both feel that they are being underpaid in their company:
        - One starts looking at other opportunities, maybe gets one or two good proposals, goes to management and asks for a salary raise saying that he "likes to work there but feels that he's not being fairly rewarded for the work he's doing there versus other professionals in the same area".
        - The other one just accepts its and wallows in the misery of being underpaid.

        Guess who will get the (biggest) raise!!!?

        In the end, the secret to success in IT is still down to soft-skills such as self-promotion, image management, networking, pro-activeness, a willingness to take risks and others. Just look up the definition of EQ (Emotional Quotient, similar to IQ but measuring something else) - it's much correlated with success than IQ, and you will find that the characteristics that are evaluated to determine EQ are very much the kind of thing that make it easier for one to follow the path to success.

        • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:12AM (#28938555) Journal

          At least certification is a more reliable indicator of actual job knowledge than a degree, these days.

          Huh??? Most knowledgeable IT directors that I've worked with have sneered at certifications. The only ones who were impressed where the PHB types. A certification doesn't prove anything other than you studied for the certification. Why do you think there are so many lovely acronyms for them? "Minesweeper and Consultant and Solitaire Expert" It's been my experience that most people who enter the IT world with nothing more than a certification are useless. I'd hire someone with experience over someone with a certification any day of the week.

          I'd rather have a degree over a certification any day of the week. A degree equates to more money from almost every employer on the planet. Combine it with job experience and it almost doesn't even matter what the degree is in. Buddy of mine makes $20k more a year than I do doing the exact same job -- his degree is in marketing of all things.

    • by pjt33 (739471) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:30AM (#28938295)

      Notice that this story is in the Entertainment section? You're supposed to point and laugh.

    • A lot of teens and their parents are still duped into believing that a degree will still lead to a guaranteed "good" job.

      The big problem here is that society at large has come to view universities and higher education in general as advanced vocational training. The trouble is, the universities themselves have no such delusion.

      In short, it is impossible for universities to provide vocational training for professions. There are too many jobs, too many ways of doing them, and too many changes in practices in every single profession for any one institution to have a ghost of chance of keeping up with all of them.

      Now, there is some element of "job training" in higher education, but only in an academic sense. You can be taught about binary trees and methods to search them in a university course, but there simply isn't time to train you in how to use the IDE, language and indeed operating system that you will be asked to implement those searches by your employer. And computer science courses are in fact VERY vocational as courses go. Most engineering course will only be able to teach you how to use a bandsaw and AutoCAD. Small use when you have to use the latest tabletop wonder from Hansvedt.

      At the end of the day, final training for a job must be done by employers. Unfortunately, many skimp on this and complain that Universities aren't doing their job. HR departments demand experience not because they believe it will provide quality, but because the company does not want to go to the bother of expense of actually passing on skills. Yes, Graduates do come out of universities will few "real world" skills. But this has always been the case. What has changed is a fickle employment culture in which companies hire and fire at will and thus cannot risk training someone only to see them run off at a moments notice for a higher paid position.

      There's plenty of material out there to counter-act this view and show that in many (possibly even now a majority) of cases, it's a waste of time and money.

      I wouldn't go quite so far. It is true that certain courses can be difficult to get a job out of, but it's also true that not taking any course can make it very difficult to get a well paid, and indeed fulfilling job. A university course should be chosen for two reasons; Interest in the subject, and the prospect of a vocation. Both are important. If people choose wisely and put in the effort, their time spent in university will be far from a waste of time and money, and indeed will be time well spent and very well rewarded. Fours years of good education will allow you to hold your own in your chosen field, and prepare you for a changing world and workplace. This is not guaranteed, but the odds are certainly in your favour.

    • by something_wicked_thi (918168) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:41AM (#28938359)

      There is an unfortunate side to this. A lot of teens and their parents are still duped into believing that a degree will still lead to a guaranteed "good" job. There's plenty of material out there to counter-act this view and show that in many (possibly even now a majority) of cases, it's a waste of time and money. Unfortunately, this usually gets dismissed as right wing ranting

      Don't be silly. Right wing ranting? I'm as left wing as they come, barring communists, and I think that makes perfect sense. Get a degree in something useful if you want a job. It's really as simple as that.

      That said, I do take issue with the "2.7 GPA" part of this. GPAs are overrated. Anyone who interviews with me (I do interviews, I don't own the place) is going to get no brownie points for "perfect attendance", but I don't give a damn what her GPA is. If she can answer my questions well, she'll get a job. If she can't, she won't.

