125 Harvard Students Suspected of Cheating

Parents Forum
181

<p>menloparkmom, would you accept the Carnegie Foundation?

[Justice</a> or Just us? What to do about cheating | Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching](<a href=“http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/justice-or-just-us-what-do-about-cheating]Justice”>Carnegie Foundation Archive)</p>

<p>@epiphany, with respect, I think you are superimposing your own perception of posters’ reasons for posting on this thread. I am not full of sour grapes about Harvard. I give the university credit for confronting the problem head-on. </p>

<p>The students admitted to the Ivies generally take a full load of challenging courses, have high test scores, AND are “activity stars.” Thus, the students admitted to the Ivies are drawn, perforce, from the students who take honors/AP courses. Unless 75% - 90% of the recommendations which cross your desk from teachers flag the students for cheating, one can safely assume that some students cheat and aren’t caught. To judge from a great deal of research on this topic, many more students cheat than are caught.</p>

<p>And yes, I stand by my assertion that it is morally corrupt to cheat. Collaborating on a take-home exam on which collaboration has been expressly forbidden in the instructions is cheating. The students who attend Harvard may rule the world as adults (not joking!) Thus, yes, as a citizen, I am concerned.</p>

<p>The Crimson has a new article about the case. They’ve found students who witnessed fellow students recruiting collaborators: </p>

<p>

[Cheating</a> Scandal Erupts After Short-Answer Questions Added To Congress Exams | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/9/4/government-exam-harder-questions/]Cheating”>Cheating Scandal Erupts After Short-Answer Questions Added To Congress Exams | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>

182

<p>I always saw the students most likely to be caught cheating as the ones with the least actual cheating talent.</p>

183

<p>It appears, from my earlier reading of The Crimson and other sources, that this is what probably happened, and this is only my conjecture:</p>

<p>The class was indeed poorly taught. Students tried to remedy that situation, including but not limited to making an appointment with a TA the day before the test, to sort out the expected mastery of the material. (After exhausting their individual and probably --legitimately–collaborative attempts at understanding the same.)</p>

<p>Surprised and frustrated by his sudden absence, they threw up their hands, concluding that there was no genuine interest by the faculty & support staff to support an honest learning experience. “The hell with them,” was their response. “No one wants to help us out here; we’ll take matters into our own hands, having exhausted everything else.”</p>

<p>Mind you, I’m not saying it is right or it was right. I.m.o., both Harvard (this prof) and the students were culpable. What is more morally & ethically problematic, i.m.o., is that there is no (or is there?) grievance procedure before anything would get to this stage. I’m not an expert on the particular academic/administrative recourse open to students in such situations at this particular campus.</p>

<p>I do believe in honor codes, only because they make students more conscious that there is indeed a Right and a Wrong in life. They set a standard and remind students of that standard. But I equaly believe in intervention on behalf of students. Had the students been able (especially as a group!) to approach the Department or the Academic Dean and communicate their frustration and desperation before the final (even one day before), and have that meeting taken into consideration in the results of grades given for the final, that would have been preferable than their decision or the consequences of that decision. Had they established their case, the exam grades might have been voided and a revised exam issued.</p>

<p>I also do agree with parents who express disappointment/disillusion in any poor teaching at an Elite institution. It really is not excusable, and it does happen at various Elites every year: people hired for reasons other than an ability to teach, people kept on for political or personal reasons, etc.</p>

<p>But all of that has nothing to do with quality of student body. It is not “proof” that Harvard students, or any Ivy students, have lower moral standards than students not admitted. Least of all does it “prove” that the intellectually gifted (a different topic, but one which another poster, not I, introduced several pages ago, and to which I responded) are cheaters as a category. The studies have been done. I don’t have it in front of me, but the finding is that Gifted students are no more or less likely to have moral integrity than the non-gifted. There is neither a positive nor a negative correlation.</p>

184

<p>“Thus, the students admitted to the Ivies are drawn, perforce, from the students who take honors/AP courses.”</p>

<p>ever heard the phrase" correlation does not equal causation"?
apparently not…</p>

<p>"The students admitted to the Ivies generally take a full load of challenging courses, have high test scores, AND are “activity stars.”</p>

<p>yeah! I know many students who were accepted to Ivys. My son was one of them. AND they were able to “do it all”, [in his case do advanced Geological research in HS and play classical Piano for 10 years and get top SAT scores and grades], because in many cases, those AP classes were relatively easy for them. NOT because they had to cheat in order to get the A’s.</p>

