<p>You really are a piece of work necro. Very funny. BTW, I did respond to every argument you made.</p>
<p>But you obviously are not a serious person, you just like to be outrageous, so you are on ignore at this point.</p>
<p>no you didn’t. Reread my post (page 4). I find it funny how logic is “outrageous” nowadays. This is why markets are irrational - people make decisions on emotions rather than concrete analysis.</p>
<p>she’s no longer your friend right? Why should her future matter to you?</p>
<p>People like her, despite talents and skills, are nonetheless parasites that whither and corrupt otherwise highly revered institutions from their very foundations. The University of Pennsylvania is a very prestigious institute, but are you willing to let this “friend” of yours and those like her go and destroy the school’s reputation?</p>
<p>Ivy league students are already gaining bad reputations, so are you just going to let this continue?</p>
<p>Mimble:
I hope you choose not to ruin the life of that girl and in the long run you will be saving your life [happiness and emotional state of mind] too…then one day you can say proudly if I would have ruined the life of that girl because I was upset and angry I would have ruined my life and the life of those closed to me…if you read the previous posting (12, 19…31, 57, 74, 75 and those that explain why you shouldn’t take revenge)…That’s what I really will call “courage.” I’m sure you would already understand the message…in choosing to do right it will equate to you have seen the forest from the trees. At this stage you already have been tempted by several posters…hum:</p>
<p>“You have to get out of the forest to see [the big picture], because while you are in the forest, you only see the trees that comprise the forest; but you cannot see the forest as a whole. When you are focusing on details, it is more difficult to see the issue as a whole, as you can only see the details that comprise the issue. Wiki"</p>
<p>Having saying that the consequences in ruining the girl’s life will scar you forever…and many others too…Do you really want that for your future life?</p>
<p>I haven’t read through this entire thread, but believe that the OP does have a moral obligation to report any known instance of lying on an application.
However, if the description of the liar is accurate, she will most likely self destruct and end up getting thrown out for multiple violations of the honor code at most any decent university whether she’s reported or not. I mean, if she feels she has to do what she’s doing to get in, she’ll probably continue when she gets there.</p>
<p>Actually, I beg to differ. She will be fine and fit right in at Penn Wharton. She may even excel.</p>
<p>pennboy25 knows what he’s talking about ;)</p>
<p>DarkKnight666, are you aware of how many Wharton alumni are in prison right now? I’m not. I just know there is a Joseph Wharton Scholar from a couple years back doing time for insider trading and I’m guessing he’s not unique. Wharton doesn’t really train you to conduct yourself ethically. mgmt100 -fail your teammates to get a good grade. First case study in legal studies 101 (honors section) - sentence 4 innocent people to death (we affirmed innocence but still killed them - see case study Speluncean Explorers)</p>
<p>Ever heard of karma? It will slap your friend sooner or later. Let the nature take its own course. You don’t have to interfere.</p>
<p>mimble, my advice would be to take a few days to cool down. don’t do anything rash now, but wait a week and see if you feel the same way. it’s your credit she took, and she did do something wrong, so notifying them is NOT ‘morally incorrect’. i realise by saying this i disagree with almost everyone in this thread, but it’s really up to you, and if she didn’t want to get screwed over she shouldn’t have done that.</p>
<p>i think the reason people are telling you not to report her is because they themselves have exaggerated considerably on their apps.</p>
<p>it’s your call. she took advantage of you, and you can give her the real reward for that.</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s why people are disagreeing at all, muffin. The question is whether or not the punishment fits the crime. If I steal from a candy store, I may get a slap on the wrist or punished via a small fine. If I stole a second time, would punishment by death really be the next logical step?</p>
<p>Here, this girl has had her scholarship removed as a result of her dishonesty. We don’t necessarily know whether or not she also lied on her app in a similar manner, but the OP feels that she is not remorseful, and for this, he thinks it’s fair to inform Penn about her past dishonesty in order to get her acceptance rescinded on the grounds of her character.</p>
<p>To me, this is like saying “This person should be put to death because they aren’t repenting for their sins” or something. The point here is that, yes, she may be dishonest and yes, she may not feel she did anything wrong, but it’s not up to you to remove huge opportunities from her life until you feel she feels remorseful (and even then, it would be remorse only out of her anger). Either way, you really gain nothing by removing the opportunity.</p>
<p>The reason why so many people are saying “let fate take its course” is because this decision to punish is over fairly weak grounds (i.e. something not fully-direct like the scholarship example was, whereas her application to Penn is more than just a one-liner about a club position). You are better off letting her character be her test of justice, in my opinion. If she’s a dishonest little insect, then she’s going to get her ass handed to her. Classmates really won’t hesitate to screw you over if you decide to pull a fast one on them. Lord knows I’ve done it before on very justified grounds.</p>
<p>This sort of situation is a slippery slope, but I think that the point of contention is significantly further down the spectrum such that it’s fairly likely you’re better off letting fate have its way with her.</p>
<p>“moronic” athletes don’t get into Penn, maybe their stats are a little lower sometimes, but they are bringing something of value to the school."</p>
<p>eh, know 2 recruited athletes who got into Penn, ED, who got below 2100 and had below a 3.70 in not particularly rigorous classes. I am by no means saying that that is moron status but below the majority of admits, no?</p>
<p>Yes, almost all schools relax their standards for athletes. As you say, that doesn’t make them morons. But this also is off topic. On topic is that the admission slots belong to Penn, and they can give them out any way they want. But explicit in their methodology of awarding the slots is that they are given full and accurate information. That is pertinent to the debate.</p>
<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>
<p>legendofmax…new perspective and wise analysis!</p>
<p>Well necro, at least you are sounding a bit more rational. So OK, let’s look at these examples you give.
