<p>If you have a premise or a prejudice, finding support on the internet is very easy. You can just selectively include them in your post.
It’s just like saying certain ethnic groups commit specific crimes…be it violent or white collar Wall Street cheating, especially in the last few years, if you google enough selectively, you can also support your arguments.
I can also post a number of articles and saying it’s not stereotyping, just well documented.</p>
<p>Why, thank you, bovertine. Thank you very much.</p>
<p>… deleted the other stuff…</p>
<p>Hey, wait a minute. You edited your post. Severla of my “prolific” posts were to educate some about the old board, to clarify who was being insulted (pg vs xiggi, etc). Just trying to be helpful, and I get tagged as a “proliffic poster”. Enough with the back handed compliments. Enough I say! :)</p>
<p>Ack. And now, trying to correct the ever-present typos, I will get “charged” with yet another post, as I have missed my 20 min. window to correct the above.</p>
<p>And you wanna talk prolific?? There are several to whose post count mine pales in comparison.</p>
<p>That sounds like a grammtical error. To whose? To whom’s? My head is spinning. I guess you had me at “fora”.</p>
<p>notelling, there’s more. if that didnt sicken you enough</p>
<p>[Chow</a> Question 2 Draft](<a href=“http://www.scribd.com/doc/110388016]Chow”>http://www.scribd.com/doc/110388016)</p>
<p>[Chow</a> Leadership Final](<a href=“http://www.scribd.com/doc/110388007]Chow”>http://www.scribd.com/doc/110388007)</p>
<p>[Chow</a> Gergen Final](<a href=“http://www.scribd.com/doc/110387998]Chow”>http://www.scribd.com/doc/110387998)</p>
<p>[Chow</a> Email Documents](<a href=“http://www.scribd.com/doc/110387966]Chow”>http://www.scribd.com/doc/110387966)</p>
<p>how do you find it worse than the freshman cheating scandal? kids vs. wealthy adult? curious your logic here. i agree that was funny about the $67.15 for the ethics text book. ethics not so much, eh?</p>
<p>Huntsm1 – WHOA!!! I haven’t looked at all of the documents, but those emails are shocking. To those who haven’t looked at the documents, they provide further evidence of the extent to which Gerald Chow was relying on “tutors” to do all of his work for his master’s degree at Harvard. AND, on top of everything else, the person doing the work for Chow was apparently herself a graduate student at Harvard!</p>
<p>Does anyone know if Harvard is aware of these documents? I went back to look at the invoices on the Boston Globe website, and they were very difficult to find. They weren’t linked to the main article. </p>
<p>This seems much, much worse than the other cheating scandal that I’m aware of – the one where a substantial number of students are being investigating for collaborating on a take home exam in a Political Science class. From the circumstances I’ve read about that incident – that the class had previously been a gut class, that the take home exam was exceptionally hard, that the professor had cancelled office hours at the last minute, that there had been a practice by the teaching fellows of providing extensive “help” on take home exams – I can understand (though not at all condone) how the situational pressure could lead students to cheat by collaborating with one another on the take home exam. It is within the realm of things that one would could imagine might happen under certain conditions. That is an entirely different story from coolly paying someone to do all of your work for a master’s degree. The premeditation and extent of the cheating puts Chow’s actions on a whole different level. His actions were outright fraud.</p>
<p>By the way, the fact that Chow engaged in a massive fraud to get his master’s degree does not mean that he wasn’t himself defrauded by Zimny and the Ivy Admit folks.</p>
<p>true and true notelling, but damn those invoices are expensive! the one where he asked the tutor to write an email to Bill Kristol is particularly funny, and then asks the tutor to analyze the response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not the basis for the lawsuit. The Chow’s complaint alleges that Zimny fraudulently induced the Chows to give him (1) $155K for donations to prep schools; and (2) $2 million for investments, which were supposed to provide income to pay the tutoring expenses for the sons. The Chows claim that when they discovered that the donations to the prep schools were never made, they demanded the $2 million back but Zimny refused to pay it back or to account for it. There is no allegation in the complaint that Zimny failed to deliver the promised admission results.</p>
