<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t know this. If the application is well enough faked, she can get in. It’s not as if Harvard requires national awards to get in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your argument is “If you turn her in for cheating, she will receive the penalty for cheating. Therefore, you should not turn her in for cheating.” This is silly.</p>
<p>Every day I read this forum I wonder more and more how all of the most self-righteous tattle tales(who all supposedly have more “honesty and integrity” than all of their peers) ended up in one place.</p>
<p>Entertaining thread.</p>
<p>I’d like to hear one reason why ‘ratting her out’ would be ‘self-righteous’ or ‘immature’ in any way, rather than just being the obvious thing to do. No, saying “that’s tattling!” is not a reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honey, this isn’t kindergarten anymore. By common definition, being a “tattle tale” is when you go crying to the authorities about something that doesn’t really matter and that hasn’t really harmed you or anyone else. Lying on applications does matter and does harm people. You’re in the big leagues now, and need to start acting like it.</p>
<p>Also, how is it that you’re figuring everyone advocating for turning her in for cheating is in the same place? I will give you this–there’s a reason I chose a school with an honor system.</p>
<p>It’s not about having more honesty and integrity than anybody else. Integrity is primarily a personal thing. I don’t care whether I have more or less integrity than anyone; I care whether I can say that I act honestly, honorably, and in accordance with my principles and beliefs.</p>
<p>Because what you don’t understand is that when someone is caught for lying, there will be another liar in her place. And as other have said, she will get rejected anyway, so yes, this really doesn’t matter. By tattling you aren’t making exterminating liars, you are just making room for more. I know plenty of people who intend to lie on their college apps- if I tell on them, I may as well just try and track down every person who lies and tell on them too if I really want to solve anything. Esp if you are not applying to that school, OP, tattling just shows that you lack the maturity to walk away from a situation which won’t impact your life whatsoever. Will it really give you that much pleasure if she is denied from Harvard (which she will be anyway)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When there are 10 liars, and 1 is caught, only 9 liars remain. 9 liars is better than 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The rejection of one liar does not directly cause another person to magically decide to lie on an application. This is a fallacious argument.</p>
<p>Again, “tattling” implies that the accused did not do anything significantly wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Catching one is better than catching none. Also, you seem to hang around a lot of people with a distorted sense of morality. Perhaps you should find a better crowd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disputing again your use of “tattling.” More importantly, though, acting with integrity is a demonstration of maturity, whereas being scared to turn someone in is a demonstration more of immaturity than of maturity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You lack foundation for your assertion that this student will certainly be denied regardless of whether she is caught lying.</p>
<p>In sum, your argument is illogical and lacks foundation.</p>
<p>You just broke up my argument and put your opinions into it. It lacks 0 foundation. 9 liars is not better than 10 liars, because then those 9 just have a higher chance of getting in because the 10th was exterminated. And yes, I am almost sure she won’t get in, because if she needs to make things up, obviously she is not a strong candidate, so it is tattling. But thanks for proving my “self-righteousness” point with your ever-so confident “In sum, your argument is illogical and lacks foundation.” Thanks for making my job easier. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It lacks a lack of foundation? Good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But so do all the people who didn’t lie. Suppose 20 people are competing for 10 spots. 10 lied on their applications; 10 did not. If one of those who lied is removed from the pool, there is a greater chance of accepting an applicant who didn’t lie.</p>
<p>A reduced number of liars is inherently better for people who didn’t lie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it’s often the straight-A students who cheat (rather than the students with mid-range grades) because they succumb to the pressure they feel to succeed academically. A similar effect most likely occurs with deciding to lie on an application; the strong applicant who feels she just needs a bit more (e.g., a few more leadership positions, or slightly better leadership positions) has a strong incentive to lie (it increases the likelihood of her acceptance but, since she only has to lie a little bit, she’s unlikely to be caught). On the other hand, someone with little chance of being accepted won’t be helped much by lying and thus probably won’t be motivated to take the risks of lying at all (for the risks of lying enough to turn a likely rejection into an acceptance are significantly greater).</p>
<p>You are providing judgments about this student’s chances without knowing anything about her. I’m not saying that most students who lie are strong candidates; I’m saying that it is likely that a significant portion of liars are not certain rejections.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Self-righteousness is not equivalent to confidence, especially not confidence in a logical and supported conclusion about an argument.</p>
<p>Here’s the definition:
“1. Piously sure of one’s own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.”
