<p>I hope they find out who he is, before he has a chance to come clean, so both schools can rescind the acceptances...</p>
<p>You guys are horrible.</p>
<p>The original poster made a mistake that represents a serious lapse in judgment, yes, but to judge his value as a student at these schools when this is all you know about him is a bit presumptious. There are probably people with less integrity at both Stanford and MIT. Playing the college admissions system certainly isn't a good idea, but it's not as if it makes you evil.</p>
<p>If you come clean to either school, both will probably rescind your acceptances, so it's probably not a good idea, and anyway, it seems that if Stanford knew, something would've happened by now. I'd just politely decline the school I didn't want to go to sometime after May 1 (if you decline before, they'll know something is up). It's really all you can do. And also, I'd suggest you to some safety schools just in case they do rescind...</p>
<p>Simonster, if you could game the system like this and knew that there was no chance if ever being caught or found, would you still do it?</p>
<p>It seems your argument against this dishonest stuff is just that you might get caught. I'm trying to see if you have any more of a basis than that. If we hypothetically removed that one sticking point, do you have no problem with it?</p>
<p>We're not saying he's evil. I'm just saying that it is much better to live life with the cleanest slate possible. From what we've been told, it doesn't seem like it was an honest mistake. But there is still a chance to be honest, right now. Sure there are people with low integrity at great schools, but he doesn't have to be one of them.</p>
<p>did it ever occur to anyone that this thread could be a complete joke? I mean, who in their right (or even wrong) mind would post something like this if it were true?</p>
<p>
<p>The original poster made a mistake that represents a serious lapse in judgment, yes, but to judge his value as a student at these schools when this is all you know about him is a bit presumptious.
</p>
<p>The original poster most certainly didn't make a mistake. I think he knew the implications of applying to both schools under <em>SINGLE</em> action. The term <em>SINGLE</em> action is self-explanatory.</p>
<p>yea i thought all along that this thread was a complete joke, hence my initial post: "haha phynix, ur funny"</p>
<p>but if its NOT a joke (which seems to be the conclusion that everyone has arrived at) there is no excuse for his behavior, because he took away a good spot at Stanford for someone who had more integrity than him/her</p>
<p>Well, except MIT isn't single choice early action. You can apply to Caltech, MIT, and the University of Chicago all as EA without violating anyone's contracts.</p>
<p>dulce2, if you remove the possibility of getting caught, a lot of weird things happen to the world. There's very little damage done to society as a result of gaming SCEA at one school. It's possible you're taking someone's place, but then again, if you waited and applied regular you'd still be taking someone's place. Maybe Stanford thought it was his first choice, but it wasn't really. Big deal.</p>
<p>I applied SCEA to Stanford when in truth, I still can't pick between it, Brown, and Caltech. In terms of consequences of our actions, phynix and I are about equal. Both of us still want to take a look at other schools, and both of us risk taking the position of another qualified student at the schools to which we have applied. The only difference is that phynix violated the SCEA contract, which, while s/he certainly shouldn't have done it, is a decision that's much more likely to hurt him than anyone else.</p>
<p>If there were no chance I was going to get caught, would I violate the SCEA contract at one school? Who knows. I'd have to look into it more. As it stands now, however, it doesn't seem like I'd be hurting anyone if I did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's possible you're taking someone's place, but then again, if you waited and applied regular you'd still be taking someone's place. Maybe Stanford thought it was his first choice, but it wasn't really. Big deal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So why don't you (hypothetically) wait until regular decision to apply to one or both schools (since they conflict)? Why is there a need to apply early to both if it is really THAT inconsequential? Well, then, the act of having done so either shows a complete disregard of rules/regulations (and consequentially, laws) characteristic of a would-be sociopath... OR it shows that there IS an advantage to applying to colleges under early plans- which would topple your whole argument.</p>
<p>If it IS easier to get in under early action plans (as is actually statistically shown for yale, harvard, and stanford- I mean, acceptance rates near 20% vs. single digits is kind of a big difference) since it shows dedication and single preference, then it is not certain the student would have gotten in under regular decision. As least he/she seemed to think the extra boost was necessary.</p>
