<p>This comment about the application process is the most revealing:</p>
<p>“They’ve said to me, ‘how will anyone know I’m not lying?’”</p>
<p>Guess what, kids? YOU will know if you're lying. At this age you should have a well-developed conscience, or your character is sadly lacking.</p>
<p>Edit: Just saw sakky's post. Surely you're not suggesting inventing a transcript for yourself is on the same high moral plane as creating papers to save Jews from Hitler? :eek:</p>
<p>Sakky, I have already agreed with you that the rules themselves are immoral. But that doesn't make lying to get in moral. Heres why. Precisely the reason why the rules are immoral is b/c they currently favor legacies, non disadvantaged URMs, powerful families etc. These people are given slots over more well qualified people(i.e, I think we can all agree that giving or receiving acceptances based on non merit things is unethical). But similarly, the cheaters are getting in over more well qualified people. Cheaters are getting in based of non merit. Its like adding fuel to fire. They are not helping the situation. In a world with cheaters and subjective considerations, more people, especially the ones that apply with merit as their only trump card, would be duped than in a world with only legacies, AA, etc( i.e subjective things). </p>
<p>The only way you can argue that cheating is moral is that people are already willing to go to extreme lengths( studying till exaustion, spending endless hours on ECs etc) to gain acceptance and cheating is just one form of extreme length in which one should do to increase one's chances. Hence, the common thought, "If you're not willing to cheat, you don't want it badly enough". But that's the problem, by having enough cheaters, they are effectively forcing others to cheat as well( After all, if EVERYONE had perfect stats by forging them, to catch up, you ought to as well. fortunately thts not the case). And more importantly, they are forcing the risks( which are far greater that just studying/doing ECs ad nauseam) that is associated with cheating onto others. That is not acceptable. The status quo doesn't require cheating since there aren't many legacies, URMs etc. But if there are cheaters all over the place, well, you know.. .</p>
<p>"Sakky, I have already agreed with you that the rules themselves are immoral. But that doesn't make lying to get in moral. Heres why. Precisely the reason why the rules are immoral is b/c they currently favor legacies, non disadvantaged URMs, powerful families etc. These people are given slots over more well qualified people("</p>
<p>What's immoral about those rules? Colleges-- particularly private ones -- can make up their own rules to invite whomever they want into their institutions.</p>
<p>Just because they "can" doesn't mean that it's moral. I can hate someone solely based on his race, but does that make it right?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
What's immoral about those rules? Colleges-- particularly private ones -- can make up their own rules to invite whomever they want into their institutions.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>One's right doesn't make moral NSM. We can all do immoral things that are our "right" to do.</p>
<p>I don't see anything immoral about private colleges offering admission to whomever they choose.</p>
<p>I have just one question:</p>
<p>Are the Skull and Bones people really so damn powerful? They could actually get that guy's records from Columbia's offices and his SSN from Yale's?! How do they do that?</p>
<p>I love this part though:
[quote]
The real victim is not Yale. The real victim is, perhaps, some unknown applicant who didn’t get in because Akash Maharaj did. That applicant had his own dreams and his own ambitions. He wanted to get an education. He wanted to make something of himself. He was just as qualified and would have been just as good of a student. But instead his spot went to someone else, someone who turned out to be a fraud. </p>
<p>The real victim, then, will never get his restitution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is for all those people in certain other threads who say it's okay to not report cheaters.</p>
<p>NSM, Care to explain why?</p>
<p>Because colleges, at least the private ones, can make any rules they choose that also abide by the laws of the country that they are in. Similarly, if I open an excellent private school that many would like their kids to attend, I can pick whatever kids I want even if some kids whom I reject are smarter. If I want to fill up my private school with my friends' kids and wealthy-donors' offspring, that's my choice, and I don't see anything immoral about it.</p>
<p>Things are different, though, if we're referring to public institutions, which have a responsibility to the public that runs them and funds them.</p>
<p>Thats not good enough. Just because something abides by the law doesn't prove that its ethical.</p>
<p>so it's unethical, then, to give that spoilt brat of a nephew an expensive gift (with your own money) for Christmas and nothing to random suffering child X in Africa, a probably much more obedient and hardworking child? you choose whom you want to give to. same goes for admissions at private institutions. alumni's offspring, donors, whatever.</p>
<p>if it abides by the law then it definitely isn't the law's business. or anyone's. you may choose to believe that it's unethical and, if you're anal enough, nobody can change your mind. it's gonna happen anyway.</p>
<p>and how is Skull and Bones so powerful? i'm mystified</p>
<p>This is a tale of inspiring resilience. I did not miss the point, but there is too much revelation here for me to bother with the convict -- who still escapes with an education, a reputation for excellence and valuable skills; all he has paid is emotion.</p>
<p>Perhaps one (or many) can dupe the world into peace with will and wits alone.</p>
<p>You know what, if Yale was too lazy to check the validity of all 800 applicants' transcripts and recommendations, or at least the 20 they ultimately decided to admit, it is their fault for admitting him in the first place.</p>
<p>To be honest, this guy wasn't even all that brilliant at being a charlatan. He simply took advantage of these schools by making the assumption that they wouldn't look too hard into his application/profile. Having such blatant discrepancies just hanging out there like that pretty much shows that he made this assumption. He just made an extremely gutsy move, and almost managed to squeak by, but got careless and wound up exposing his position under emotional duress. </p>
<p>This guy's cheating was on a more grand scale than mere exaggeration, but that doesn't make any form of exaggeration appropriate. Exaggeration tends to slip by because it's going to be difficult for a university to call up your high school and verify the number of hours you spent on an activity per week or figure out what your held positions are. Doing this for all applications would be costly and intensive. </p>
