<p>Wow…an honest, law abiding person? Absolutely…let’s ridicule them!!</p>
<p>I recall reading that other thread…about cheating I believe? And the number of people that tried to rationalize, semantic-ize, and lawyer-ize that was disturbing as well.</p>
<p>I’d also like to quote seahorserock prior post to make a point:
Obviously, many of you don’t agree with the advice given to the kid by the officials at her school. It’s your opinion that she shouldn’t have trusted them. I don’t think it’s fair to call this situation lying, if in fact the school officials believe they have the power to expunge the violation, and if the student believes them. You might think their interpretation of their power is erroneous, but it’s not the same as lying, any more than a person who doesn’t mentioned a criminally sealed offense is lying. It’s just that there’s no (or at least less) controversy about a court’s power to effectively expunge an offense.</p>
<p>No, that ultra-law abiding person was on a different site from CC entirely. My point is that one should be hesitant to label other people who might simply have a different interpretation of a particular rule–or form question–than you do. You can disagree with them without quite so much moralizing.</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>I have exceeded the speed limit, failed to come to complete stops, etc. And when asked about them explicitly, I’ve told the truth. It really wasn’t so difficult. And in these cases, I wasn’t wrongly accused (and adjudged guilty.) Neither were 99% of the students who were disciplined (and then told by their schools that they could hush it up.)</p>
<p>In this case, it is easier. The admissions officers say that not disclosing (“expunged or not”) is, in their book, lying. And they are the ones who, in this case, care.</p>
<p>Why do people think that telling the truth when asked (in very clear and unambiguous language) is punishment?</p>
<p>". I don’t think it’s fair to call this situation lying,"</p>
<p>Well the admissions officers do, so take it up with them. As to what is fair? Life’s not fair, and it isn’t made any fairer by parsing words that are clear and unambiguous.</p>
<p>In the example you quoted, it’s not interpretation and it’s not moralizing. It’s a Yes or No answer. How would you answer the question? “It Depends” wasn’t one of the choices.</p>
<p>what does lawyer-ize mean anyway? is all stealing the same? does it deserve the same punishment? is all speeding the same and deserve the same fine? does going 5 miles over the speed limit deserve the same consequences as going 50 over? </p>
<p>words are not as simple as some seem to think. ask any linguist. law and rules aren’t so simple either. </p>
<p>my husband got a ticket for crossing a white line. he didn’t cross the white line. but it was easier to just take the ticket and do the online course then spend a day in court arguing with an over zealous rookie cop.</p>
<p>i stand buy what we did, i don’t consider us liars, but i do see the world in much more nuanced ways then some</p>
<p>Seahorses…Of course not all offenses rate the same punishment, which is EXACTLY why the Common App question has you describe the circumstances surrounding the incident and they’ll decide whether or not it affects the student’s viability as a candidate for admission to THEIR school. </p>
<p>In your own words, the incident did occur and the punishment was warranted yet you encouraged your child to knowingly put down a false answer to the question. How exactly would you describe that behavior? Honest?</p>
<p>Hunt: You nailed it on the moralizing. While I disagree with Seahorserock, I’m glad she stuck around and wasn’t chased off the board. </p>
<p>On the subject: </p>
<p>I got pulled over a couple of years ago for speeding in the middle of the night on a long trip for the first time in 24 years. I put on my right directional and slowly proceeded to the next off ramp and pulled over far enough so that the officer wouldn’t have to walk into the traffic lane to come to my window, which I read that they appreciate. I put my hands on the steering wheel so he could see them. After checking my license and registration he came back. </p>
<p>Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Me, meekly: I looked down when I saw your lights and saw that it was upper 70s.
Officer: I clocked you at 76. That kind of high given that it’s raining don’t you think?
Me: Yes officer, I’m sorry, I was daydreaming and I didn’t notice how fast I was going
Officer: Well you really need to pay more attention to your speed. I’ll tell you what. I’ll write it up for driving at an excessive speed for the weather conditions, it’s a much smaller fine and it won’t raise your insurance rates.
