因此，大多数法院拒绝一般的教育弊端。例如，在俄克拉荷马城，州上诉法院驳回了一名法律学生对俄克拉荷马城大学及其董事会的要求。学生的平均绩点低于学校要求的最低水平，并开除了保罗·比特。他提起诉讼，声称他的解雇是由于他的宪法教授的表现不佳所致。他上课迟到，提前下课，取消上课，没有补课或提供学术咨询。法院发现“没有具体的协议……”为提供特别的教育服务而不提供足够的法律教育，“因此驳回了Bittle的诉讼。尽管如此，法院通常会考虑教育弊端，在特定的协议提供特定的教育服务的情况下，只要这样的考虑没有被践踏，正如一个法院解释的那样，“教育过程和理论的细微差别”。当法院考虑学生对营利性企业的指控时，这种司法干预尤其可能发生。
英国人权学代写论文:教育弊端
Accordingly, most courts reject general educational malpractice claims. In Bittle v. Oklahoma City, for example, a state appellate court rejected a law student's claim against Oklahoma City University and its board of trustees. The student's grade point average fell below the minimum required by the school, and it dismissed Paul Bittle. He sued, alleging that his dismissal was caused by the poor performance of his constitutional law professor, who arrived late to class, discharged class early, canceled class, and provided no make-up classes or academic counseling. The court found "no specific agreement . . . for the provision of particular educational services beyond the provision of an adequate legal education," and so dismissed Bittle's suit. Nevertheless, courts generally will consider educational malpractice claims where specific agreements provide for particular educational services, so long as such consideration does not tread upon, as one court explained, "the nuances of educational processes and theories." Such judicial intervention is especially likely when courts consider student claims against for-profit enterprises.
