<p>If you think I’m attacking her just wait until the ‘friend’ and her parents come after her. I’m suggesting that there better be no doubt about the validity of her evidence.</p>
<p>What I find troubling is that everyone here seems to take the OP’s story at face value - i.e., her ‘friend’ is guilty. UCLA is not going to blindly take the OP’s word for things especially three years after the fact. I’d be willing to wager that UCLA is going to give the ‘friend’ the benefit of the doubt. They most certainly will give her the opportunity to defend herself.</p>
<p>If you think the OP’s motivations won’t come up in the discussion I think you’re being amazingly naive.</p>
<p>To the OP, do what you think is best, but remember that in pe*ing contests, everyone usually ends up getting wet.</p>
Not everyone, because I agree with all of the points you have made on this thread and I share your concerns about the OP’s story. Of particular note is that the OP claims to have contacted artists whom her friend has plagiarized to verify - I cannot imagine that the artists themselves would not have pursued the matter once it was brought to their attention.</p>
<p>Those who are portraying the OP as a noble seeker of the truth and defender of art seem to be ignoring the fact that the OP was quite comfortable with the “knowledge” she claims to have of the deception as long as it benefited the OP in the form of a generous discount on her rent.</p>
<p>OP, if what you say is true, then contact the artists you KNOW were wronged and present them your evidence. They are the ones who have been wronged and who should properly pursue the matter. You, on the other hand, have benefited from the deception (with full knowledge) in the form of the discount on your rent.</p>
<p>There is no harm done to the applicant at all if the allegations prove to be untrue.</p>
<p>vinceh and alemom, OP is risking her relationship with her friend in order to defend the integrity of our excellent public university system. Why are you opposed to that? I think it is weird that you would be, to be honest. It is like claiming that one has no right to report a criminal act if the witness has benefitted from his relationship with the criminal in the past. Would that be your position, as well?</p>
<p>Bay, if you will read the OP’s posts, you will see that she claims she has known since last summer - almost a year - about the supposed plagiarism, but then chose to continue to live with the OP and receive a generous discount on her rent. She now would like to have her friend expelled, not in the interest of the truth, but because she is moving out and no longer needs the discount. Had the OP reported her discovery immediately rather than choosing to wait in order to benefit when she KNEW of the supposed plagiarism, them I would agree with you. The OP has not innocently benefited as you suggest, she has knowingly benefited for almost a full year.
Would it be your position, Bay, that if someone knew of (as you call it) a criminal act and chose to knowingly receive monetary benefit for several months, that they should be considered a noble seeker of truth and heroic defender of art?</p>
<p>Again, the individuals who have been wronged here are the artists whose works have been allegedly plagiarized. They not only are the ones wronged, they are the ones who can say for certain whether plagiarism has occurred. If everything the OP has said is completely true, then her course of action should be to inform the artists and allow them to pursue the matter. That would certainly satisfy her noble pursuit of the truth and desire to defend art.</p>
<p>No, the artists are not the wronged individuals in this case; it is the other applicants who were denied admission to UCLA who have been wronged, as well as the integrity of the system as a whole. </p>
<p>Once notified, UCLA can determine independently whether the applicant provided false information. The character and past history of the OP is completely irrelevant in this instance.</p>
You are saying that the artists who have allegedly been plagiarized have not been wronged? </p>
<p>I feel it would be just fine for the OP to report this to UCLA - like vinceh, I doubt that any action would be taken unless the OP has indisputable proof. If that proof existed, the artists themselves, having been alerted by the OP (as the OP has stated), would have taken steps to protect their works.</p>
<p>
While I agree with that premise, you do not seem to in that you posted:
The OP carefully postponed this accusation so as NOT to risk anything, and “defending integrity” is clearly not her purpose. It is you who attempted to bestow a noble purpose on the OP.</p>
<p>If the artists can show they were damaged by this use of their art, all the better. But it is their prerogative alone, whether to pursue that claim. </p>
<p>I did not “bestow” a noble intention on OP. Reporting application fraud does defend the integrity of the system, regardless of who does it.</p>
<p>Well just to counter on the front of “artist would’ve said something” argument. The OP didn’t say that she asked the artists whether or not her friend had stolen their work haha. She might’ve just inquired if the work they had posted on the site was something they created and maybe when they had created it. </p>
<p>Whether the artists choose to pursue a claim of damages to themselves as a result of the plagiarization iis independent and additional to the claim that the applicant defrauded the university. </p>
<p>You seem to be hung up on your opinion of OPs character. Try to remove those feelings from the scenario, as they are irrelevant.</p>
<p>^“Why keep it to herself?” Obviously, the OP wasn’t sure how to handle the situation, therefore did not make any decisions with the information until she was sure. This thread was meant to provide advice and guidance, not questions of her character. As a mother(assuming based on your name), can you really justify tearing down someone’s character/questioning their motivation via the Internet? Melodramatic, maybe. But it still stands.</p>
My advice was to submit any indisputable proof to the artists. I further suggested that reporting to UCLA, assuming her proof was indisputable, was an acceptable course of action. Do you feel that advice is in error? Would you suggest doing otherwise?
