<p>
[quote]
Of course these business school applicants should not be punished, they are acting like...business school applicants. Remember: business people are slezebags. Business school students are slezebags-in-training. Business school applicants are sleazebag-in-training wannabees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, the wonders of unsubstantiated generalizations. Gotta love 'em!</p>
<p>mominsearch, Here's the problem I have with both your analogies - although I agree they both were unethical and most probably illegal acts in regards to the breaking of security and confidentiality, they are definitely not analagous to this Business school situation. Here's why: guidance counselor's records and a boss's profile of you are pools of information that are NEVER accessible to you. However, the admissions decision is something applicants were going to receive shortly anyway. </p>
<p>I'm going to go ahead and say that these applicants did absolutely nothing wrong. They were clever, that's all, and they simply found out their decision ahead of time, something which would have been shortly known to them anyway. They didn't hurt anyone or anything, and they gazed at no information that was supposed to be permanently unconfidential to them. It is Harvard's and ApplyYourself's fault for having that security loophole, and they should simply correct it. Punishing the students is, in my opinion, doing 2 things: a) Diverting attention away from the business schools' security failure, and b) Trying to highlight their supposed emphasis on ethics in a self-righteous singling out of a few students. I actually think THAT is what is actually unethical</p>
<p>"If you look at the poll they did on the one link over 72% polled felt the same way I did so I can't be too far off."</p>
<p>Maybe so. But I'd call that selection bias. Only people already interested in the topic read the article. On top of that, those who vote are either strongly opinioned or impulsive. I don't deny that that might still be valid, but the majority opinion of the issue based on the information in an obviously shallow article does not prove your point.</p>
<p>"I am stating the facts as I see them."</p>
<p>If so, then they are no longer facts.</p>
<p>Let's not fight, now. We each have our opinions. But that's what they are; Opinions.</p>
<p>Nom - I don't want to fight:) I am just perplexed that you can't understand what I am saying. Let's just assume that this situation occured exactly as it did in the article except this was a job promotion in a company. Each person up for the promotion could only see their letter. The CEO (supervisor, whatever) finds out instead of Harvard. Let's even say it was Harvard and the position was for teaching. Do you think they would hire this/these person(s)? </p>
<p>Not out in the real world. They would not think you were clever or that it was their fault that there was a security flaw. They would think you're a snoop (again that lack of character issue). The company you work for wants to be able to trust you and if you did that they don't want to worry that you are going to be snooping in other stuff.</p>
<p>I am not saying that these students would do other things that aren't right but let's face it only the cream of the crop are applying to Harvard (and the other schools mentioned) and why do they want to accept students they can't trust? Not to mention the fact that if it so hard to get into this school why would you even do something that would risk your admission? </p>
<p>I am so sorry that I am strongly opinionated and impulsive, but in my world if you do something wrong there is always going to be some form of consequences. I don't think that blaming it on someone else will get me out of trouble either.</p>
<p>"Ah, the wonders of unsubstantiated generalizations."</p>
<p>Do you really need a list of convicted-felon business types? How much time do you have? Have you heard of
Enron
World Com
Imclone
Drexel Burnham
Kidder Peabody
Boeing
Arthur Anderson
Riggs
Adelphia
Pilgrim Baxter. </p>
<p>Stop me if any of this is familiar. "Wharton wall of shame" ring any bells? Club Fed?</p>
<p>afan - the only problem with what you said is that it is like saying all people of Arabic origins are like a certain person our government is still hunting for. It is not fair. All business people are not sleazebags. Do you think that if every singe of the pre-business students had known how to access this information that they would have. Somehow I don't think so. It was a select few who chose to do this (perhaps without thinking things through). I'm sure that they will be thinking about it for a lifetime now.</p>
<p>Not "a certain person", lots of people, at lots of companies, of every ethnicity and gender. The above was obviously a very small subset of a very long list.</p>
<p>"Do you think that if every singe of the pre-business students had known how to access this information that they would have." Yes.</p>