<p>I think past that, it's an issue of integrity. If you can be morally satisfied with a decision to violate single-choice EA rules, your conscience can obviously handle other similar situations without buckling. You can go on to say that stealing from big EVIL corporate america is not a big deal, because what's a couple of basketball jerseys worth less than $200 dollars to a multimillion dollar clothing company? But when it comes down to it, it's shoplifting. You can say, what's the big deal with looking over a classmate's shoulder during a test? She'll do fine regardless, and you're not hurting HER score any, just raising your own. But in the end, it's cheating.</p>
<p>You can justify a whole mess of pretty morally damning actions with a simple "I wouldn't be hurting anyone if I did". It's all about starting down that path.</p>
<p>The schools themselves claim there is no advantage, and that there is just a stronger applicant pool for EA than for regular. If the schools are lying, well, then, wouldn't that be violating your notion of integrity too?</p>
<p>For the student, there's one major advantage to applying to two schools early: if you get in early, you don't apply to as many schools regular. If I didn't get in early action to Stanford, I would've been applying to nine more schools. If I got into a significant number of those schools, I might be taking the place of more students.</p>
<p>Just because I can see the justification in breaking an SCEA policy doesn't mean I can justify anything. The main problem with the two examples you've presented is that they can't be universalized. Kant's Categorical Imperative says that which is moral is that which can be universalized without contradiction. If everyone stole jerseys, there would be no jerseys to steal. If everyone cheated on tests, there would be no point in cheating/there would be no tests. If everyone applied to two schools EA, there wouldn't be much difference.</p>
<p>I can present a whole mess of situations where someone would be violating a signed contract, but you would probably agree the person was morally right. If, for example, I brought in $10,000 of cancer medicine from Europe that was unavailable in the U.S. and had to lie on my customs declaration so they wouldn't seize it as a violation of intellectual property rights, would you be opposed to violating that contract? (I have actually read someone's account of being in that exact situation.)</p>
<p>Morality is based on weighing various factors. How you weigh them is a personal decision.</p>
<p>I don't buy it.
You can bring up irrelevant examples and quote not just Kant, but Peirce, James, and Russell for all I care. The SCEA policy is there for a reason and phynix deliberately and intentionally broke it, going against his word and his signature and lying to the admissions office. He did it for no other reason than his personal gain and to gain an unfair advantage. Regardless of the consequences, that's not justifiable. And that makes clear that he is not a man to his word. Those are enough grounds for me.</p>
<p>Your flawed argument about utilitarianism and that some people are above the law make just make you an apologist.</p>
<p>You can call my arguments and examples flawed and irrelevant, but you have to say why they're flawed and irrelevant. They may very well be, but if you're trying to convince anyone who's not already on your side of that, you need some evidence.</p>
<p>What phynix did is certainly wrong. In my opinion, however, it does not rise to the level of denying him a future at the schools that he got into, provided the facts he provided on his actual application were true. In your opinion, perhaps it does.</p>
<p>First of all, we're not here to argue the definition of morality. The pedantic tug of war between abrasive definitions of what otherwise is intuitively obvious is the reason I may actually be striking philosophy off my list of major/minors. We all have our basic sense of right and wrong. I will tell you why you are wrong :P</p>
<p>
[quote]
If everyone applied to two schools EA, there wouldn't be much difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the correct generalization of this particular situation would be, if everyone applied to EVERY SCHOOL THEY WANTED TO for single choice EA, not only would single choice go away, but early action in general. Everyone wants to get in early somewhere, not just you, so they will continue to pile on more and more schools during the early action round until the schools go, "hell, these kids don't give a crap about our school, may as well be the regular decision round" and combine the two regular decision rounds into one.</p>
<p>So quite simply, if everyone breaks the SCEA contract, sooner or later there will be none to break.</p>
<p>Now onto the cancer example.<br>
