<p>
</p>
<p>And that would be the textbook definition of rationalization, at least in my book. Again…to each their own.</p>
<p>I am not an attorney, but my understanding of expungement is that it goes away as if it never happened (except to law enforcement and military) so you can truthfully say no. Otherwise, what’s the point of the expungement?</p>
<p>“So maybe you’d like to answer my question–if your kid were suspended, and the suspension was later rescinded because it was discovered he didn’t commit the violation, would you tell him to reveal this in response to the Common App question?”</p>
<p>Yes! It would be a terrific opportunity to display his maturity, his understanding that sometimes adults make mistakes, and how he’s moved on! But as we all know, extreme cases make for bad law. The adcoms have said what it is they want, and lawyering doesn’t change that in the least. It’s not ambiguous.</p>
<p>Again, reporting it is NOT punishment. The admissions officers have made it clear they don’t want to hear about things expunged in question #2 (criminal justice), and they DO in question #1 (school). And they don’t want to hear about detentions and demerits.</p>
<p>“The system isnt fair.”</p>
<p>So what else is new?</p>
<p>jym626…You’re mixing apples and oranges. The Common App asks 2 separate questions, one regarding school offenses and one regarding criminal offenses, and specifically states that you aren’t required to answer “Yes” to the criminal offense question if the charge has been expunged. Expungement is a legal term referring to criminal offenses, and has nothing to do with a school disciplinary record.</p>
<p>The school offense question isn’t ambiguous. It doesn’t ask whether the offense was or wasn’t put on your official record. It doesn’t ask whether the parent thinks the student has been “punished enough”. It doesn’t ask how severe you think the infraction was relative to “what other kids have done”. It asks a simple question, and (when answered truthfully) also asks you to explain the circumstances surrounding the infraction and what you learned from the experience. </p>
<p>Who would fear answering that question truthfully if you really believe the student has “learned their lesson” or was “in the wrong place at the wrong time”? If you fear that the student might be rejected from a particular university because of a minor infraction, then wouldn’t that make the university “judgmental”…and if so why would they want their student attending such a horribly judgmental institution?</p>
<p>In order to make an admissions decision, the university asks for all the information THEY consider to be pertinent, not just whatever the student/parent determines they want to tell.</p>
<p>It does happen that kids get busted for alcohol offenses (or drug offenses) the very first time they use. But that’s extremely rare. The mean drinking student began drinking (“more than a sip”) at age 13; half started earlier.</p>
<p>Wolverine86’s statement bears repeating:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I can’t begin to fathom the rationale for encouraging a child to “pretend it never happened.”</p>
<p>One of my kids will be participating in a rigorous mountaineering program this summer and was asked if he’d ever suffered any of various types of injury, including broken bones. Well, yes, he did . . . but it’s fully healed now, so would it be okay just not to mention it??? 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that is entirely up to you what former medical conditions you want to disclose or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, actually, it isn’t . . . because past injuries could impact my son’s ability to participate safely in certain strenuous activities.</p>
<p>But my point is that you can’t make past events go away simply by wishing them away. An injury that occurred, and later healed, is still a past injury, and a disciplinary action that’s been imposed, and later removed from a student’s record, is still a past disciplinary action. It’s good that the injury healed, and it’s good that the school considered the disciplinary action unimportant enough that it didn’t merit reporting in the student’s record . . . but that doesn’t change the fact that both events occurred.</p>
<p>A few more points:
Of course “you” can’t. But the authority that issued the infraction and the punishment asserts the authority to expunge it. Who are you to say they don’t have the power to do that? Do the managers of the Common App have the power to tell high schools that they don’t have the authority to expunge offenses? I don’t think the Common App question clearly asserts that power. I understand some of you think differently–but you also think the question requires you to report an offense that was expunged because you were subsequently determined to be innocent. At that, I just have to shake my head.</p>
<p>Has anyone read the presentation from the NACAC conference linked above?</p>
<p>It’s interesting, jym. Unless I missed it, though, it doesn’t get to the question we’re talking about here. It does make it clear that different high schools will report differently on the counselor forms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nonsense, Hunt - no one here has said that.</p>
<p>And, again, since you seem determined to bring up the topic of “expunged” offenses (despite repeated assurances that the concept doesn’t exist outside of criminal courts), the Common App questions does not ask for all incidents “other than those that have been expunged.” If it did, then my answer would be different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hunt…No one said the HS doesn’t have the capability to remove an offense from the student’s HS record. They can do what they want, but it doesn’t affect the Common App question ONE IOTA. Read the question again:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Show me EXACTLY where in that verbiage does it say you can pretend it didn’t happen just because the school decided to not make it a permanent part of your record? You keep using the term expungement as if a HS does have that authority. It does not, as expungement pertains to criminal records…not HS records. They can remove it if they wish…but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Even in criminal cases where expungement CAN be used, there are still caveats where it has to be disclosed. As far as the HS disciplinary actions go, if the incident happened and you fail to disclose it, you are LYING. Plain and simple. You can delve into all the gray areas you want, but you were asked a direct question and you want to tap dance around the truth to find a BS way to rationalize a lie. </p>
<p>If you don’t like the question, don’t apply to schools that use the Common App.</p>
<p>"Answer: Yes.</p>
<p>I was later found not to be responsible, and school officials apologized for the error. I learned from this that adults can make mistakes, too, and that responsible adults will go the extra mile to make things right. This was an important lesson for me, as I learned to work through my anger at being unjustly accused, and then found not to have been the guilty party. I am sure there are many innocent people, faced with accusations of a more serious nature, who are not so fortunate, and I wonder how effective I will be as an adult in finding the courage to stand up for them."</p>
<p>And yes, the admissions officers interviewed were very clear and unambiguous: if you don’t disclose, you’re lying. And they’d prefer not to have liars on their campuses.</p>
<p>As a parent, it is never good to teach a child to lie. Simple.</p>
<p>
At least two people said yes, and mini just repeated his answer. I think that answer represents a failure to give words such as “found responsible” a sensible meaning.</p>
<p>
Who sez the concept of expungement doesn’t exist outside of criminal courts? Haven’t we read on this very thread that some high schools in fact expunge records and tell students that in their eyes the violation never existed?</p>
<p>liars on their campus? okay, every application is perfectly honest in all ways, nothing is exagerated, ecs are exactly what the kid did, each essay was the kids own work, each prof is totally honest, all research done there is never fudged, none of the kids drink underage or smoke pot, or rehash an old paper, the frats never haze</p>
<p>and i am sure none of you have ever answered a jury summons question in a sketchy way, or told a cop, no i wasn’t going that fast</p>
<p>teach a child to lie? whatever…at least i don’t pretend my daughter is flawless like some</p>
<p>Words have simple meanings. Admissions officers then tell us without any doubt what they mean (which is the simple meaning.) They also tell us, unequivocably, and to use their word, that not following the simple meaning is lying.**Mr. Occam would suggest there’s a simple way to deal with a simple question. </p>
<p>Lawyers can then have fun. </p>
<p>There is always a reason not to tell the truth. Everybody does it, it feels like punishment, no one will know, the admissions officers don’t really care and they don’t mean what they say, it’s not really a lie is it?, she feels innocent, hasn’t she paid for her crime enough, it really isn’t a big deal, adults lie, the truth is too risky, admissions officers lie, who cares?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed.
And as a school it is also never good. If you want to teach integrity, you need to model it, or it is just a hollow phrase, signifying nothing. And nothing makes students more cynical, more quickly, than that. They may whine and moan initially, but eventually they will acknowledge at least internally that truth had value then, and has value now.</p>
<p>
Sure they do. It’s just that people don’t agree about what they are. For example, I suspect that you are in a tiny minority who would think that the words of the Common App’s question require reporting of an offense for which one has been exonerated. I think it clearly doesn’t apply to such situation, and I don’t have to twist anything to say that. If you’ve been found not responsible, then you haven’t been found responsible. Simple. But you don’t read it that way. Maybe words don’t have such simple meanings after all?</p>