<p>Will they be thinking about it for a long time? Perhaps, but the people at the businesses noted above had long and sucessful careers before they were convicted. The people good enough to get into HBS, and who were caught, probably have bright futures ahead of them. Many will enjoy great sucess, get caught, go to prison, and emerge as wealthy ex cons. Depending on their line of work, they may even be able to resume their careers once they get out.</p>
<p>It is not as if they are not going into business. They are simply doing so with a degree from HBS. Most of the notables above did not have HBS MBA's, but they managed to find they way in the world. Would Harvard really "share" this information with other schools? Risky move if they do not want to be sued. They can reject anyone they like, but accusing a specific individual of dishonesty with this shaky proof could be inviting far more trouble than they need. </p>
<p>Tempest in a teapot.</p>
<p>"They would not think you were clever or that it was their fault that there was a security flaw. They would think you're a snoop (again that lack of character issue)."</p>
<p>Hmm, well try looking at it from a slightly different perspective: the point of view of the students. What they did was type a number and click a button, while sitting at home on their computers. To me personally, this does not constitute snooping, and warrant a description of depraved of character. They were passionate about wanting to go to that school, and were curious over their decision. They didn't hurt anybody, and broke no law. And really, why would Harvard or any other school care so much that these students knew a little ahead of time whether they got in or not? Why would so a relatively insignificant act constitute them being untrustworthy in every sense? Besides, snoop would be if they drove over to Harvard University, broke into the admissions office, and started hunting around in file cabinets. You honestly can not make this distinction?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And really, why would Harvard or any other school care so much that these students knew a little ahead of time whether they got in or not? Why would so a relatively insignificant act constitute them being untrustworthy in every sense?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ethical grandstanding. People are increasingly distru****ll of the buisiness world (and MBA's in particular) since Enron, worldcom, tyco, et el. They're trying to convey the message that "their" graduates aren't unethical. It's pure PR BS, and it's going to keep some kids who did nothing wrong from capitalizing on the hard work of years of undergrad, standarized test prep, crappy unpaid internships etc.</p>
<p>[edit] haha I can't type "distrustf|_|L because it contains the acronym for shut the f up :)</p>
<p>i think the best analogy is that of a stack of papers left unattended but in this case the students didnt happen to glance at the paper on top but rather go through the whole stack tilll they found theirs to look at it(when they logged on with their ID,pass). I would agree without a doubt that their decisions were in public domain if I as someone who did not apply had access to people decisions but as it happened I wouldnt be able to see an applicant decision hence it being private not public.</p>
<p>The argument that it was left unprotected doesnt hold water, if i leave my room open does that mean anyone has a right to take what they want, NO. As a school HBS has a fairly obvious reason not to admit the next kenneth lay</p>
<p>I'd just like to point out that I have often done the type of "hacking" that these students have done. Not to find out admissions info of course. Although I probably would have if Harvard were my first choice. I mess with the URL queries all the time, especially on message boards like this one so I can show more posts on one page or on blogs to skip back to old posts.</p>
<p>I believe it was 2 years ago that Wizards of the Coast was releasing 8th Edition of their trading card game Magic: the Gathering. Each day/week they were posting up more cards that were going to be in the set. Someone did something similar to what these kids did to set the date ahead in the URL and show the entire set. Of course I'm sure Wizards wasn't happy about the event, but there was no blame put on people for doing this. It was their fault that they had left all this information sitting on the internet, easily accessible.</p>
<p>The thing with comparing this situation to real world ones is that, information on the internet is really open to anyone if they know the URL. In real life, if there are a bunch of papers on your desk, there are papers like tests that you shouldn't look at, and papers like notes which you can look at, but really you probably shouldn't be going through your teacher's papers anyway. On the internet, any internet address is valid for you to go to. There is no difference in going to google.com or applyweb.com or the addresses that these applicants went to.</p>