<p>“But all of that has nothing to do with quality of student body. It is not “proof” that Harvard students, or any Ivy students, have lower moral standards than students not admitted. Least of all does it “prove” that the intellectually gifted (a different topic, but one which another poster, not I, introduced several pages ago, and to which I responded) are cheaters as a category.”
Exactly! Well said.</p>

185

<p>Just want to remind you that the comment about activity stars and intellectual curiosity did not originate with a disgruntled parent whose gifted student got turned down-it originated from a 5 year Resident Tutor at Harvard who said, for whatever reason, that admitting students who care about learning would be his first recommendation to fix this.</p>

<p>In fact to me this whole episode is less about cheating and it is more about pulling back the curtain on what is going on in general at these elite schools, and what the impact has been from this new generation of “holistic” admissions.</p>

186

<p>

</p>

<p>I knew that, but it’s immaterial. A “5-year Resident tutor” is not an admissions officer. He or she does not see, has not seen, the entire array of applications in any year of those 5 years. Whomever he or she has been tutoring is not a representative sample of the entire campus. That skewed sample is possibly from the Donor Admits category, combined with the Athletes category, combined with even [:eek:] those exceptionally bright & accomplished students with the misfortune to have been born with genuine Learning Disabilities and thus qualify for additional tutoring, given that they have a legitimate need for that, despite being able to manage higher-level material than those without LD’s often can. </p>

<p>Every year, every Elite institution admits (especially in the Early Round, if there is one) a number of students who fill special niches. Only a minority percentage of those Early admits would have also been admitted RD, without a “special” bump. Is this news to you, sm? Or to the supposedly brilliant and all-knowing “5-year Resident Tutor,” who so far I find underwhelming in perceptiveness and information. </p>

<p>In the Regular Round, the overwhelming number of admits are not “activity stars” with compromised brains, but brains with additional extracurricular credentials, in spades. Ever hear of Sarah Hughes, the Yale admit? Gold medal Olympic figure skater + outstanding student. That’s who the Ivies get to pick: they get to choose out of both categories within one student, simply because those are available. And they’re going to continue to be greedy for both, because elite college admissions is a Seller’s Market, and has been for many years.</p>

187

<p>“A “5-year Resident tutor” is not an admissions officer.”</p>

<p>More importantly, in my estimation, it’s one person’s judgment. There isn’t any empirical truth to be found on a topic like whether Harvard students have the right amount of intellectual curiosity. There are just a lot of viewpoints, some of which are better informed than others. Two extremely knowledgeable people, like two House masters, might have opposite opinions. Among professors and tutors, I bet you’d see very different perspectives based on their departments. People who teach Sanskrit or theoretical physics see a different flavor of student than those who teach Economics.</p>

188

<p>If it turns out that 125 Harvard students in one class cheated and knew they were cheating, I think it shows a big problem. Whether the problem is with Harvard specifically, or with elite colleges, or all colleges, or American society in general, is a lot harder to say.</p>

189

<p>ephipany, you may not know that a “Resident Tutor” in Harvard parlance is not actually a tutor in the usual sense of the word. They are more like fancy RA’s. They are grad students who live in the houses. They are expected to eat most (or at least many) meals in the dining room, help with activities like parties and keep an eye on misbehavior. They usually do academic advising in their field, sometime they’ll run a section of a course that may meet in the house, and sometimes they’ll even run a course of their own. (I took a Woman’s Study course with one of the History tutors in my house for example.) They are very much aware of trends (if any) in accepted students and don’t by any means only see struggling students.</p>

<p>In my high school the Harvard admits were also the ones who did it all. I had friends whose parents complained there wasn’t enough homework. My older son, regularly polished it off in a couple of hours and then spent the rest of his time teaching himself the stuff that he was actually interested in.</p>

190

<p>This may be a biased sample set, but many of my Wall Street colleagues have admitted to cheating in college (most went to top schools). At Cornell (where I went) the cheating culture was just a fact of life. From the Harvard people that I know, the culture was very much the same. Same goes for everywhere else. Most people that went to the Ivies were hardly gifted. Hardworking, polished and maniacal about ticking the boxes would describe the vast majority. Sure, there are some truly gifted ones in the bunch. However, they are a minority and always will be. Let’s not kid ourselves about effortless brilliance. Some may not have been inclined to cheat in high school when they were the best kid in the class. However, in college, when the difference between an A- and a B+ can make all of the difference, many easily decide to cheat.</p>

