Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
The Review

Will Your College Be Sued for Educational Malpractice?

By Peter F. Lake August 11, 2009

A former student recently sued Monroe College claiming that she had not been able to obtain gainful employment because the college provided inadequate career-placement services. The student, Tina Thompson, essentially seeks restitution of the money she paid to the college and a modest sum for emotional distress. No job; money-back guarantee.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

A former student recently sued Monroe College claiming that she had not been able to obtain gainful employment because the college provided inadequate career-placement services. The student, Tina Thompson, essentially seeks restitution of the money she paid to the college and a modest sum for emotional distress. No job; money-back guarantee.

Eighteen months ago, I might have confidently asserted that the case would be an educational-malpractice plaintiff smackdown. Things have changed, however, even if not quite enough for this particular plaintiff to prevail. The state of the economy may increasingly pit students against colleges in fights about the adequacy of the educational services that students have received.

In the past, legal claims against institutions for allegedly not providing enough instruction or preparation for the work force have usually failed. Courts have lumped such claims under the heading of “educational malpractice” and then promptly turned them away. The law has been chary of dictating standards for how colleges deliver their core educational services.

One of the most commonly articulated rationales for protecting higher education is the need to preserve academic freedom. Another is concern over articulating standards that could strangle higher education and open floodgates of litigation. Cases alleging educational malpractice also raise difficult issues of causation—did the economy or other factors make it hard to find a job? Moreover, a college can often place responsibility on a student—did a student sabotage his or her own job search, or fail to show proper initiative? Finally, the “agreement” between higher-education institutions and students does not provide legal assurance of employment, or even promise a demonstrable chance of a better future. The general legal attitude has been one of caveat emptor: Students and families bear the risk of potentially wasted years of effort and the dissipation of substantial funds.

Thompson’s complaint is not entirely novel but has an interesting twist. She focuses on delivery of allegedly poor career-placement services and has suggested that top students receive disproportionate help from placement personnel. That twist adds a commercial-dispute overtone to her complaint and makes her claim arguably distinct from previous “you didn’t teach me” claims. She asserts her 2.7 GPA as evidence of accomplishment—not sign of poor curriculum, shoddy instruction, or careless tutoring. Average, Thompson contends, should be good enough to place, to get a good job.

Whether or not her argument gains any legal traction, it’s certain that cases like Thompson’s will multiply, as will pressures on colleges from other directions. Higher education’s role in American society is undergoing a seismic shift, similar in magnitude to that experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. The unmistakable trend this time: public demand for greater accountability from colleges for the fulfillment of their core missions and a cry for demonstrable value, results, and efficiency.

Consider what has just happened. Future books on American higher education will probably call 1946 to 2008 the “boom” years—a distinct time in which up, up, and away was the norm in students enrolled, buildings, budgets, and endowments. But the wealth that fueled that boom is now depleted. The once seemingly invincible American economy is teetering. States have budget and infrastructure woes that make the underwriting of higher education a disposable luxury.

Moreover, in the boom period, the cost of education shifted steeply to students and families. Boom times masked that shift—so what if college costs a hundred grand, if your house just appreciated twice that much? The boom also masked issues related to accountability. When students could routinely get decent jobs with decent salaries, policy makers and families were not overly concerned about educational value and how efficiently it was delivered. Instead, they were often happy to underwrite the longest and most expensive postadolescent Saturnalia in human history.

Now the economy has altered the relationships among students, families, the government, and higher education. The Chronicle has reported on the race to community colleges: Students want to stay near home to cut costs, pay lower tuition, have more flexible schedules so they can work, and take classes that teach marketable skills. The Obama administration has thrown its weight behind those systems as well. Meanwhile, the federal government is recreating the student-loan landscape by federalizing it through moving from bank-based loans to direct lending, and greater conditionality in the form of requiring more proof of learning will not be far behind. And as student-loan default rates rise, the banks that provided student loans may ask some of the same questions as Tina Thompson.

All that suggests that the number of educational-malpractice lawsuits may rise as well, even if such claims ultimately flounder in court. Why not file an inexpensive complaint if you have “lost” $70,000 … and see what happens?

ADVERTISEMENT

Other industries that once were not held accountable for fulfilling their core missions have already faced a similar trend. Automobile makers gave little to no thought to safety until Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed brought attention to traffic safety. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring gave rise to sweeping legislation for the protection of the environment. The plight of migrant workers was invisible to many Americans before Cesar Chavez virtually invented the idea of morally responsible food.

A consumer revolution in each of those industries preceded major legal reformation and vastly increased accountability. Consumers of higher education do not yet have the voice of a Nader, Carson, or Chavez. But the forces of change in higher education are even greater today because the state and federal governments (and therefore taxpayers) have so heavily subsidized colleges and universities.

The worst danger in more lawsuits and the potential result of too much legal accountability too fast—especially if poorly thought out—would be the loss of academic freedom. Colleges already face a historically unprecedented degree of regulation and accountability. A major challenge in the decade to come will be reclaiming and redesigning academic freedom for the post-boom period. The ability of colleges to take responsibility for performing their core educational missions will be integral to meeting that goal.

In fact, colleges have tremendous opportunities to work positively with the emerging new consumerism. Those opportunities lie in creating student-focused higher-learning environments that emphasize planning, assessment, intentionality, and the articulation of basic objectives—such as core competencies and learning goals. For example, one way we can meet the challenges of the post-boom period is by helping each student create a comprehensive and personal master plan for his or her college experience and by creating academic mentors to support students through the process.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is crucial that we also develop a wider and deeper body of scientifically valid higher-learning theory. The boom years actually put colleges behind elementary and secondary schools in the development of learning science: how the brain functions, how students learn, what teaching tools work best, how to help all students—not just those who are already academically accomplished—succeed, and the like. I hear calls everywhere for better teaching in higher education, but that is hard to accomplish when the science of higher learning remains relatively primitive.

Tina Thompson believes that we in higher education focus too much on the talented and successful, not the average. Her rhetoric resonates in these lean post-boom times. Even if the court system rejects her and other educational-malpractice claims—as history suggests, at least in the near term, it probably will—we would be wise to hear her voice.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Peter F. Lake
Peter Lake is a professor of law and director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress
Allison Pingree, a Cambridge, Mass. resident, joined hundreds at an April 12 rally urging Harvard to resist President Trump's influence on the institution.
International
Trump Revoked Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students. Now the University Is Suing.
Photo-based illustration of an open book with binary code instead of narrative paragraphs
Culture Shift
The Reading Struggle Meets AI

From The Review

Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson
Protestors gather outside the Pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on Wednesday, May 1, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Are Colleges Rife With Antisemitism? If So, What Should Be Done?
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin