<p>haha, really. Let's drop the whole morality issue. In any case, Maharaj didn't do anything right to get admitted. I truly hope that we all agree on that, at least...</p>
<p>sakky - 1, Everyone else in this thread - 0.</p>
<p>Sakky, I don't know if you understand my stance. YOU CAN'T TAKE MORALITY OUT THE PICTURE. I know the adcoms aren't moral authorities the same way you aren't a moral authority in your house. But that has nothing to do with it. Certainly I'm sure you can agree with me that harming people for no greater cause or punishment is immoral. I'm sure that is a moral absolute since all communities/cultures( discounting psychologically disfuntional ppl) agree upon it. Take that as an axiom. Since that is so, adcoms admitting legacies is immoral b/c they are harming those that would have got in instead( had the adcoms been more objective) by pushing the poorer applicant into a lower strata then would have acheived(had the applicants been admitted) in an already socioeconomically stratified society. And cheating would be immoral since some deserving applicants would be harmed in the same way as mentioned above. Additionally we would get a chain effect; cheaters would get the advantage and non cheaters would need to cheat to catch up.</p>
<p>To sum up, </p>
<p>axiom: universal morals are those that virtually everyone agrees upon.</p>
<p>lemma: harming ppl is bad.</p>
<p>Proof of lemma: the vast majority agree upon it. And there is even psychological evidence explaining why. </p>
<p>Proof of my stance using lemma
1) adcoms(not being moral authorities) admitting legacies=bad </p>
<p>2) cheating=bad </p>
<p>3)trying to protest against the rules by cheating= 1&2= double bad. </p>
<p>QED :p</p>
<p>Whoever suggested adcoms can admit whoever they like on a whim: they still have to comply with something called CERTIFICATION.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, I could enact a rule that says that anybody who comes to my house has to worship me as a God. After all, it's my house, so I can impose any rules I want, right? But that doesn't mean that those rules have any moral authority: for example, if somebody comes into my house and decides not to worship me as a God, that doesn't mean that he is behaving immorally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>umm... yeah it does. If that person didn't worship you, that means their not welcome in your house. And since they are in your house and not welcome, that means they're intruding your property. And that's unethical. </p>
<p>I agree with northstarmom. Colleges can choose whatever way they like. It's like a kid with candy. He can choose whomever he wants to give it to. It doesn't matter that person A gave him cnady before and person B hasn't. I don't think it's good, but there's nothing wrong with giving it to person B.</p>
<p>I'm with sakky here...it's a common situation that happens all the time, too much attention. It's another one of the many unfair things in life and those situations...big deal. I'm not with the "Omg he's so bad" opinions.</p>
<p>the article was way long. could've been written more concisely.</p>
<p>In the end, was anyone really duped?</p>
<p>yeah, the kid that lied was duped by his bf.</p>
<p>Please, sakky. This has nothing to do with any sort of moral authority. A large group of people spent years of backbreaking work in order to make their transcripts as good as they are. Then, this guy comes along and spends 20 minutes on photoshop (or whatever) and an hour writing his own recommendations. There needs to be no authoritative claim of the wrongness of this situation in order to make it wrong. This isn't about adcoms. It's about all of the other students who actually worked through school.</p>
<p>There is a lot of ambiguous morality in admissions. Supreme Court cases abound on the issue of affirmative action. Lots of athletes (not necessarily minorities) get "into" prestigious colleges with SAT's that are stretching to reach 900 total. They get tutored on campus by individual professionals, even for soft classes, so that they dont become a statistic the school has to report. Of course, there are plenty of brilliant athletes as well.</p>
<p>There is no "right" to attend any school. Its a privilege. Discrimination is immoral, but admissions is fraught with it on all sorts of levels. The SAT is discriminatory. More schools are dropping the SAT as a requirement for admission.</p>
<p>Without taking anything away from prestigious high ranking schools, the problem is that society has continuously pushed this notion that prestige makes the person. When in fact many schools have wonderful faculty, great programs or just a wonderful college experience dedicated to helping young people transition into full adulthood and become good people who give back to society. Its not just about getting an MBA and going into I-banking and making millions before you are 30. Some will do that. But what have they gained besides money? Are they the kind of people you want to be around or be associated with? Superficial and greedy people who are never content? </p>
<p>The other thing that is often not discussed is that universities are businesses. They are not for profit as far as the tax code is concerned, but in reality they are very much about making a profit and they want you to be successful so you can donate lots of money back to them later. And you think admissions is not affected by that? </p>
<p>Having a 1600 SAT does not entitle you to admission. Nor does having a 1300 SAT mean you are patently unqualified and undeserving and should be "banished" to the corridors of mediocrity. Many people on CC think so, unfortunately.</p>
