I'm speechless at the arrogance here.

[Couch]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I've worked in academia for more than a decade and I know of no institution that promises employment, especially after only 3 months. The fact that she's representing herself goes to show that no attorney sees merit in this case. But the second someone in the legal system touches the paperwork for her lawsuit, it costs me money; my tax money, which is being wasted on this stupidty.

As for the McDonald's coffee case, I fully understand the merits of that lawsuit. There was clearly extensive medical damage and McD's had been warned before about their ridiculously hot coffee. I have no problems with that case. But show me the damage here. She bought credits towards a degree and she received the degree. She didn't buy credits towards a job. Unless she has some written proof that she would be guaranteed a job upon graduation, she has nothing.

She, just like many others either mis-read or take them saying they will help find them a job too literally. Also, we live in the generation where everyone wants instant gratification and satisfaction. People need to realize not everything is so cut and dry, nor does anything happen overnight.

Did she not have a internship during college? That'll hurt you, especially in this time. I know, because I figured that out the hard way. I stress this too everyone I know entering college. I stress it over and over again.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Desi

Two points.

One, that I'm totally stealing from another forum, if they do end up having to pay out anything at all to her they should do so on the condition that she forfeit her degree. She wants a refund, she should have to return the "goods". Watch her do an aboutface.

Secondly, 2.7 GPA, a BCom and she can't get a job? I'm graduating with a god damn Political Science degree with a shittier GPA at the end of the next month and am already working for one of the most prestigious Canadian government departments and have a couple of other pretty tempting offers to consider.

I agree with your first point. And to justify your second point... I don't think they let smart people into political positions. You did what you had to do (aka suck at life) to get into a good standing with the other politicians. Good for you.

[Aija]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I've worked in academia for more than a decade and I know of no institution that promises employment, especially after only 3 months. The fact that she's representing herself goes to show that no attorney sees merit in this case. But the second someone in the legal system touches the paperwork for her lawsuit, it costs me money; my tax money, which is being wasted on this stupidty.

As for the McDonald's coffee case, I fully understand the merits of that lawsuit. There was clearly extensive medical damage and McD's had been warned before about their ridiculously hot coffee. I have no problems with that case. But show me the damage here. She bought credits towards a degree and she received the degree. She didn't buy credits towards a job. Unless she has some written proof that she would be guaranteed a job upon graduation, she has nothing.

+1
The above is my same opinion.

[Cyber]

Cmon, if you've lived life past 30 you know that life is not about what you know but who - unless you work your ass off or invent the Snuggie.

I would say, with the exception of professional degrees and ivy league education, schools are a scam in my opinion.

I know people who are professional lawn care owners that make more than Harvard Ph.D's.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Cyber

Cmon, if you've lived life past 30 you know that life is not about what you know but who - unless you work your ass off or invent the Snuggie.

I would say, with the exception of professional degrees and ivy league education, schools are a scam in my opinion.

I know people who are professional lawn care owners that make more than Harvard Ph.D's.

Most people with Ph.D.'s stay in academia. It's not like professors are making a half mil a year. It's not a fucking M.D. or J.D.

[Cyber]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Most people with Ph.D.'s stay in academia. It's not like professors are making a half mil a year. It's not a fucking M.D. or J.D.

MD JD = professional degree. Line 2 of my op.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Cyber

MD JD = professional degree. Line 2 of my op.

I was saying that majority of PhD recipients remain in academia. Most will never earn that of a professional degree recipient because of that. I was probably not clear.

P.S. I know what a professional degree is. I have one hanging on my wall.

[Cyber]

Originally Posted by yomama69

I was saying that majority of PhD recipients remain in academia. Most will never earn that of a professional degree recipient because of that. I was probably not clear.

P.S. I know what a professional degree is. I have one hanging on my wall.

Professors don't make that bad of a living if they have tenure.

PS - Have one as well and am still paying back the loans on it to this day. I take the occasional class here and there to defer it once in a while.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by yomama69

How is this so? Are you a resident of New York? Is this institution even public?

What I meant was, the justice system (judges, clerks, etc) are paid from tax money. So when they waste their time with this sort of crap, it costs all taxpayers money. *This particular instance* may not cost *me* money, but collectively, frivilous lawsuits cost us all money.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by M_Six

What I meant was, the justice system (judges, clerks, etc) are paid from tax money. So when they waste their time with this sort of crap, it costs all taxpayers money. *This particular instance* may not cost *me* money, but collectively, frivilous lawsuits cost us all money.

They're salaried. They get paid regardless of how much litigation is in the system. They don't cost anymore tax dollars the more lawsuits are filed. It just takes the litigation longer (which pisses me off).

[The Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by yomama69

They're salaried. They get paid regardless of how much litigation is in the system. They don't cost anymore tax dollars the more lawsuits are filed. It just takes the litigation longer (which pisses me off).

That's like saying that public sanitation workers get paid a salary so I should litter. Or that lifeguards get paid to be there even if I take a dump in the pool.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything... good thing most people don't.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by The Cthulhu

That's like saying that public sanitation workers get paid a salary so I should litter. Or that lifeguards get paid to be there even if I take a dump in the pool.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything... good thing most people don't.

I didn't say that it shouldn't be done. I said that someone shouldn't complain they are paying more taxes because of it.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by yomama69

They're salaried. They get paid regardless of how much litigation is in the system. They don't cost anymore tax dollars the more lawsuits are filed. It just takes the litigation longer (which pisses me off).

Which delays trials which keeps perps in jail longer before their trials sucking up resources for which we, the taxpayers, end up paying. You don't think if the courts' workloads were reduced that they'd not reduce staff? Or that frivilous lawsuits don't add to the workload? Anything which requires the hiring of more public employees costs the taxpayer money.

And the longer your litigation takes, the more likely your client will settle out of court for a lesser amount. That means you earn less which means you pay less taxes. Once again, frivilous lawsuits cost taxpayers money.

I rest my case.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Which delays trials which keeps perps in jail longer before their trials sucking up resources for which we, the taxpayers, end up paying. You don't think if the courts' workloads were reduced that they'd not reduce staff? Or that frivilous lawsuits don't add to the workload? Anything which requires the hiring of more public employees costs the taxpayer money.

And the longer your litigation takes, the more likely your client will settle out of court for a lesser amount. That means you earn less which means you pay less taxes. Once again, frivilous lawsuits cost taxpayers money.

I rest my case.

Woah, woah, woah. You're confusing criminal courts with civil courts. Criminal trials have absolutely nothing to do with lawsuits in Civil courts.

The longer the litigation costs, the more the client has invested in attorney fees, which means the chances of the client wanting to settle are reduced.