<p>Academic integrity is a huge part of college, and colleges basically act, under good faith, that when you send an application, it will be honest. Unfortunately, a lot of kids take advantage of this and pump up their applications where they can get away with it. However, it's the honest students who really get the most out of their college anyway because they can back up their own steam. If you lied on your application you may be hard-pressed to come out ahead of those who can actually perform.</p>
<p>Regardless, this guy clearly took a dump on academic integrity in a much more profound way, and most certainly deserves to get booted out. My heart does go out to him though, as it seems like he's had it hard and simply wanted to pursue his own dreams/ambitions to obtain a better life, which I empathize with. However, doing it through fraud is simply dishonorable and not the right way to come out ahead. It just looks like he started to honestly believe his own lies because he knew he was capable of succeeding at Yale and so the part felt "fitting."</p>
<p>Precisely the reason why the rules are immoral is b/c they currently favor legacies, non disadvantaged URMs, powerful families etc. These people are given slots over more well qualified people</p>
<p>how do you know what qualities the adcoms are looking for? what determines whether someone is more qualified over another? numbers? perhaps. But what if it IS legacy and family name that Yale is looking for? Then wouldn't those with legacy and family name be considered more qualified? To the colleges, legacy, URM stats, family name, is not a secondary factor. It's probably just as important as test scores and ECs. Again, we are not Yale adcoms.</p>
<p>I really enjoyed the article; if the author is a student, s/he is a heck of a writer</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's immoral about those rules? Colleges-- particularly private ones -- can make up their own rules to invite whomever they want into their institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because colleges, at least the private ones, can make any rules they choose that also abide by the laws of the country that they are in. Similarly, if I open an excellent private school that many would like their kids to attend, I can pick whatever kids I want even if some kids whom I reject are smarter. If I want to fill up my private school with my friends' kids and wealthy-donors' offspring, that's my choice, and I don't see anything immoral about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. In addition to the public universities, most private universities in the South, as a matter of policy, didn't admit blacks until the 1950's-1960's. Duke University, for example, didn't admit any blacks until 1963, Rice University didn't graduate any black students until 1969 (who received a PhD) and not any black students with bachelor's degrees until 1970. Vanderbilt was relatively early, not admitting one until 1953: but that student, who now has a cultural center named after him on the Vanderbilt campus, was not allowed to use any of the dorms, dining halls, or other student facilities because the school was still segregated. </p>
<p>But that's perfectly moral, right? After all, those schools were not breaking any laws, as Jim Crow still ruled the South, which allowed you to discriminate against blacks. So, since the logic is that since these private universities were allowed to do whatever they want as long as they followed the laws that were in force at the time, that the fact that the racial segregation at those private universities is moral, right? </p>
<p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again. W.E.B. Dubois was allowed to (and did) go to Harvard, where he earned both a bachelor's and PhD. But, by policy, he couldn't go to Duke. He couldn't go to Vanderbilt. He couldn't go to Rice. He couldn't go to Emory. All of these private schools were segregated during the late 1800's when Dubois was of age. I fail to see the morality in that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Edit: Just saw sakky's post. Surely you're not suggesting inventing a transcript for yourself is on the same high moral plane as creating papers to save Jews from Hitler?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And certainly you're not suggesting that an admissions system that favors rich legacies, star football players, and other non-academic criteria, is somehow a matter of morality? </p>
<p>That's my point entirely: I don't think morality has anything to do with this situation. The entire situation is not moral. So let's stop with the moralizing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how do you know what qualities the adcoms are looking for? what determines whether someone is more qualified over another? numbers? perhaps. But what if it IS legacy and family name that Yale is looking for? Then wouldn't those with legacy and family name be considered more qualified? To the colleges, legacy, URM stats, family name, is not a secondary factor. It's probably just as important as test scores and ECs. Again, we are not Yale adcoms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, but then that means that, like I've been saying, morality really has nothing to do with it. </p>
<p>For example, I could argue that perhaps cheating is what Yale is really looking for. Or, at least, skillful cheating. Maybe Yale is actually impressed by those who are highly skillful con-men, as long as they aren't foolish enough to reveal themselves later. Like you said, we don't really know what the Yale adcoms are looking for. </p>
<p>But, in any case, it ultimately means that morality is not part of the equation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I have already agreed with you that the rules themselves are immoral. But that doesn't make lying to get in moral.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've never said that what he did was moral. </p>
<p>I am simply saying that morality has nothing to do with the situation. Like we agreed upon, adcoms are not moral authorities, so their rules do not carry any moral weight. I can make a rule that orders everybody who wants to enter my house that they have to renounce their religion and worship me as a God, but that doesn't mean that it would be immoral if somebody broke my rule. It would also not be immoral if somebody merely pretended to follow my rule and just pretended to worship me but secretly maintained his current faith. That is because I am a moral authority over nobody. </p>
<p>All I'm simply saying is that I think we should take morality off the table. The rules of the adcoms are not moral rules, because nobody (or at least I don't) recognize them as moral authorities. Nor do they have the backing of community-based ethics, because, again, adcoms never consulted any of us before enacting their rules. They enacted their rules purely by fiat. So what moral standing do they have? None. Therefore, why is it immoral to break a rule that has no moral standing in the first place? </p>
<p>Note, I'm not saying everybody should break those rules. If you want to follow them, then do so. I am simply saying that if you do break those rules, I don't know that I can accuse you of immorality.</p>