Hello,

I have read a great article once while it was posted on Geocities in 1998. It has since been taken off, but its print version can be found if you are interested. Here is the citation for that article:

Raymond L. Woodcock, Burden of Proof, Undue Hardship, and Other Arguments for the Student Debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B), 24 J.C. & U.L. 377, ___ (1998)

I'll list some of the court cases cited in that article where the court decided in favor of the debtor, and you can do your own research. The source is the article I menioned above, which cannot be posted here in its entirety due to copyright laws and the sheer length. All credit goes to the author of the article since I could not nearly be as eloquent as the author.

"Kevin P. McJessy, Contract Law: A Proper Framework for Litigating Educational Liability Claims, 89 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1768, 1774-84 (1995) (educational "malpractice" claims can be brought under theories of negligence, misrepresentation, statutory liability, constitutionality, and contract)" (Woodcock, 1998)

"See 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(20) (prohibiting colleges and universities from providing incentive payment to recruiting, admissions, and financial aid personnel based on success in securing enrollments or financial aid); 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(8) (colleges and universities advertising job placement rates to attract students must make statistics thereon available to prospective students); infra note 266 (cases discharging debts for students who were sold a worthless education) and accompanying text" (Ibid.)

Other cited cases from page 73 of Woodcock's article. The opinions (in parentheses) are Woodcock's wordings on the corresponding opinions. Note: the page numbers will not match the ones in the original version, bacause I have first seen it is HTML version, which I converted into Word Doc. The footnotes to look out for, are: 239, 240, and 266. I can't stress ernough: you should read this article (it is hard to read, so you understand the context within which these cases were cited.

"Carter v. Kent State Univ. (In re Carter), 29 B.R. 228, 231 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1983) (discharge granted; student urged to obtain master's degree in political science was poorly advised, given realities of job market)...Clay v. Westmar College (In re Clay), 12 B.R. 251, 255 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1981) (discharge granted to debtor who acquired no marketable skills in college and whose current employment did not require his college education)...Connolly v. Florida Board of Regents (In re Connolly), 29 B.R. 978, 982 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1983) (discharging debtor who had remote likelihood of deriving significant benefit from education)...Correll v. Union Nat'l Bank of Pittsburgh (In re Correll), 105 B.R. 302, 305-307 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1989) (criticizing schools that lead students into significant debt without corresponding career guidance; discharge granted to student who lacked basic ability or had poor prerequisite training and did not benefit financially from education)...Evans v. HEAF (In re Evans), 131 B.R. 372, 376 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991) (discharge granted to debtor who found herself attempting to survive under the same standard of living as before the education)...
In re Fonzo, 1 B.R. 722, 724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1979) (discharge granted; college courses did not enhance debtor's present position or foreseeable earning capacity)...Littell v. Oregon (In re Littell), 6 B.R. 85, 88 (Bankr. D. Or. 1980) (court should consider whether it was economically sound to encourage debtor to take out loans; partial discharge granted...United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Pena (In re Pena), 207 B.R. 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. BAP 1997) (discharged, based in part on finding that education was "meaningless")...Robinson v. United States Dep't of Educ. (In re Robinson), 193 B.R. 967, 968 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1996) (equities are stronger if education is worthless than if debtor is presently employed in the exact position for which he trained)...Yarber v. Department of Health, Educ. & Welfare (In re Yarber), 19 B.R. 18, 21 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1982) (discharge granted; purpose of statute was to prevent bad faith, not give aggressive college an unimpeachable preference when education provides no benefit)...Zobel v. Iowa College Aid Comm'n (In re Zobel), 80 B.R. 950, 952 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1986) (discharge granted to debtor whose education imparted a skill, but whose post-graduation employment was sporadic)...See also Robinson, 193 B.R. at 970-71 (discharge may be consistent with congressional purpose even if debtor is receiving some benefit from the education). (Ibid, p. 73.

You may also try contacting Public Citizen and Public Interest Research Group (there may be a chapter in your state). I hope this is helpful to all of you.