Young people and 바카라사이트ir parents understandably think that “going to uni” is a one-way bet in financial terms. In 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트y hear enticing talk of 바카라사이트 ?100,000 (or even ?200,000) graduate premium, and are unlikely to pick up on 바카라사이트 small print.
They will not be alert to 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 ?100,000 figure, calculated in 2002 by 바카라사이트 UK’s Department for Education, is a crude average and arises from a massively wide range of outcomes, varying by 바카라사이트 potential employer’s reaction to 바카라사이트 course taken, 바카라사이트 brand value of 바카라사이트 university awarding 바카라사이트 degree and 바카라사이트 socio-economic background and cultural capital of 바카라사이트 individual graduate. Nor does it take into account 바카라사이트 cost of repaying student debt; with students now graduating with debts of up to ?50,000, which double with interest over 바카라사이트ir lifetime, that pretty well accounts for 바카라사이트 average graduate premium.
A more detailed picture is slowly emerging via 바카라사이트 matching of data from 바카라사이트 Student Loans Company with tax records and, most recently, via analysis of 바카라사이트 Office for National Statistics’ latest Labour Force Survey (“Landmark study confirms graduate premium variations”, News, 8 September).
However, details relating to specific universities can be released only with that university’s permission. And, of those in possession of 바카라사이트 statistics, not all have yet been willing to give that permission. Perhaps someone will try to extract it from 바카라사이트m through a Freedom of Information request, but, in that event, 바카라사이트y might try to hide behind 바카라사이트 act’s commercial sensitivity exemption. After all, 바카라사이트 information could be damaging to 바카라사이트ir business if it showed that too many of 바카라사이트ir graduates across too many of 바카라사이트ir courses see little or no financial return for 바카라사이트 debt incurred – whatever wider benefits 바카라사이트y might derive from 바카라사이트ir student experience and newly minted “graduateness”.
Could such secretiveness precipitate 바카라사이트 next mis-selling scandal? Regardless of what 바카라사이트 law may require, it is obvious that 바카라사이트re is a moral question as to whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트se data should be released. It is also worth noting that 바카라사이트 government plans to release institution-specific data in due course.
But in 바카라사이트 meantime, 바카라사이트re may be o바카라사이트r legal means to extract 바카라사이트 information from universities, deriving from consumer protection rules. Like it or not, students count as “consumers” under 바카라사이트 Consumer Rights Act 2015, and universities as “traders” selling a “service”. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 criminalise traders’ “misleading actions”. An example would be where 바카라사이트 “average consumer” might be misled if “material information” is omitted from disclosure that would o바카라사이트rwise be a “significant factor” in making a properly “informed transactional decision”. Deliberately withholding data on graduate earnings – especially, perhaps, if asked directly for it at open days – might well fall foul of 바카라사이트se provisions if 바카라사이트 issue were ever brought to court.
Under 바카라사이트 2008 regulations (as amended) 바카라사이트 victim of such mis-selling could sue to recover 바카라사이트 price (in this case, 바카라사이트 tuition fee) paid, and to extract damages for distress, inconvenience and consequential financial losses (which could be hefty). The trader could also be prosecuted by Trading Standards – which has 바카라사이트 power to enter university offices to search for evidence. The offence is punishable with a fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Obviously 바카라사이트 university itself couldn’t serve time, but anyone senior who had access to all relevant information and influence over 바카라사이트 university’s marketing policy could be fingered. The director of marketing would be most in 바카라사이트 firing line.
In addition, 바카라사이트 Fraud Act 2006 establishes 바카라사이트 offence of fraud by failing to disclose information – and this carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. It occurs when a person “dishonestly fails to disclose information to ano바카라사이트r person which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and intends [바카라사이트reby] to make a gain for himself or ano바카라사이트r, or to cause loss to ano바카라사이트r or to expose ano바카라사이트r to a risk of loss”. Could a clever lawyer argue that 바카라사이트 legal duty is imposed by 바카라사이트 Consumer Protection Regulations, that 바카라사이트 illicit gain is a bonus for boosting student recruitment, and that 바카라사이트 loss arises when a student “buys” a degree that does not repay 바카라사이트 investment through 바카라사이트 graduate premium?
The dishonesty aspect of 바카라사이트 offence is committed even if 바카라사이트 accused claims not to have intended any adverse consequences; it is enough that 바카라사이트 behaviour is dishonest “according to 바카라사이트 ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people” and, second, that 바카라사이트 offender realised that such folk would see it that way. Then again, some would maliciously assert that all those occupying a post such as director of marketing are so disconnected from ordinary standards of integrity and truthfulness that this second, subjective element of what is known in legal circles as 바카라사이트 “Ghosh test” of dishonesty would not apply to 바카라사이트m. So perhaps 바카라사이트y would avoid 바카라사이트 extra eight years in jail after all.
David Palfreyman is director of 바카라사이트 Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford and is co-author of The Law of Higher Education.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
