<p>It clearly states have you ever been found responsible. If you were later cleared, you were not found responsible. QED.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who’s pretending flawlessness? Rather, to state the truth is to acknowledge one’s flaws. :)</p>
<p>“It clearly states have you ever been found responsible. If you were later cleared, you were not found responsible. QED.”</p>
<p>I’m fine with that. Extreme cases make for bad law - and poor rationales. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes, the old “everybody else is doing it so it’s OK for me/my kid to do it” chestnut. Rationalization at it’s finest. Guess everybody better lie, cheat, and steal like crazy or they’ll fall behind the rest of the crowd. Complete crap…or a viable parenting technique to some apparently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody ever claimed they or their children were flawless. All people are flawed, but the honest ones own up to their mistakes and take responsibility for them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unbelievable</p>
<p>Also, words don’t simple meanings; hence, the different way someone may interpret a poem! :)</p>
<p>So in this case, they not only have simple meanings, they then go on to tell us what they mean.</p>
<p>I spent a good part of my career working with public health questionnaires. We spend hours and hours with each question. We know that questions will be misinterpreted, even after we do our best to deal with content, context, reading level, word choice, etc. It is very, very rare that I’ve seen a question that is this clear and unambiguous.</p>
<p>The following is an excerpt from a letter to incoming students at Villanova Law School:
Perhaps because it is addressed to future lawyers, it was felt necessary to specify that expunged violations must be reported. If that instruction were omitted, the simple meaning of the question would be…what?</p>
<p>I think if I were a guidance counselor at a high school that expunged records of violations, I would probably ask the Common App people if it is their position that expunged violations must be reported, and I would abide by their answer. But I have to say, I’m not nearly as confident as some of you what the answer would be, if they gave an answer.</p>
<p>To be more precise, words when strung together in a sentence don’t always have simple meanings. They are very open to interpretation.</p>
<p>momofmusician…I’m curious, exactly what do you think an Adcom would do with an application that had Mini’s answer to that question on it? What possible harm could there be to TRUTHFULLY answering the question and providing a perfectly valid, truthful explanation to it? Do you actually think any Adcom would think twice about whether that incident should affect the student’s viability as a candidate for that school?</p>
<p>NO ONE could question the integrity or character of that child, while many (I’d hope most, but in today’s society who knows?) would call your answer a flat out, bald-faced lie.</p>
<p>Love to debate some more, but I am off to listen to the dulcet tones of my son’s choir! :D</p>
<p>mini said colleges dont want liars on campus, as if college campuses are filled with wee angels</p>
<p>my daughter more then made up for what she did, even though she wasn’t actually caught. at graduation, the dean came up to her personaly, as they had gotten to really know each other and said how proud he was and he was glad he got to know her.</p>
<p>she confessed her actions in meetings, in talking to other kids, how much more do you people want? </p>
<p>unbelievable is that some people seem to thing punishments and confessions should follow someone for life, me I am a bit more realistic, forgiving, and happy for second chances</p>
<p>
You’re talking about the kid who reported an offense for which he was exonerated? I don’t think one in a thousand people would think failure to report this was a lie of any kind. This is why I brought it up–a hyper-literal reading of the question would seem to require reporting this, but (in my opinion) very few people would think this was required. It was, honestly, intended to be an absurd example. Which kind of proves my point. It’s hard to draft a really simple question, when there are legal (or legal-like) concepts involved, like “found responsible.” The Villanova question is simpler, pretty obviously. And since people are quite familiar with the concept of expungement in the criminal context, it’s not surprising that they might believe their high school when it tells them that their 9th grade suspension has been expunged forever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like a very good start to the response portion of the question, if the first part were answered truthfully. Whatever…</p>
<p>she wasn['t “found responsible” she didn’t fight the accusations, sometimes paying the ticket is less burdensome the fighting…</p>
<p>but feel superior, thats fine, i understand the need, and wish you peace</p>
<p>
Note: this is the OP’s D’s situation. I agree that in this situation there has been no expungement, so I’d say you have to answer the question in the affirmative. My point is that it’s a tougher question if the high school says, “In our view, it never happened because it’s been expunged.”</p>
<p>Hunt…Your example was a student who was found responsible, disciplined, and later found to not responsible…thus, the answer to the SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD question is YES with Mini’s spot-on explanation. If the student were suspended initially, how exactly would you have them explain why they weren’t in school on those days? Were they sick? Family vacation? Should they create another partial truth to accomodate those questions if for some reason they were asked? </p>
<p>If they discovered the student was not responsible before any disciplinary action was taken the answer would be NO. Big difference.</p>
<p>Is it a hyper-extreme example? Absolutely, but you brought it up and you asked how I’d answer it. My answer would be to tell the whole truth, not a partial one or your interpretation of it. The plain, simple truth. Strange concept, but it works for me.</p>
<p>As for the one in a thousand…seems like there’s quite a bit more than that right here in this thread. Guess we must just congregate here on CC. :)</p>
<p>
Sorry, in my opinion, the simple straightforward answer to this question is no. If this were to be adjudicated by a judge, he would (if he ever got that far) look at the purpose of the question, and would rule (again, in my opinion) that the purpose of the question was obviously to ask about offenses for which the applicant was ultimately held responsible, and not those for which he was exonerated. I don’t think he’d ever get that far, because he’d say that if the student was found not responsible, then he wasn’t found responsible. QED. This is so obvious to me that I have to say I’m really surprised that anybody thinks the contrary result makes any sense. And I would suggest that something like this should give pause to anybody who thinks its clear what particular words mean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Always, telling the truth is better than lying…even though it’s often more burdensome. Being honest doesn’t mean someone is trying to feel superior…just means they’re being honest. Simple concept…but YMMV.</p>
<p>On another message board I used to frequent, there was a poster who asserted that he never, ever broke any law. Never exceeded the speed limit, never failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, and so on. It was quite difficult to engage in a discussion with this person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I would agree that it doesn’t apply in such situations. And perhaps mini would disagree. So what? It seems apparent from the scenarios described in this thread that the issue here is not kids who were innocent and wrongly accused, but kids who did something they shouldn’t, got caught, and suffered a disciplinary action as a result . . . and whose parents are now encouraging them to pretend it never happened.</p>
<p>As for mini’s example of the hypothetical student who was wrongly accused and nonetheless included reference to the incident in her answer on the Common App . . . good for her! It certainly won’t hurt her application and it may, indeed, strengthen it.</p>