I have quoted the OP directly. She has presented her character herself. Yes, I am a mother, and if my daughter came to me with the same situation I would advise her to report any indisputable proof and STOP accepting discounted rent. I would further advise her NOT to make unsupported accusations via the internet of plagiarism that include enough details that the possibly innocent roommate could be recognized. </p>
<p>It is interesting to me that many of you have failed to consider the other side of this story. If the OP “discovered” the roommate’s artwork on the sites of other artists THREE YEARS after the roommate submitted it, has it occurred to any of you that it may be the other arists who are doing the plagiarizing?
As quoted in my earlier posts, it appears to be you that is “hung up” on bestowing noble intent upon the OP. The OP herself stated that she wondered if it was her own anger and jealousy prompting her to consider reporting. Again, I have recommended that the OP report any indisputable proof. You state that you disagree with my posts - what would your advice be? The opposite?</p>
<p>As a practical matter, the artists have no access to the applicant’s admissions file, so there really is nothing they can do with the allegation. I don’t think UCLA or any university would disclose the contents of such a file to others, without a subpoena or other compelling obligation to do so. So there really isn’t any “proof” to submit to the artists. There is proof that may be submitted to UCLA, however. OP can provide the names and samples of the original artwork with her report.</p>
<p>No, I am neutral with regard to whether OP is “noble” or not, because I don’t care. What I care about is whether applicants defraud our public universities, so I support anyone’s efforts to uncover and report such fraud, regardless of whether I think they are good people or not.</p>
<p>Disregarding the personal hang-ups here.
OP, the point is that you have the opportunity to do something that needs to be done. Yes, proof is important. Clearly. I agree that you should have it, and prepare to back it up.
Also, keep us updated on what takes place. I’m intrigued to see how UCLA handles this.</p>
<p>Bay, it is unfortunate that you chose to only submit part of my statement in your post #55. I am sure it was an innocent omission on your part rather than deliberate, so I will provide the complete quote:
Again I ask, do you disagree with my position?</p>
<p>As to your point:
Isn’t it also true that the OP has no access to the applicant’s admission file?</p>
I agree completely, Horsey7959. It would be unfortunate, for example, to divert from the topic at hand to criticize a poster’s parenting, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>You know I agree that OP should submit her proof to UCLA. That is what I have been arguing.</p>
<p>OP does not need access to UCLA’s admissions file in order to submit her information. Once she submits the applicant’s name and information identifying the original artwork, all of the information needed to verify the claim is available to UCLA. UCLA is the party who will or will not take action. This is not true with regard to the artists. They cannot do anything with the info OP provides unless they have the file. And as another practical matter, even if the artists could verify it, they might not care enough to do much about it. Generally, those types of cases are not worth pursuing (other than maybe with a cease and desist letter) unless the offending person is making money off of claiming to be the original artist. This has not been alleged.</p>
<p>With regard to my statement that OP is risking her friendship…so what? She is!</p>
<p>I don’t think you are a bad person for caring about OP’s character. I just think you are focussing on the wrong issue.</p>