It's irrelevant. If you were to tell me that your life depended upon your acceptance into two SCEA schools early and there was no other way you could survive, I'd tell you to go for it. Good luck and good riddance. But no, your convenience depends upon it. And the SCEA rule basically works on an honor code- they assume integrity, there's an element of trust- which is what I think is probably the most despicable part of violating the SCEA thing. Is that it's a violation of trust. And it's a big 'f**k you' to all the kids out there who fought the temptation (because surely, it's there) and went on to keep their word. </p>
<p>Some schools work based on a honor code, you know. And when 3999 other kids are proving themselves worthy of the trust and freedom handed to them, what would we expect the SCEA-cheater to be doing?</p>
<p>Oh and finally- if SCEA wasn't an advantage, why are so few deferred kids accepted during the RD round? I mean, they have the advantage of having designated the school as a top choice (well, whether that's actually the truth can be questioned nowadays obviously), that's a boost for schools looking for higher yield. Still, almost no defer-accepts. ~7% to ~21%. Sorry, but the EA applicants are not three times as qualified- hell no.</p>
<p>end.</p>
<p>If you universalize people breaking the SCEA rule, you just end up with Yale, Harvard, and Stanford providing multiple choice EA instead of SCEA. That really isn't a big deal, considering at least four other top schools (University of Chicago, MIT, Caltech, and Georgetown) already provide multiple choice EA. It doesn't threaten ED in the least, because it's still impossible to apply ED two places. You still have EA, ED, and RD. It's not a major difference.</p>
<p>The cancer example wasn't meant as an analogy. My point is that you can't always just say, "it's a violation of trust." It's never that clear-cut. While you may find the consequences (or lack thereof) of this decision irrelevant, while you may find the answer here "inuitively obivous," it's possible to reach a different conclusion.</p>
<p>If you applied SCEA somewhere, and the school wasn't really your top choice, you are technically violating the SCEA policy (which, at least for Stanford, requires pledging the school is your top choice), violating the contract, etc. The consequences are roughly the same; if you get into your real first choice, Stanford has an EA applicant who always prefered another school. Should the punishment be the same?</p>
<p>If EA applicants aren't three times as qualified, then someone in the admissions office is lying. That alone certainly wouldn't justify lying to the admissions office, but it would make you question the motives of these schools.</p>
<p>(Wow, do I really not have anything better to do with my time? I should be studying right now...)</p>
<p>"First of all, we're not here to argue the definition of morality."
agreed!
It'd be sad if SCEA had to be done away with, because Stanford just wants to give students the chance to identify it as their first choice, and students who haven't yet decided that it is truly their first choice, truly the school for them (as long as financial aid works out) should just apply regular. MIT does not see it as the applicant's definite first choice because it is not SC, so there is no distinction made.
Obviously phynix would have had a GREAT chance of getting into both schools RD, and it would have given him more time to decide on the right school for him. I don't care if it didn't hurt anybody. He just abused their trust, but there is a chance to regain it!</p>
<p>There's a lot of discussion on this forum, and certainly more criticism than anything else. Be honest, are you guilt-free? This seems awfully harsh a criticism for what may be an honest mistake. Even otherwise, dulce2 may commit more egregious acts in the future and get caught for that.</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, all of this is wasted energy. Relax. You got into Stanford.</p>
<p>i think you meant phynix, not dulce2.</p>
<p>anyway, i highly doubt that this was an "honest mistake." phynix clearly says "i disregarded the 'single-choice,'" i.e. s/he knew full well what "single-choice" meant and chose to ignore it. </p>
<p>that aside, if phynix doesn't come back to defend/explain his actions, or at least respond to the advice that others have given on this thread, i think we can chalk this one off as a practical joke. even if phynix didn't mind lying on his early app, guidance counselors have to approve/sign that SCEA agreement form, and thats a pretty shady thing for a school counselor to do. it sounds pretty doubtful to me.</p>
<p>Hi everyone, </p>
<p>It was only a joke that I applied to MIT as well. I just wanted to see your reactions. Thank you for sparing your time.</p>
<p>The joke was to refresh your minds.</p>
<p>HA...HA...HA..............</p>
<p>By the way did you think anyone applying to Stanford could be that inconsiderate about policies and codes colleges have made? It is simply a foolish mistake to consider Stanford making that the "Single Choice" only nominal and that the university couldn't ensure gravity of the phrase.</p>
<p>NEEMI had indicated my thread as a joke.</p>
<p>Thanks to SIMONSTER for his views.</p>
<p>-_- someday, you will be eaten by a wolf.</p>