Source: [self-righteously</a> - definition of self-righteously by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.](<a href=“Self-righteously]self-righteously - definition of self-righteously]self-righteously by The Free Dictionary”>Self-righteously - definition of self-righteously by The Free Dictionary)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re making a logical argument, it can reasonably be evaluated in pieces, especially since breaking one part often breaks the rest. Yes, I put my opinions into it, but they were logically justified.</p>
<p>Ugotserved indeed, RedSeven. Sorry, but the above poster is right. Lying on the EC section of an application is common, largely useless, and often easily noticed by the admissions committee itself. An acceptance to Harvard does not come down to whether so-and-so is or is not the president of <em>insert random club here</em>. Most liars will be caught and properly punished. The few that get away are probably incredibly cunning, and will likely benefit society in some innovative way. We need intelligence, creativity, and innovation more than unshakable morals these days anyway. Let whatever happens to the Harvard applicant happen.</p>
<p>Thank you unctarheels. Although RedSeven, I do apologize for the self-righteousness comment, it was out of place (at least towards you). I still believe I’m right, and clearly most of the people on this forum back me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cute.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does that make it right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without a source to defend your view, I’d argue that if you’re good at it, it could be rather less than useless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that if you notice it, you shouldn’t report it. Even though a gunshot victim is near a police station and would therefore be easily noticed by the police, most rational people would still at the very least report it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you a Harvard admissions officer? Didn’t think so. Actually, admission to top schools can come down to trivial things. Listen to the NPR special on Amherst’s admissions process, which is of similar selectivity to Harvard’s, if not less selective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People coming forward with information are one of the ways they can be caught.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I challenge that a cunning person with moral deficiencies is any more likely to benefit society than to successfully embezzle from a corporation or run a Ponzi scheme. Morality is what keeps society functional; without it, society is far less productive.</p>
<p>We need not the people who can best lie about their abilities, but the people with the best abilities in our top colleges and top jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I could do this if I caught someone I knew cheating on an exam, but I’d face a two-semester suspension for it. To withhold pertinent information is, to some extent, to be an accessory to the offense.</p>
<p>I offered you a way out, but I guess you just can’t stop. Oh well…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that most people will probably agree with you, but I think this is to a great extent a negative impact of the socialization process that encourages people to be bystanders.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I began writing that post before yours existed.</p>
<p>
This is just nuts. How are those other liars supposed to know that one got turned in so they should lie? Or are you saying that everyone lies, if one liar gets caught the next person to get in was a liar also? Sure doesn’t say much about what you think of applicants to top colleges, does it? I’m sure you’ll be chanting this as you fill out your taxes (“everyone cheats”), when you sell something on eBay (“everyone lies that what they sell works”), when you fill out your profile on match.com (“everyone lies about their weight and income”). Seems your saying more about yourself than about other people here…</p>
<p>To the OP, if you know that this person is lying about things that can be verified then send a letter to Harvard, anonymously. Harvard will check by calling a counselor. Harvard will then deny said person when admission decisions come out. What others have written (blacklisted at other ivies, a letter to her damning her for her lies, etc) is sheer lunacy. Why should Harvard take a chance of getting sued for slander? They’ll quietly take care of their own business, period. Lots of people get denied in the spring, and she’ll be one of them. No extra notifications.</p>
<p>I think the OP is very noble. I was actually in the same position myself, knowing someone who planned to lie on their application to Harvard just to see how far they can push it. They “stole” the officer positions of my friends.</p>
<p>Yet I know he won’t get in, his stats are low plus he will have nothing legit to talk about his activities… unless he lies more… which is an awful possibility.</p>
<p>What I did do was tell my teacher, sponsor of one of the clubs the kid was lying a position about. She was thoroughly disgusted, as I was but in the end it was kinda agreed upon that he was probably not going to accepted anyways…(not a nice kid)</p>
<p>she didn’t really know what to do about it as I do not have concrete proof but is strongly considering telling a higher-up if I do hear anything more on the matter…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Ivy admissions process is in many ways integrated. If they have sufficient evidence to reject a student for lying on an application, they have sufficient evidence to inform the other Ivies that they rejected a student for lying on an application.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If there’s a dead person with a gunshot wound lying outside the police station, you’d report it? Without feeling like Captain Obvious? Color me shocked. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I meant was, most liars will be caught due to systems set in place by the institution specifically for this type of thing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Morality is what keeps society functional and stable, yes. It is also what keeps society stagnant. Those few rule-breakers, the liars, the risk-takers, the manipulators-those people are the ones who bring about some sort of change, whether it be positive or negative. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If selective admissions often come down to “trivial” things as you stated before, then surely the liar who fabricates said trivial details has the same basic abilities as a person who does not. The liar in question here did not, after all, forge a transcript with an entirely new GPA, SAT score, etc. Therefore, his/her actual academic abilities are more-or-less equal to his/her honest counterpart. In fact, I’d venture to say the successful deceit of a Harvard Admissions Committee member requires more skill than starting an Equestrian club, or some equally irrelevant and ridiculous triviality. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but how could you ever get discovered? This is all word of mouth we’re talking about here. No hard proof has been presented to the OP. If she were to ever be charged with “withholding ~pertinent information”, she could simply claim inattentiveness at the time when the Harvard Applicant revealed his/her diabolical plot. Or temporary deafness. Whatever.</p>
<p>to badgolfer: um, what? Idk why you interpreted my statement like you did, but that’s not what I meant. at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But your literal argument was that:</p>
<ol>
<li>A liar applies to a school.</li>
<li>That liar is caught.</li>
</ol>
<p>Therefore, and as a result, another liar applies to that school.</p>
<p>Also, what place are these liars taking? Since you’re arguing that all liars will be rejected regardless of whether they lie, no matter how many liars are caught, there’s more liars out there already being rejected because they were weak enough applicants that they needed to lie and because the lies couldn’t save them?</p>