<p>The names of the boys have been made public in the invoices that were filed by Chow’s lawyers and that Huntsm1 linked to in earlier posts. I have to admit that I couldn’t resist and Googled the names. It appears that one of the boys is enrolled in a highly prestigious program that would not have been available at Harvard or most other Ivies and that is a talent based program that would not be amenable to cheating. So for this kid, at least, a Harvard admit would not have been better (assuming that the program represents his academic goals) and it is hard to see how he would have gotten in without natural talent. I’m sorry for my vagueness. I don’t mean to sound coy, but I don’t think it is appropriate to mention the kid or the program by name. The father seems clearly to have engaged in fraud at Harvard, but there’s no real evidence that the kids did anything wrong. (I didn’t see support for the Boston Globe’s claim that the tutors were doing the kids’ high school homework, but then again I didn’t read all of the documents that huntm1 linked to).</p>
<p>I love how the guy is even getting the IvyAdmit guy to go to Cingular and pick up cell phones for the kids.</p>
<p>The docs that huntsm1 linked to clearly reveal that a woman named Jane Cassie, apparently a grad student at H herself, basically did Chow’s work for him – she had class notes, wrote papers, drafted emails to professors, etc.</p>
<p>"Actually, Stuy kids who chose Reed over HYP tended to be highly respected by even the jerky contingent among the 25% as it was regarded on par with SWA when I was there. </p>
<p>Part of the reason for that respect, however, is the widespread perception that such students were masochists for choosing a school perceived to have a far greater academic workload in both quantity and rigor. Similar to how we regarded classmates who went off to Swat, MIT, Caltech, CMU(STEM), Cornell, UChicago, or other such “heavy workload schools”. "</p>
<p>Did anyone at Stuy ever just … Choose a college because they personally liked it? Or did every single student there make a point of considering what their classmates would think as the first cut? Again, normal, healthy, well adjusted people don’t spend their time worrying about what their classmates might think of their selections.</p>
<p>Nottelling-</p>
<p>Good recap of the basic grounds for the lawsuit.</p>
<p>I agree about the S son’s college admission being largely talent-based and not something Zimny could have secured for him, although perhaps the son was able to meet the academic threshold through “help” from his tutors.</p>
<p>On the other hand, in an email re. the J son’s tutoring Gerald Chow asks Jane Cassie to keep their arrangement “confidantial” (sic), which she interprets as meaning he wants to keep it secret from his host family. This is clearly communicated to the J son in her email to him.</p>
<p>As for keeping the kids’ names confidential, even without the document released by the lawyer, which incidentally also give email addresses, and bank account and cell phone numbers (ouch!), the names of the two kids were out there, as were their secondary schools and colleges. Although I don’t think they were innocent in all this I can’t imagine them trying to go against the wishes of their father. The pressure to succeed must have been a tremendous burden.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find it worse because at most, the freshman cheating scandal was “a bunch of freshmen collude on one particular question that confused them.” I still am dubious about how many were involved, because the teacher initially picked out a fairly small number of tests he thought had been involved in cheating (for good reasons, like identical incorrect grammar in a sentence)–I don’t remember the exact number but I think it was five or six?–and then when the administration examined the tests they said, “Oh no, it’s not a few people, hundreds of students were involved! Half the class!” I do not believe freshmen, or any class of hundreds of students, is even organized enough to have that many people cheating. (More likely they all found a common source on the internet, IMO. It was a take-home test, internet sources allowed.)</p>
<p>But putting aside how many students did in fact cheat, the freshmen cheated on ONE question. This guy, on the other hand, paid someone else to “do college” for him. All of college, it sounds like. This wasn’t one instance of plagiarism, it was systematic and long-term cheating. This wasn’t “Oh, I didn’t realize that was cheating because I am an ignorant freshman!”, it was “Hmmm, I think I will hire someone to write all my papers.”</p>
<p>They should take away his degree, give it to his notetaker / paper-writer, and then take it right back from her for being involved in cheating.</p>
<p>For the person who said you could buy your way into a China university, that is utter bs - the exam papers there are guarded as if they were nuclear bombs, teachers who write the exams are locked up until the exams finish - in China, it’s 100% meritocracy. As much as there’s corruption elsewhere in China, no such thing exists in the sphere of college admissions. China takes education VERY seriously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are kidding, right? Here’s a different perspective:
