“may render a denial of certification improper.” Id. The danger of mootness is great enough in the instant litigation to necessitate class certification. Students graduate, transfer, drop out, move away, grow disinterested, fall in love. Certainly, if a concern arises early enough in a claimant’s educational odyssey, it may be heard court. However, all too often student-initiated disputes escape review. See, e.g., Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of the State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 137 (2nd Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2634, 132 L.Ed.2d 873 (1995); Mincone v. Nassau County Community College, 923 F.Supp. 398, 404 (E.D.N.Y.1996). The class action mechanism solves this potential mootness problem. See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402, 95 S.Ct. 553, 559, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Certification is appropriate in this case. D.
holding that a class action may continue even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that in the rule 23 class action context named plaintiff may appeal a denial of class certification even if his or her individual claims had been satisfied through the entry of judgment holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that when a motion for class certification has been pursued with reasonable diligence and is then pending before the district court a case does not become moot merely because of the tender to the named plaintiffs of their individual money damages recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members