You draw an illogical conclusion. It is Penn’s responsibility to choose to act or not act on the best information available to it, and decide how much effort they want to put into finding out the truth. Clearly it is absurd beyond any measure to think they can investigate the truthfulness of thousands of applicants. Civil society relies on police to enforce laws, and police rely on citizens to bring things to their attention all the time. One example is neighborhood watch. But even in cases where there is not such a vested interest, they need people to be their eyes and ears to supplement their own work. And as for your investor example, it makes no sense to talk about covering losses. The more pertinent example would be should I report a broker or similar individual that I know is ripping people off, even if I have not invested with him. Of course I should, and there was a guy that did just that with Madoff years before he finally got caught. The fact that the SEC was completely negligent in doing their job is only equivalent to Penn ignoring the OP if he came to them, which they are free to do. The SEC was not free to do it (at least not without withering criticism) because they have a different duty, but the point is the same. The guy was right to report Madoff, even though it did nothing for him at the time.</p>
<p>Your second argument
translates as “everyone else does it so that makes it OK”. I thought we all learned better than that by second grade.</p>
<p>The thing about fit is strange, but to say the OP just finds her actions disagreeable is a slightly off characterization. He finds her actions dishonest and as I have pointed out, illegal under the fraud statutes.</p>
<p>Which gets us to number 4 about using drugs. First of all, schools don’t ask if you use drugs. Most schools ask if you have ever been convicted of a felony. As long as they have not been convicted, there is nothing to report to the schools. That is not a false negative. The schools are not the police. Now if you know about drug use and want to report it to the police, that would be ethically correct, but most people won’t do that. Why not? Because most don’t find that objectionable enough to turn someone in, unlike commiting fraud or assault, for examples. As I always stated, a big part of the OP’s decision would be his own state of mind as to why he is doing it. If he truly finds it morally objectionable enough that it rises to the level of a reportable offense, then he is morally obligated to do it. I think it is, because it is fraud that harms another potential admit. If he doesn’t, then he should let it go.</p>
<p>Your stand about morals being absurd is not going to be refutable on a forum like this, although most people know it is ridiculous on its face. I suspect you will look back on that stance in 10 years or so and cringe.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>In this case I would like to know to “protect” …but not to “ruin” a life…</p>
<p>I am curious though Greenery. Are you saying it is always wrong to expose the truth in a situation like this or are you saying you think the magnitude of the offense is too small to warrent this kind of action</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, neighborhood watch is just a way of doing things, not a part of a system. My friend was applying to NIH for an internship and I was cited as a contact. They indeed asked me about my friend, his honesty, integrity, etc. If Penn wanted / cared, they would also conduct their due diligence.
Also, your example of guy ripping people off is a VERY complex question. If you make an accusation, you have the preponderance of compelling evidence burden or else the person sues you for slander/libel. Do you care to do that?
You say Penn is overburdened with applications in defense of due diligence. Lets consider this:
It is common knowledge that Penn (as all other top, exclusive schools) is reluctant to accept more than a few people from a given high school. Thus, everyone applying there is in direct competition with you. You then have an incentive to lie to adcom about a grievance your fellow applicant(s) are not reporting (in the absence of legal consequence). If we accept this system, it is infinitely more burdensome for Penn to investigate all allegations.</p>
<p>I can hear you offer the argument: if claim was proven false, person who made it should be rejected. “Hey Bill, I know you aren’t applying to Penn so can you please claim Jimmy exploits his President status in Honors Society to grope men?” --see where I’m going?</p>
<p>
Economic analysis, game theory. I’m not talking about drug use. I’m talking about competition for a limited resource. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
a big part of the OP’s decision would be his own state of mind as to why he is doing it. If he truly finds it morally objectionable enough that it rises to the level of a reportable offense, then he is morally obligated to do it. I think it is, because it is fraud that harms another potential admit. If he doesn’t, then he should let it go.
[QUOTE]
Addressing the deleted part of the above paragraph serves no purpose for my argument (because as I disclaimed, it was a flawed example anyway) so lets discuss this part. </p>
<p>At least we agree on something. Except I called this the intangible benefit of reporting and asked the OP to weigh this option against the risks of suit and obligations to prove his allegations.</p>
<p>I kind of think this situation has been overanalyzed. The real issue with this person contacting Penn in regard to her friend is that he or she cannot provide an impartial view of what happened.</p>
<p>
Is there anyone that thinks that makes an ounce of sense?</p>
<p>
Not true. You can go to the authorities with whatever you have without fear of legal action retribution. The authorities have to judge if it is enough to charge a person. Now if you go to the newspapers making claims that are unfounded, you are correct.</p>
<p>As far as Penn being overburdened or not, it really was off the point anyway. Whether they do their own investigating or not, they have every right to use information brought to them.</p>
<p>
Now you are just being goofy again. Lying on a signed application and therefore commiting fraud is an illegal act. Competition has rules, and breaking the rules has potential consequences.</p>
<p>You are going off the deep end again, so I really am done with this thread.</p>