191

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, indeed, mathmom: Thanks for that reminder! It occurred to me right after my post that the Resident Tutor was being referred to, not a tutoring in a campus tutoring center. However, Hanna’s point remains, and it’s the same point that is overlooked when parents (or applicants) complain about supposedly some underachieving student (not a Special category admit) being admitted, vs. themselves, their relatives, their friends, etc. There’s a whole lot wrong with trying to draw conclusions either from what one assumes the competition is before college, or from what others on a college campus assume about any particular student. If “you” haven’t (anyone hasn’t) seen the file, and the competing files, you have vastly insufficient information to make comparative judgments, let alone to conclude that the admissions process “must” admit idiots and overlook the geniuses you claim to know.</p>

<p>Thanks again! :)</p>

192

<p>I agree with you that a Resident tutor does not have access to the admissions files and certainly aren’t aware of who is being rejected. But they will have seen the student population of their undergrad institutions as wall as the population that they interact with at Harvard, so they probably have more basis for an opinion than most of us on this board. :slight_smile: </p>

<p>I don’t think that Harvard is admitting nearly as many “idiots” as it used to, and I think it might be a happier place if it did. The happy bottom quarter is a useful tool for keeping the achievers from going nuts.</p>

193

<p>

:slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :)</p>

194

<p>

</p>

<p>is a great sentiment, but I doubt that it would work. My daughter is now a senior and she never has discussions with others about grades. She has made it clear that the culture is not to do that. All of her drive to perform is internally generated and always has been, so she was “nuts” before arriving at Harvard. I suspect that this true for a large portion of her peers.</p>

195

<p>Revisiting this fascinating thread after posting sometime back (my main point: hardliner on cheating and think Harvard should be too, if they want to keep their rep and my respect!);
I have a few more points now:
– some posts mention parents. I think, as long as a student is 18 + (not an underage minor child prodogy in college), s/he MUST handle the situation as an adult.
Inclusion of parents is inappropriate. (I realize this doesn’t stop helicopter parents from involvement with their accused cheater kid -or suing Harvard - however OFFICIALLY, the school should deal directly with the student.
– take home exams: may be more conducive to cheating opportunities, sure. Explicit statement of expectations for this (or other) exams is a great idea, reminder.
– ethical atmosphere: I have previously been interested in how administrators set the tone in our competitive high schools. Now I am interested in this at the university level. I strongly believe there are thousands of way for the top brass/leadership to institute the desired atmosphere or scholarship, personal effort, character, and I HOPE some university administrators will happen to read this post and consider ways to work on this at their institutions, with their incoming freshmen, etc.
– I was raised to not cheat, and I encouraged my children to not cheat. I said this, even though my kids were in competitiveenvironments. It is just better for a person to be honest, even if they don’t get special acknowledgement…
– I do see that modern times have brought us instant communication, smartphones and etc. and I wonder if personal tech has a big role in being so easy for the weak-minded and opportunist type to cheat/plagiarize/lie/, especially a student who has been told by a Tiger Mom (like the famous one) that they “must” be “the best.”</p>

196

<p>Interesting perspective from the former president of Reed
[Students</a> will show academic integrity — if colleges support it - Opinion - The Boston Globe](<a href=“Students will show academic integrity — if colleges support it - The Boston Globe”>Students will show academic integrity — if colleges support it - The Boston Globe)</p>

197

<p>I think that there is one more thing about this that needs to be considered. How students learn now is different than it was 20+ years ago. How students are tested may need to evolve more as well. Online testing, with varied and random ordered questions are not difficult to do. Even “collaborative” testing can be both beneficial and telling, especially if your grades are going to be assigned to you by the other members of your group. </p>

<p>I don’t even begin to think that I have all the answers. But with technology being what it is, the huge increases in students attending college, and the changes in the academic atmosphere, there have to be more creative and effective ways of testing then a pencil and paper.</p>

198

<p>I’m more amused of how shocked and appalled everyone is, what did you expect? All Harvard students are angels? Lol. It’s quite sad they grouped together. It was a take home test…USE THE BOOK.</p>

199

<p>I’m still most amused by the irony of the actions of the students given the content of the course in question. “Introduction to Congress”…the one place in this country where any semblance of collaboration is frowned upon, and the concept of honor/ethics is completely foreign to them.</p>

200

<p>Turns out that more than half of the students in the course were athletes. Perfect! The very target audience that gut courses at many colleges are traditionally designed for. I guess Harvard is no different.</p>

<p>[For</a> Accused Jocks, Athletic Regulations Complicate Decisions | News | “Unprecedented in Anyone’s Living Memory” | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/9/6/athletes-cheating-regulations-ad-board/]For”>For Accused Jocks, Athletic Regulations Complicate Decisions | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>