Comments on: “Lehigh U. student sues over grade, seeks $1.3 M”

By: wfjag

wfjag — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:06:05 +0000

Suit dismissed:

The “plaintiff [Thode] failed to establish that the university based the awarded grade of C+ on anything other than purely academic reasons,” the judge said in his ruling.

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/Judge-rules-against-Megan-Thode-Lehigh-grad-in-1-3M-lawsuit-over-bad-grade/-/132502/18547540/-/1mb618z/-/index.html

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:54:22 +0000

lhghgrad2, you have the advantage of me. I, personally, have never been Ms. Thode.

By: Leland D. Davis

Leland D. Davis — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:00:14 +0000

My mother, a career public school teacher (high school biology) had contempt for education departments at universities and ed schools in general. She viewed ed departments as offering content-lite fluff instead of anything of value to her as a teacher. She highly valued course content education – as a biology teacher, learn more biology – and went on to take a number of courses in her subject area beyond what was required for certification.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:38:48 +0000

She’s in the School of Education and she added “sex discrimination” to her list of complaints? Aren’t Ed.D. programs 95% women?

By: boblipton

boblipton — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:31:17 +0000

Thank you, lhghgrad2, for bringing reason to this discussion. I must remember to go back and get my grade school arithmetic tests rescored on that thesis.

Bob

By: lhghgrad2

lhghgrad2 — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:52:29 +0000

The comments and the media attacks against Ms. Thode are unfair and highly speculative. Did anyone take a minute to assume that maybe she was being unfairly treated or harassed by her professors? She submitted all of her assignments, participated in class, but perhaps because she did not always agree with her professors, she was given a “0” for class participation? In a way, I was Ms. Thode just one year before her experience, working with one of the named defendants in the law suit, who was indeed a bully, abusing his power and using his influence to remove me from a program that I had worked diligently towards completing, just as was done to Ms. Thode. It’s not about a C+ – it’s about keeping someone from completing the last steps of her program. Be brave, Ms. Thode – you and I both know how this professor operates, and I wish that I had taken legal action like you did against him.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:43:19 +0000

I find for the plaintiff and award her a boot-assisted one-way trip to the moon.

By: Roy B

Roy B — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:42:34 +0000

So, she was working on her Masters degree – for free (!), received a C+ and rather than review why and retake the course (for free) she chooses the entitlement route. Wow, I would really want to send people to this woman for counseling, she would really help them to take control of their circumstances and move on with their lives.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:44:56 +0000

With Thode on the witness stand Monday, Sacks underscored that Lehigh paid Thode’s freight — not just as a graduate student, but as an undergraduate at York College of Pennsylvania — because her father is a professor. Sacks also said the university set her up with jobs over the course of her attendance.

What Chutzpah! You get a free education and you turn around and sue the school.

After getting the C+, Thode unsuccessfully filed internal grievances over the grade, showed up for meetings with her father, and insisted that Carr give her a written apology and a “plan for compensating me financially,” Sacks said.

I gather her father must be a tenured professor to be able to get away with pulling a stunt like that.

The $1.3 million she is seeking represents the difference in her earning power over her career if she was instead a state-certified counselor, according to Orloski.

Of course she would have. All it takes is getting the degree and you are guaranteed work for life.

By: ras

ras — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:30:54 +0000

“I have nothing against you setting national precedent here,” Orloski told the judge.

“Good idea; you are hereby found in contempt by reason of obviousness,” the judge compliantly replied.