  • by justcauseisjustthat (1150803) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:45AM (#28938059)
    That will teach them for advertising that they help everyone find a job :-)
  • by CountBrass (590228) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:49AM (#28938077)
    It's obvious that as the entitlement generation grows up we'll see more of this: "I should get a job even though I'm mediocre at what I do and if I don't then I should be able to sue someone".

    Let's hope she gets laughed out of court.
    • by plasmacutter (901737) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:28AM (#28938665) Journal

      It's obvious that as the entitlement generation grows up we'll see more of this: "I should get a job even though I'm mediocre at what I do and if I don't then I should be able to sue someone".

      Let's hope she gets laughed out of court.

      The applicants are not the only ones who feel "entitled".

      Employers, especially larger ones, feel "entitled" to canned labor without job training.

      The employer equivalent of your quoted statement is: "I should get skilled labor even though I don't want to invest one cent in training or orientation, and if I don't i'll blame the colleges and call the applicants selfish and 'entitled'"

    • by (arg!)Styopa (232550) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:29AM (#28938671) Journal

      "Let's hope she gets laughed out of court."

      Maybe if she doesn't, we should sue?

      • by inviolet (797804) <pineminder@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:54AM (#28938873) Journal

        It just is not fair. Kids today aren't entitled, they are screwed over. The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then, especially not for college graduates. Things have gone quite a bit downhill since then.

        Bull. There has never been trouble getting a job. There has always been trouble getting a job you want.

        Meanwhile the advantage that college graduates once had has evaporated due to the change in supply/demand. Now that so many people are college graduates, being a college graduate is no longer special. Doubly so now that curricula and grade-inflation and such have taken their toll. When my father got his MBA, one of the requirements for graduating was to visit a real-world company and solve a random serious real-world problem it had.

      • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @07:51AM (#28939445) Homepage

        Whatever her GPA is, she has worked hard for four years

        Negative.

        She's got a 2.7 GPA. That isn't outstanding, that's average. That isn't hard work, that's showing up to class and doing what you're told. I'd accept that she'd worked hard if she walked out of there with a 3.0+ GPA. A 2.7? Nope.

        spent $70k on it

        So?

        If I spent $100k on a college education am I now more deserving of a job than she is? What if I go to a community college and only spend $20k? Am I less deserving?

        very willing and able to work

        Maybe.

        I don't know her, you don't know her. We don't know how badly she wants a job. Maybe she feels this lawsuit is a better way to get some money than flipping burgers is. And able to work? I guess we'd have to sit her down in some kind of workplace environment to evaluate that, wouldn't we? Just because you've got a degree doesn't mean you're actually capable of doing the work.

        I don't know how many bachelor degree holders there is

        There are lots of folks with a Bacheolor's in something. It really doesn't mean much. Four years isn't really enough time to teach you a whole lot of specialization... And a four-year degree isn't going to focus on a specific set of skills either. There'll be lots of general education, lots of theory...

        I always tell people that a Bachelor's degree proves one thing - a capacity to learn. Nothing more.

        she likely has more education than 70% of the population

        Education is borderline meaningless once you enter the job market. Nobody cares what book you read or how you scored on your exams - they want to know if you can do the job. Someone with 2 years experience doing the job (but no degree) has a better track record than someone with a 4.0 GPA coming right out of college. That's why internships are critically important. That's why you want to tinker in your free time and build up a portfolio that you can show potential employers. That's why folks take crap jobs right out of college to build up their resume.

        And she can't get a job

        Sure she can. Just not the job she wants.

        I guarantee you there are jobs that she's qualified to do, but doesn't want - like WalMart, or McDonald's. I guarantee you there are jobs available that she's not qualified to do - like civic engineering or carpentry or something. The trick isn't finding a job, the trick is finding a job that you want.

        I worked at Electronics Boutique for a year after I graduated with my BS in Computer Science... Then I worked as an Adjuct Professor at a local community college for another year... Then I finally found a job that actually involved doing what I went to school for - two years after graduation.

        It just is not fair

        Welcome to the real world. No, it isn't fair. Nothing is. Fairness is an artificial construct. In the real world nobody is going to give you a job just to be fair. You've got to earn your keep, just like everyone else out there.

        Kids today aren't entitled, they are screwed over

        I disagree.