<p>Wow, you can name 10 companies that have been caught engaging in illegal acts. I can name millions of companies that haven't. If you really want me to, I can; otherwise, please stop stereotyping every single business out there as a "sleazebag."</p>
<p>A question for you guys: Would you condemn a student who followed a link posted here on CC that allowed them to see their SAT scores earlier than everyone else?</p>
<p>I give up! I guess it's okay to do anything as long as you do it from the privacy of your own home, it won't hurt anyone, you are passionate and curious, you will see the document eventually, we should expect this from all business majors, etc., etc., etc. </p>
<p>And I don't need to view it from the student's perspective. The only perspective that matters here is the college administrators. They are the ones accepting these students and they have every right to turn them away. Is it harsh? It was a risk those students took. By the way, my sons (in high school) knew that you could get into trouble doing this. So did their friends and they all said that if they had the chance to get into one of these schools they would NEVER have done it.</p>
<p>"And really, why would Harvard or any other school care so much that these students knew a little ahead of time whether they got in or not? " Maybe because you took away their right to decide when they wanted this information publicized. Does Harvard (and the rest of the schools) have no right?</p>
<p>Another thing, because these students saw their letters early it gives them extra time to decide what to do if they weren't accepted - UNLIKE the other students who wait patiently for their letters.</p>
<p>encore - If you knew that the scores were not supposed to be viewed yet and you followed the thread then I think you were wrong to do this. I don't even know what they would do if they knew you did this. All I know is that if you did this at my kid's school (exactly like the topic here - say you wanted to see your report card early though) it would go in your records, you would probably get a detention and you would be in big poop.</p>
<p>Again I give up. Apparently I just can't understand the difference between right and wrong.</p>
<p>Last comment - The colleges do NOT have to post this information on-line (acceptances). Do you want to wait for snail-mail like the old days? If we think it is our right to circumvent them then we may have to wait until that letter comes in the mailbox. Hmmmm.....</p>
<p>That's what MIT does for security. I have to wait until Monday for my letter to arrive.</p>
<p>Hacking into the CollegeBoard website would be wrong too. With that said, you can't compare business school acceptances to SAT scores. SAT scores are trivial in one's life while a business school acceptance could be one of the most important things in a person's life.</p>
<p>"I give up! I guess it's okay to do anything as long as you do it fromthe privacy of your own home, it won't hurt anyone, you are passionateand curious, you will see the document eventually, we should expectthis from all business majors, etc., etc., etc."</p>
<p>Honestly-- yes. You were being sarcastic, but I think it's true. I believe that victimless crimes (<em>excepting</em> crimes that are victimless but had the potential to have a victim, ie drunk driving) should not be crimes. If it doesn't hurt anybody, well then, I don't see the harm. It doesn't hurt someone, therefore it doesn't hurt someone. This is a logical necessity.</p>
<p>Ok what the heck is the big deal about this. Yea the kids saw the decision a little early. Did they change it? No. Did they see anyone else's decision? No. Did they change anyone elses decision? No. Rejecting these students who were just a little anxious is extremely overdoing it. Now if they in any way altered the decisions, then I would give the colleges a full green light in rejecting these students. But no harm was done. I'm quite sure most of the students did not do this maliciously. Just give them a good lecture about ethics and let them in (the ones who were admitted of course).</p>
<p>You're absolutely right - Harvard has every prerogative to deny these peeker students admission, just as these students have every right to sue Harvard; it's the risk of litigation that Harvard takes in denying them admission. Let's not forget: the supervisors of Harvard's application were careless enough to overlook the security flaw, and hence this information was legally accessible to each individual applicant. I am almost certain that these students had no malicious or unethical intent in mind in purposefully doing something they knew to be wrong; they were just clicking buttons. My main problem is that Harvard is just standing up on its soapbox, its high pulpit, and trying to give the false illusion that they have some sacred committment to ethical standards, when really, they're just making an unwarranted scene. This sounds like the genius doings of Larry Summers & crew...</p>