DON'T WORRY about failing classes this semester. Should you party instead of study, save money by not buying books and sleep through the all-important discussion section, you'll be fine. Instead of graduating and finding employment, you can just sue the University for the money that you could have earned.
That, as ridiculous as it sounds, is the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court. That court upheld a decision by the state appeals court to allow a student at Nova Southeastern University's College of Osteopathic Medicine to sue the university for future lost earnings after he was expelled for failing his last course before graduation. The original state court ruling said that the student could sue the school for $45,000 in tuition because of a breach of "implied contract," but could not sue for future earnings.
The courts' rulings are absurd. If a student fails a critical class, a university does not have the responsibility to give him a degree -- even if, as the case is here, the class was the final one before graduation and the student already had signed on for residency. A school does have an obligation to present material in a way that is comprehensive and to create a situation in which most students are able to perform competently. The failing of a student in the bottom dozen of his class -- 93rd out of 104 -- does not, however, indicate a school's failure to fulfill this responsibility.
The expelled student's lawyer maintains that the student was failed for "a bunch of stupid little things" ("Florida Supreme Court says expelled medical student can sue for future lost earnings," Chronicle of Higher Education, Aug. 14). In a field like medicine, where a large part of schooling is specific job training, and where that job involves the welfare of others, even the "stupid little things" are important. Far from being liable for expelling a failing student, the school would have behaved irresponsibly had they let him graduate without proving competency.
Regardless of the specific merits of this student's case -- his lawyer says the university violated its own policies and that the student was failed for subjective reasons -- the court's decision to allow a suit for future lost earnings is excessive.
The expelled would-be doctor is now suing for $1.34 million, what he could have earned working in osteopathic medicine until his 65th birthday. This estimate, and the whole notion of recouping money that was never earned, makes too many assumptions. First, and this is what the university argued to the Florida Supreme Court, there is no guarantee that the student would have passed all the certification tests necessary to practice medicine. Given that he was at the bottom of his class and was not able to pass all of his courses, his meeting all certification criteria is certainly not a forgone conclusion.
Setting a number, particularly one so high, for projected future earnings also is wrought with peril. It assumes not only that the student would have been able to obtain certification but also that he would have found work, attracted and kept patients, and wanted to and been able to work continuously through to the age of 65.
The courts decision also has the potential to change the way students and universities relate to one another. Scott Makar, a lawyer for the American Council on Education, which filed a brief with the court opposing the decision to allow the student to sue for future earnings lost, said, "The biggest worry for colleges is that there may be a perception created that courts will now allow juries to award the value of lost careers and that students will have greater leverage to get settlements" ("Florida Supreme Court says expelled medical student can sue for future lost earnings," Chronicle of Higher Education, Aug. 14).
The decision makes students less responsible for their own education, and that's not fair. Students are -- and should be -- responsible for their own education. Acceptance to a university is an invitation to learn, and along with it comes the hope that such learning can be applied to a fulfilling career. It is not, however, a guarantee of future success and it cannot be treated as such by the courts, and especially not by students.
(Megan Moyer is a Cavalier Daily columnist. She can be reached at mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 4 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