        The vast majority of "kids" I deal with these days have a crippling sense of entitlement. Interviewing people is downright painful. The attitude seems to be "I've show up to claim my job" instead of "let me prove to you that I'll be a good investment"

        The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then

        Really? [slashdot.org]

        Despite the obvious problems with your overgeneralization... I do, mostly, agree. There was a time when this nation was built on the backs of skilled laborers. If you were willing to sweat, you were able to get a job. And there weren't usually enough bodies

  • Epic fail (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tx (96709) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:50AM (#28938087) Journal

    I really hope this chick loses the case, and gets saddled with a bunch of court costs to add to her student loans, that way nobody will ever try anything so stupid again. Three month job-hunt? In this economy? College education is no guarantee of a job, and if you can't sell yourself, you're going to be unemployed for a lot longer than that. Your college can't convince employers to give you a job, they can provide some contacts and resources to help you, but that's it.

    • Re:Epic fail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quadrox (1174915) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:34AM (#28938317)

      To be fair, while it is tempting to put the blame squarely on her shoulders, it is probably not her own fault that she grew up with such a sense of entitlement.

      Her family/school are likely very much to blame though, for not teaching her how the world works.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:08AM (#28938523)

      This idea that some (many?) students have that a degree is all they should need to be the ideal candidate. Ummmm, no, not so much. You ought to be smart enough to notice that what you are being taught is highly theoretical in nature. Universities aren't tech schools, they aren't teaching you specific skills needed for specific jobs, they are institutions of higher education and research. They deal heavily in the theoretical. This is quite noticeable if you pay any attention in class at all.

      Thus, you should take something away from this: The university isn't giving me all I need to be an ideal job candidate. Practical experience is something you need to go and get on your own. My recommendation, especially for IT, is to get a job on campus doing just that. Now I'm a little biased, I work professionally doing IT on campus so we hire students. However, it is a good way to get some extra money and a great way to get some practical experience. All in all, it seems to work out ok for our students. They seem to go on to get jobs. Heck one guy got his bachelors in computer engineering, went on to another school and got his masters, then decided "Know what? I don't really want to be an engineer, I want to do support," and went to work as a support guy. While they appreciated the masters degree, they cared more about his time spent as a support guy.

      For tech stuff I recommend university jobs since there seem to be plenty of them, and they have no problem hiring students, of course. A student position must, by definition, be filled by a student of the university. Universities also like student positions since they are cheap. However there's other places you can look at, or internships, or perhaps even just working on projects on your own time. Whatever, the point is to try and get some real, practical experience, not just a good theoretical education.

      Also it really annoys me the idea that some graduates have that they should get a "high level" position. Ummmm, no. You have little experience, that is the definition of entry level. The idea that you'd start out in a higher level job is rather silly. After all, if a BS did that, then the majority of people would be starting out in high level jobs, making them not high level. If you are a new graduate, well then accept the fact that you are at the "entry level" of the work force. Goes double if this is your first job period.

  • by pehrs (690959) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:54AM (#28938099)

    Somehow, many students have the illusion that a degree will bring them to the top automagically. It doesn't work that way. Getting a degree is a good step forward... If they work hard in the university and actually learn. Then they will have to start 3 (or 5) years later in the job market, meaning they will lack many important skills no university teaches and therefor earn less. Even if they learn quickly it takes years to catch up (both in attractiveness on the job market and salary) with those that got into the same field without an university education.

    This is true in most fields (including Engineering), but especially true in business administration and management.

    The true value of the university education comes after a few years, because many companies have internal rules about giving priority to educated workers. Often there is a hard celing on how far you can get without a master, and it's not unusual for people to go back and get a MBA not only because they need the skills, but also because they need the diploma to continue their career. Some companies even pays for those MBA's to their management.

    • by Spad (470073) <slashdotNO@SPAMspad.co.uk> on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:21AM (#28938251) Homepage

      It doesn't help that, in my case at least, I was told by pretty much everyone from highschool teachers, through careers advisors and university staff that "a Degree will bring me to the top automagically" - I wasn't exactly convinced, but when everyone's telling you that it's easy to buy into the hype.

      Then you leave university and end up in the real world where you either a) Realise it was all a load of bollocks and get on with your life or b) Get all bitter about it as this woman appears to have done.

  • Funny stuff (Score:5, Funny)

    by e2d2 (115622) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:56AM (#28938121)

    This is funny because just the other day I was talking with my mother, a director of hiring at a large telco, and she was talking about how the young people she brings in feel entitled.