<a href=“Burden of China’s College Entrance Test Sets Off Wide Debate - The New York Times”>Burden of China’s College Entrance Test Sets Off Wide Debate - The New York Times;
<p>"Of course, children of senior Communist Party members, government leaders and prominent businesspeople have their own back channels to admission, a phenomenon that exists, too, in the West, though perhaps not to the same degree. "</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not evident from their dearth of universities. If they cared so much about education, they’d provide more students with the chance to attend a top college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In practice, the vast majority of the above find it much easier and less aggravating to send their kids to US schools where family name/wealth and “soft factors” play a much greater part in the admissions process. </p>
<p>Incidentally, there’s technically an easier exam for “Overseas Chinese/international students” for colleges in both Chinas as well…but it’s still much more of a bear than the US admissions process as a HS classmate found when he ended up going to National Taiwan University as an Engineering major. </p>
<p>Even so, many wealthy businesspeople relocate to foreign countries…especially in SE Asia so they can take that “easier exam”. Some, however, find that it’s much easier to just apply to private US colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s two reasons I’ve heard cited in the East Asian newsmedia:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There isn’t enough will/ability to allocate the ginormous infusion of money required for the number of colleges needed to meet actual demand in Mainland China. </p></li>
<li><p>Unlike in the US, there isn’t a prevailing mentality that “everyone must go to college”. Quite the contrary, many…even in “Communist China” still feel a university education should be reserved only for those who have demonstrated the most academic merit as shown by national college entrance exam performance. This is both due to cultural and financial considerations. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>This is especially true in Mainland China after seeing what happens when political factors such as preference for worker/peasant backgrounds are overwhelmingly prized in university admissions over academic merit as shown during the Cultural Revolution…the universities ended up being overrun by undereducated and sometimes even illiterate political hacks. Even the Reddest party member nowadays does not want to repeat that experience</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remembered reading in an undergrad Business Law text that if it was proven that someone ended up being defrauded or otherwise victimized in a civil legal sense in the course of attempting to commit an illegal act or enact what is a legally unenforceable contract that courts can dismiss the case on grounds that they are not the venue to address such matters and “tough luck” to the plaintiff for entering into such illegal/legally unenforceable contracts.</p>
<p>naturally’s comments are good. this is some shameful stuff, as someone once eloquently once said. real question is: what will they do about it? does Harvard even care? These programs, i.e. executive one year degrees, are there meat and potatoes money makers. thoughts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They have to do something about this. This is different from Harvard’s non-degree executive education programs; here, a Harvard’s masters degree was awarded. Allowing the degree to stand under these circumstances would tarnish the reputation of the institution and would undermine the value and prestige of all Harvard masters degrees, especially those awarded by the Kennedy School of Government. If they are aware of this, I cannot imagine that they would not revoke the degree. </p>
<p>And they have got to take action against Jane Cassie as well.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/degree-programs/registrar/academic_code.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/degree-programs/registrar/academic_code.pdf</a></p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Kennedy School - Academic Integrity](<a href=“http://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/registrar/procedures/integrity]Harvard”>http://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/registrar/procedures/integrity)</p>
<p>If there is any doubt as to the KSG’s views on this sort of thing, here are links to the school’s Academic Code and other academic integrity policies.</p>