Me: Thank you officer, I’ll be more careful. </p>
<p>The point: If your offense isn’t that egregious and you’re generally a decent person, it pays to just fess up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve been trying to understand why people would not take the school at face value. Perhaps I spent too many years in the past in HR where recruiters would often bemoan very qualified people who just HAD to tell them things that they really didn’t need to know and weren’t really asking but once heard or read it’s awfully hard not to let it creep into your subconscious thoughts. I wish I could share some stories of the dribble some people felt compelled to exhume out of some misguided, I think, feelings of inner guilt. There’s a time to open your mouth…and a time to shut your mouth. If the high school is willing to set something aside why on earth can’t people take that at face value?</p>
<p>The question, if asked, was not whether your husband crossed the white line. That’s what is so good about having a clear question. It was “whether he was ever held responsible” for crossing the white line. The answer to the first is No, the answer to the second is Yes. Pretty simple to me. If you like, you can go and meet some of the tens of thousand of people incarcerated in our prisons (at your expense) who say they “never crossed the white line” either.</p>
<p>The kids who carry around a permanent criminal conviction and will never be exonerated for a dress code violation should be so lucky.</p>
<p>“I’ve been trying to understand why people would not take the school at face value.”</p>
<p>Because admissions officers clearly tell us otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the student is not applying for admission to their HS, they’re applying for admission to a university!! Unless the university decides to add the phrase “other than incidents your HS says you don’t have to admit to” the student isn’t answering the question truthfully.</p>
<p>But there is a difference between “wants” and “needs” – the admins that want to know might not need to know. Clearly I’m on the side of those that think if it’s not in the criminal courts it’s between the high school and the student what the punitive damages are to be and if the high school says the punitive damages end senior year than so be it. This is an entirely different discussion than what transpires between parents and their kids and THAT is not the topic of discussion. Parents have every right to pull the rug from under their kids’ feet with regard to college if they so desire.</p>
<p>Plus, I staunchly believe that parents belong in the front of the line concerning their children’s use of alcohol and drugs and there ends my “liberalism.”</p>
<p>The “wants” and “needs” concept even has roots in the law. If a young person has something expunged it is still available to those people who “need” to know and that is clearly defined. It clearly is not “defined” between public high schools or private high schools and what they are willing to “share” with a “public college” or a “private college” and I draw the line at how the high school is going to handle the situation which in my opinion does not make me “morally decrepit.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What would the recruiters want to hear when they asked a direct question to the prospective employee?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it’s something they only “want” to know instead of “need” to know, it would have the word “Optional” next to the question. I don’t recall seeing that. The university can define it’s own “needs” as they see fit. If you don’t like what they’re asking for…don’t apply.</p>
<p>As for punitive measures for non-criminal incidents “ending” senior year, how would you handle cases involving cheating in HS? Do you not think a university feels it “needs” to know if a student is applying for admission with false credentials?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>most have also said “as long as it does not happen again and they keep their record clean”. </p>
<p>To me, that means it does still exist.</p>
<p>The direct question on applications is generally have you ever been convicted of a felony offense…and you would be shocked at the kinds of "non felony’ related “stuff” people decide to share when confronted by a question of this type or they don’t understand the difference between “convicted” and “charged.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe not. I would defer to Hunt’s distinction which is very important. If ten kids were accused of cheating in high school and you were the one kid who didn’t really cheat but it “appeared” that you cheated and took your “licking” perhaps you were not actually responsible. Sometimes it is easier to take the punishment and move on.</p>
<p>direct question? truth? punishment? infraction? responsibilty? these are all words that don’t have just one definition or meaning? and in the context of HS they are even more diverse in interpretations. while the questions seems cut and dry to some, the history leading to answering the question isn’t always so yes and no, regardless of some profess to know</p>
<p>you can’t know the truth for everything. to some the bible is the truth. to me its not. am i to call them liars? </p>
<p>direct questions don’t always require direct answers, they really don’t</p>
<p>when did you graduate high school can have a variety of answers
1979
when I was 18
after I attended summer school for failing classes
after i switched schools because i was tossed out of my first school </p>
<p>a direct question, with a variety of answers, its no so simple</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>C’mon mom…that’s a cop-out. As a parent, would you idly sit by and let your child be accused, found guilty, and punished for cheating when they didn’t do it? I certainly hope not.</p>
<p>Seahorses…You asked earlier what lawyer-ize meant. Your last post is the epitome of lawyer-izing. It’s taking a direct, straightforward question, particularly one where you know exactly what they’re asking and why they’re asking it, and you play around with the words to try and find a “legal” (not truthful) answer purely for your own benefit.</p>