    I told her I agreed, then asked if I could borrow $25. When she said no I wrote the local paper exposing the BULLSHIT THAT THIS IS!

  • by hopopee (859193) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:03AM (#28938163)

    if you don't have any previous work history in a field. I'll freely admit I got both of my IT jobs by referrals from friends and acquaintances already working in the companies.

    University/College studies are as much about networking as they are about learning. I spent most of my years in University in our student relaxing room playing boardgames and arguing with fellow students and faculty members. Now people who graduated years before me and have achieved higher positions in companies know me or are my friends and have a good understanding on how I fit in teams/groups. And since we mostly argued about our studies at hand they know that even though my grades weren't top notch I knew my stuff.

    Of course this doesn't work at all if you're an asshole. You have to stand out somehow, but red flagging yourself for good by suing your school for your own failures is about the worst thing you could possibly do.

  • Motivation? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:15AM (#28938211) Journal

    If she's so motivated to sue someone because "she doesn't get what she wants," why doesn't she use her business degree and start her own business. Find a niche and go with it. It will be more rewarding. The downside, based upon her attitude, is that the only person she could blame then is herself. Unless she sues the customers of the world for not buying her product/service.

  • by jamesh (87723) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:32AM (#28938297)

    Maybe next time they'll think before running a subject called "How to sue people for profit"

  • by FranTaylor (164577) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:36AM (#28938329)

    For not teaching her about how stupid it is to file frivolous lawsuits.

  • by catsidhe (454589) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ehdistac>> on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:49AM (#28938397) Homepage

    If advertising didn't work, there wouldn't be so much of it.

    Universities in .au, probably elsewhere as well, have been selling themselves increasingly for their job training and less for the concept of a liberal education for decades now.

    Only a few go to university now to be simply educated, most are going to uni To Get A Job: it is an almost compulsory step between high school and any professional job. And most technical jobs. I wonder sometimes when more universities will go into more trade training, trying to steal business from technical schools. (As opposed to places like RMIT and Swinburn going the other way: technical colleges who became universities.)

    And so, when university is sold as something which will get you a job, these expectations are built. Reasonably or not. (In my opinion, not.) But the trend is there, nonetheless.

    A University education has gone from something needed for certain jobs, to something needed for certain classes of work, to a sine-qua-non of employment in entire sections of the workforce. And the universities have been competing with each other to advertise how good they are at giving an education which improves the student's chances of getting a job â" a good job, a desirable job â" advertising which might give the impression that such a job is practically guaranteed: that you go to this uni or that one not because of the education you get, but because of the job you are all but promised to walk into when you graduate. (Before you graduate, even, with graduate placements and the like.)

    Personally, I think the uni sector would be better off selling the quality of the education itself, rather than expectations of the utilitarian results.

    But I only work for a university, and as professional staff at that, so there is no hope that my opinion carries the slightest weight whatsoever.

  • by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:57AM (#28938437)

    She suggested that Monroe's Office of Career Advancement shows preferential treatment to students with excellent grades. "They favor more toward students that got a 4.0. They help them more out with the job placement," she said.

    You had a 2.7 GPA, with a "bachelor of business administration degree in information technology", and a "solid attendance record".

    Okay, Trina, you've probably never heard this before, but I'll be frank. Those people with 4.0 GPAs are all probably much smarter than you are. If you had, say, a 3.5 GPA (and perhaps a more serious degree), that might not be the case. It makes sense for people to give them preferential treatment when it comes to employment in jobs that require intelligence and skills specific to their fields.

    Considering that you're so lacking in integrity and responsibility that you decided to sue the school because you couldn't find an employer, I'll go out on a limb and say that those people are --in all honesty-- better than you. Had you not responded with such a childish action, I might hesitate to say that. Alas, that is not the case.

    If you're unhappy with this, too bad. You can try harder, but now that you've made an ass out of yourself on national news, I don't think you'll convince anyone otherwise.

    Now, try not to go get pregnant a dozen times.

