And, if so, why are we letting them get away with it? Why do we allow law schools to lie to prospective students and enrollees by fudging their statistics? Is this not fraud or false advertising? Isn't a school implicitly promising certain levels, qualities and types of opportunities that will inevitably not come to fruition for some students, even if they do perform well? Shouldn't we sue?Applicants discovered lying or fudging any aspect of their profiles for the benefit of gaining admission are subject to recision of their school admission(s), scholarships and grants, diplomas and bar admission(s), not to mention the forfeiture of any tendered monies to the schools. However, Schools that lure promising students with fake numbers face NO PENALTIES. My question is this: if students or graduates discover schools falsifying their stats, should they not be allowed to seek recovery of at least a percentage of their money? After all, the students have been falsely induced to the schools and might have made other choices with more accurate information, and this can diminish the value of a school's diploma. What's good for the goose, should be good for the gander, right?
I think, for Lawdog's fraud angle, you would have to prove that students have been misrepresented to by law school faculty/campus career centers, etc. There would have to an accurate picture of the situation drawn up and then evaluated. You may have to track students down, with the ultimate goal of getting the class's stats after graduation, not just the self selected bias portion that the school gives. Would the ultimate goal be that the school presented themselves as one thing, but it was actually found be 'x'. Is that fraud? It would matter on the misrepresentation, and any possible negligence. I'm just guessing.I really don't have anything to add. I'll just let you guys figure it out.
Understand that this is only a devil's advocate question. I think we all completely agree on the common sensical point that students should take control of what they have control over: their education. And, to a lesser degree, they have control over their job prospects...in the long run. But what about in the short term, i.e., the months following graduation? What I am asking is, can/can't it be argued? As consumers, we hold corporations accountable for making false claims, why should schools be any different? They're businmesses offering a commodity...and we are consumers of education. Isn't that the same thing? How is a false promise to bring in a certain quality of recruiters to the school on a regular basis any different from a false promise to regrow hair? Notice that many schools list "some past recruiters", but do not reveal what years those recruiters came to their campuses or how frequently, creating the impression that all of the top firms listed on their sites and in their prospectuses visit in any given year or on a regular basis. Is that not deceptive advertising? And what do we make of their gaming the rankings by publishing misleading or outright false statistics? Students choose schools, in part, based on rankings because recruiters do the same. Hence, there's a nexus between the reliance of both parties' on those statistics and the rankings. And many students perform well and not only fail to get jobs, they are often not interviewed as frequently as advertized, if at all. Is it fair for schools to falsely create expectations they cannot realistically meet? There are B+ students at lower-ranked schoolos that do not get jobs B- students at top schools get. Yet their schools indicate they will at least be interviewed. Many times, they are not, because the school doesn't get the number and/or types of recruiter visits it claims or infers exist each year.