<p>by your argument, if Penn is the owner of these spots then it’s on Penn to verify information. If they made a mistake, they should deal with the results (you wouldn’t cover losses for an investor who invested without doing due diligence, would you?)</p>
<p>Also, it’s only rational to assume that a good number of kids stretched the truth / misrepresented themselves / lied to get in. It’s the dominant strategy because everyone wants to get in very badly. </p>
<p>Since we still can’t leave intangibles alone, lets consider this: it’s not about “rightful” or “wrongful” admission but about fit. This girl fits in at Penn and will likely be successful here. Just because someone (OP) finds her actions disagreeable, doesn’t mean he should go rat on her.</p>
<p>I’ll close with an anecdote / analogy: I know people at Penn who use drugs. Should I report them? Get them convicted and then report that to FAFSA to get their fin aid packages revoked? Penn accepted them without any knowledge of their illegal habits, lack of a conviction is a false negative and FAFSA is an uninformed decision based on a false negative. I have a “moral obligation” to correct system information asymmetries.
-The example isn’t a perfect analogy but I hope you can see where I’m going-</p>