<p>When Wake Forest banished the SAT from its admissions this year, it cited a scientific study by one of its esteemed faculty that showed them that there is no direct relationship between SAT scores and success in college. The success factors have to do with creativity, work ethic, depth of knowledge, personality and emotional factors. None of which the SAT measures.</p>
<p>I personally prefer to meet, hear about, or read about stories of kids who are great kids, worked hard in high school but are WELL ROUNDED and normal, who got good SAT's but not perfect and went on to a college of their choice and thrived, then went onto graduate or professional school and became a productive citizen, good neighbor, and admired family oriented individual than some pampered prince or princess from a prep school who had all the advantages, all the coaching and connections and got into an IVY and then went to work on wallstreet to make a million.</p>
<p>But I am sure there are people out there and on this board who will strongly disagree with me.</p>
<p>And yes, I know the Ivy's are working hard to admit kids from South Dakota or somewhere remote and perhaps disadvantaged and not everyone who goes there is spoiled rotten and smitten with money.</p>
<p>I dont have a solution to the inequities of admissions. For every additional angle, document or picture they ask for in order to get away from the SAT's and GPA's, there will be someone willing to game the system and lie through their teeth about their background, their life experiences and accomplishments. And adults willing to help them do it. </p>
<p>Which is why I tell my kids to go to the college where they fit in the best.</p>
<p>^ good post. I actually, for the 4th time on these forums, bothered to read such a long post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no "right" to attend any school. Its a privilege.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, not according to how the UN Declaration of Human Rights views it ... </p>
<p>Also, remember that schools have to fulfill certain standards in order to receive CERTIFICATION and ACCREDITATION.</p>
<p>How is college education a right?</p>
<p>Because high school is tortuously repressive to the intellect, and higher education creates the well-informed citizens essential to the survival of a democracy. </p>
<p>These principles have been articulated by my school's founder, Thomas Jefferson. Well, except the "high school is horrible" part. (Someone on this forum called my high school "blue-collar", so I think I have more perspective on what the average high school is like, compared to you lucky prep school brats. :p ) </p>
<p>And I will further add that primary and secondary education as it stands today creates obedient workers (but its malcontents become rebels and gangstas). More or less. </p>
<p>Quotes from my school's founder:</p>
<p>
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." </p>
<p>"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."</p>
<p>"The tax which will be paid for [the] purpose [of education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."</p>
<p>"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."</p>
<p>"No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... Preach a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against the evils [of misgovernment]."
</p>
<p>A high school diploma, in this day and age, is a puny tool for fighting ignorance compared with a college degree. Indeed, high school was invented in order to train the masses for vocational positions, and I do not think it was at all what Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of public education. It was not intended to give them any intellect.</p>
<p>(Also you can see from here that although I'm a libertarian who supports school vouchers, I distinguish between Jeffersonian public education [education of the public] and industrial public education [education run by planned economics].)</p>
<p>Thanks Invoyable. Its what I believe deeply.</p>
<p>galoisien, you still haven't addressed how college education is a right.</p>
<p>One could use common sense you know, and connect the dots. ;) </p>
<p>But you know where this is coming from, do you? But of course you want to come up with some sort of one-liner just to delay the inevitable!</p>
<p>Citizenship is a right (and a duty).
But one must be informed in order to be a true citizen (see Thomas Jefferson for this).
Today, only the quality of information provided in college education will create informed citizens. </p>
<p>Therefore, in order to uphold the right of citizenship, college education must also be a right (correlated with citizenship). </p>
<p>QED.</p>
<p>Eh, while I don't think that college education is a basic right for every single person, I think that a person should deserve to go to a college (doesn't have to be a top or even a remotely good one; there's thousands out there) if he/she/it wants to...despite (his/her/it)'s grades or any other qualifying criteria (just a broad school assumption, not only a select few of schools or anything).</p>
<p>So in this way I view it as a mix between a right and a privilege, something that at least everyone or almost everyone should have a chance to and entitled to. There may be exceptions but then...</p>
<p>Who defines these silly rights? Are we referring to the Constitution or federal law? It is hilarious that people are trying to repeat the Supreme Court's task (of interpreting the Constitution and precedent) on a discussion forum.</p>