  • by thisnamestoolong (1584383) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:41AM (#28938765)
    Ok -- this girl is a brat, I will not for a second say that she is not. I will not, however, immediately dismiss this lawsuit as being frivolous -- a lot of schools advertise heavily on their job placement programs. If she chose to attend this school, and she chose to give them tens of thousands of dollars on a promise that they would offer her a great deal of help in finding a job upon graduation, then she certainly does have a right to be upset about, as that is blatant false advertising. I know how this thing works from experience -- the school I attended (which shall remain nameless) made a huge to-do about their career assistance programs before I chose to attend and rack up $40,000 in debt. Upon graduation, I realized that their career placement was not much more than what I would have gotten off of monster.com. Granted, I was not dumb enough to depend on this and found work on my own, but I do feel ripped off.
    The bottom line is, if you are going to advertise a particular service, you had better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.* These schools need to learn that they cannot get away with making false promises to get you in the door, it is false advertising, and is nothing less than grand larceny.

    *I know very well that this is likely not the case, it seems that she is more upset that she still doesn't have a job DESPITE the services being offered -- if the school is living up to their end of the bargain this girl is just an idiot, as opposed to being an idiot with a legitimate complaint. Regardless of whether or not the school is providing the necessary services, she is a 'tard for expecting to have a job 4 months after graduation with a 2.7 GPA, and even more of a 'tard for relying solely on the school's career placement to help her, as everyone knows that they are generally bullshit. This will not work out well for her, but if she is successful, it could work out well for future students in giving schools a bit more incentive to be honest.
  • by geekmux (1040042) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @06:57AM (#28938899)

    So, let me get this straight. A graduate from a [insert random no-name college here] obtains a [rather generic, non-specific] degree in "IT", and automagically expects to be hired in 3 months or less?

    Forget economy or GPA for a second, what the hell ever happened to getting your damn feet wet in IT outside of a fucking classroom?

    You want someone to hire you? Drop the ego and intern for a short while. Find out how good you are in the real world before you start assuming a piece of paper is your automagic meal ticket. Might also want to pick up a newspaper every now and then to see how long it's taking the average job with experience to land a job.

  • by hardihoot (1044510) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @07:02AM (#28938945)

    You been tellin' me you're a genius
    Since you were seventeen
    In all the time I've known you
    I still don't know what you mean
    The weekend at the college
    Didn't turn out like you planned
    The things that pass for knowledge
    I can't understand

    --Reelin' In the Years by Steely Dan

  • by portnoy (16520) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @07:10AM (#28939005) Homepage

    Just found this article [theskichannel.com] in which the "Ski Channel" is going to offer her a job:

    "Either Ms Thompson is a cunning out of the box thinker and we want her," said Bellamy, "or she isn't, and her position would not last long. Either way, the law suit would no longer be clogging up the courts because there are now no damages."

  • by wbren (682133) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @07:11AM (#28939015) Homepage

    Whenever I read a headline like this I think to myself, "Alright, some jackass is trying to get a bunch of attention. Surely there must be more to this story."
     

    Imagine my surprise when I realized that, no, the title is 100% accurate. Amazing.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:55AM (#28938105)

      For UK folks, it's equivalent to a low 2:2, and approaches a third.

    • by CountBrass (590228) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:02AM (#28938155)
      Someone who attends an honours course and is awarded an ordinary degree: i.e. you didn't fail spectacularly and you showed up to lectures so we'll give you a piece of paper.
    • by xlsior (524145) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:09AM (#28938187) Homepage
      Can anyone explain what is a C in the US in the percentile range? Is this synonymous with miserable failure? What about the reputation of Monroe College?

      A 'c' encompasses a range of scores - the GPA (Grade Point Average) is more telling.

      The highest GPA you can get (with 100% marks on everything) is 4.0.
      The national average GPA for college graduates is 3.2 (according to a quick google search)
      She got a 2.7, which while not horribly bad, definitely puts her below average.

      Never heard of Monroe college.
    • by Alarindris (1253418) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @04:56AM (#28938125)

      pretty much all collages help graduates find jobs

      Are you serious? Shit! I knew I should have listened to my mom when she told me to save all of my artwork from elementary school.

        • by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday August 04 2009, @05:34AM (#28938313) Homepage

          I'm curious how you even know you have found a good C programmer to begin with.

          What do you look for?

          Nobody knows.

          Seriously.

          That's the biggest thing that department managers the world over don't want to admit. Nobody has yet found a reliable way to interview people that will consistently result in hiring people you can work with that meet all your requirements.

          Oh sure, companies ask technical questions, try and build a rapport and all that. Some even make the interview process last a full day with in-depth technical, HR, stress interviews. But there is always some little thing you don't think to check for in the interview process. If you're lucky, that little thing never matters. If you're unlucky - well, anyone who's been out of college more than a couple of years knows exactly what happens.

Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.