You’ve probably already heard about this story:
A recent college graduate is suing her alma mater for $72,000 — the full cost of her tuition and then some — because she cannot find a job.
Trina Thompson, 27, of the Bronx, graduated from New York’s Monroe College in April with a bachelor of business administration degree in information technology.
On July 24, she filed suit against the college in Bronx Supreme Court, alleging that Monroe’s “Office of Career Advancement did not help me with a full-time job placement. I am also suing them because of the stress I have been going through.” …
As Thompson sees it, any reasonable employer would pounce on an applicant with her academic credentials, which include a 2.7 grade-point average and a solid attendance record. But Monroe’s career-services department has put forth insufficient effort to help her secure employment, she claims.
“They’re supposed to say, ‘I got this student, her attendance is good, her GPA is all right — can you interview this person?’ They’re not doing that,” she said.
She suggested that Monroe’s Office of Career Advancement shows preferential treatment to students with excellent grades. “They favor more toward students that got a 4.0. They help them more out with the job placement,” she said. …
Asked whether she would advise other college graduates facing job woes to sue their alma maters, Thompson said yes.
“It doesn’t make any sense: They went to school for four years, and then they come out working at McDonald’s and Payless. That’s not what they planned.“
Some may condemn Ms. Thompson for having unreasonable expectations during a deep recession; for asserting facially frivolous legal claims; for making obviously absurd statements, like how it’s shocking that students with A averages are “favored” over those with B- averages; and for generally failing to understand that, regardless of what she may have “planned,” the best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley — i.e., life isn’t fair, welcome to the real world.
But I say, forget all that. This woman is an American hero. Why? Because, especially now, during a time of economic gloom, we need simple morality tales populated by straightforward, obvious villains. And that’s exactly what Trina Thompson is. She’s a cardboard character whom we can simply plug into the age-old “damn kids today and their sense of entitlement” storyline, without any alterations or complications. And that’s not all! Oh no, it gets even better, because she merges that old chestnut with the equally appealing “damn lawyers today and their litigious bulls**t” storyline. That’s two instances of righteous outrage for the price of one! Not since the A.I.G. bonuses has there been a story this delightfully outrageous! BRING THE HATE!!
In an odd way, Trina Thompson serves a similar purpose in our nation’s psyche as Chesley Sullenberger III. At all times, but especially at times like these, we crave not just straightforward heroes, like Captain Sully, but also straightforward villains — people we can unabashedly look down upon with disdain. The world is complicated, but these narratives aren’t, and we like that. As simple and straightforward as Sully’s heroism was, Ms. Thompson’s anti-heroism is equally so. There’s no complexity to it, no nuance, just a glaringly obvious example of somebody being obnoxious and contemptible.
Somebody give this woman a medal. She has, in our nation’s hour of great need, selflessly offered herself up as the sacrificial lamb whom America can castigate without guilt or caveat. And so I salute you, Trina Thompson. By being a complete idiot and jackass — but, more than that, by being a complete idiot and jackass in a completely formulaic, predictable way — you’ve made us all feel better about ourselves, and made this crazy world seem a little more simple and understandable. Well done, madam. Well done.
Now shut up and get a job. 😛
I have to say that for the most part I agree with you BUT if the carreer center promised services that they aren’t delivering she may have atleast SOME point. Good luck proving it in court of course, but it strikes me as only 95% completely nuts instead of the full 100% 🙂
The truth doesn’t matter, though. What matters is the narrative. It’s like that McDonald’s coffee lady — if you study it in detail, her case actually was not NEARLY as frivolous as everyone thinks, but the narrative was simple and straightforward. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
(Though in this case, it seems fairly likely, as you say, that the facts actually do justify the general reaction.)
I would say that she would potentially have a case if and only if she did the following. Hired an outside independent career consultant. Worked with said consultant and got a job. Sued the school for the cost of hiring said career consultant on the grounds that part of the agreement she made with the her university was for career help upon graduation that the university failed to provide. That service was, according to her, a contractual obligation and that on the open market that service is now demonstrably worth X dollars for this particular dumb ass to find a job. Though shockingly in a employers market people with higher GPA’s and theoretically better skills are being hired before people that apparently failed their schools writing course. Unfortunately for her, just going to university does not actually make you qualified, you also need to do the work not just sit in class and play with your chihuahua…
Dammit, I hate it when I make typos while criticizing other people’s writing skills…