<p>mom…Did you read through the NACAC presentation linked earlier in the threads? I think the whole reason the question is asked of students themselves is because of the differences between states and schools in reporting. Two students (same GPA, same test scores, same ECs) from two different schools have the same infraction, and let’s assume it’s one that could affect a university’s decision. School A openly reports while School B’s policy is to report nothing. Why should a HS GC policy cause a university to consider these two students differently, especially if the School B student knowingly withholds info simply because he might know his school won’t report? We’re not talking “cleansing” records or anything else…the infraction and discipline occurred. Why on earth would you assume the HS GC office should have more of an impact on the admissions decision than the university themselves?</p>
<p>Because if it is only on the GC form (and remember, we are talking about relatively serious infractions that result in probation, suspension, expulsion), it wouldn’t provide an opportunity for the student to explain what happened, and talk about what they learned. In short, it would be far more punitive. In addition, it would provide an even greater advantage to middle and upper class kids whose GCs can sanitize their records but who, if in the school to prison pipeline, would actually carry an unexpunged criminal conviction for exactly the same offense.</p>
<p>mom…You didn’t answer the question. Why should a difference in HS policy lead to these 2 otherwise identical students being considered differently for admission, when the infraction in question is one which the university considers to be important. Not whether YOU consider it to be important…the institution granting admission under their rules considers it important. Remember…it’s not YOUR school, it’s THEIRS.</p>
<p>Thats irrelevant. for security clearances all these MUST be reported. Completely different circumstance, with no ambiguity. Per good ol’ wikipedia,
As I’ve mentioned in another thread, is also true for some other government job apps. And if someone has been found or plead guilty of domestic violence, they wont be accepted into the military. But yes, they must report it.</p>
Who is claiming that only “serious” infractions can result in suspension? Thats simply not true. As was said earlier, and by your own report IIRC, dress code violations can result in suspensions (in schoolor out of school). My kids on a rare occasion, as we used to say, go “shopping in the lost and found” to borrow a tie or belt or whatever they needed if they forgot it that day, to avoid a dress code problem. The item went back into the lost and found at the end of the day. So maybe they were violating the dresscode and stealing? Oh my, the shame.</p>
<p>jym…That’s precisely why I think it should be reported openly at all times. Have you ever dealt with DSS agents? Depending on the level of clearance being sought, they will go back to your hometown and talk to your friends, your teachers, your neighbors, your parents, etc. They’ll go to your college and talk to your professors, friends, people you know. They’ll talk to your co-workers. And they’re looking for discrepancies…especially things like “why did you answer NO to this exact same question on this application, yet now you’re answering YES?” Trust me…telling them “my HS GC told me I didn’t have to report it” IS NOT going to float. They will call it exactly what it is.</p>
<p>All this effort to try and hide infractions that will almost never have ANY impact on your college admission. It must be exhausting.</p>
<p>Yes I have dealt with them. My family members have Secret and Top secret clearance. But that is entirely different from a question about a high school disciplinary action, ESPECIALLY when they were found NOT responsible. Which is what I keep trying to say over and over. Its getting a bit tiresome.</p>
<p>Interesting choice. I would certainly hope that if and when the omission were discovered, it would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Not because the details of that job were particularly important . . . but because I wouldn’t want someone working for me who takes a “nuanced” approach to honesty.</p>
<p>I also suspect that in this day and age many job applications, perhaps especially those for government jobs requiring clearance, are computer scanned. And certain responses, especialy those about discipline, if marked in the affirmative (regardless of whether its explainable, like “I got suspended for wearing non uniform-approved shoes but it was later rescinded because Birkenstocks were considered acceptable under the dresscode but that administrtator didnt know and sent me home”, and yes this happened to a kid at my s’s HS) would send that applicants application to file 13 (ie the junk pile). </p>
<p>To paraphrase a comment above, the effort to hold up the moral superiority high ground must be exhausing.</p>
<p>jym…You’re focusing on that one instance. We agreed to disagree on that quite a while ago. We’re talking about students who knowingly answer NO to the question simply because either their HS GC policy is “we don’t report” or maybe they even “cleansed” the student’s record. DSS doesn’t care what the HS GC policy is, nor does at least one (and I’d bet plenty more) Common App Admissions Offices. They expect honest answers to a direct question. Why on earth would you knowlingly conceal an infraction that won’t hurt you now, but certainly could later on? Because it’s the easy way? What kind of life lesson is that?</p>
<p>When did simple honesty become equated with “moral superiority”.</p>
<p>And no…telling the truth isn’t exhausting. It certainly isn’t always easy…nothing worth doing should be. But it’s actually quite relaxing. Thanks for asking. :)</p>
<p>I dont see posters “agreeing to disagree”. I saw some still pounding on Hunt for his comments. And I see several posters providing instances of overzealous administrators imposing sactions/discipline for ridiculous reasons that may or may not be “justified”. And I see posters dodging the reality that a homeschool parent/administrator would not blow the whistle on their own kid. And I find it distasteful.</p>
Did you take that as directed at you personally? Were you directing the sanctimonious comment about the effort to" hide" such infractions as tiring to any poster in particular? Fortunately neither I nor my kids have ever been in this situation, but I find the discussion interesting.</p>
<p>“Who is claiming that only “serious” infractions can result in suspension? Thats simply not true. As was said earlier, and by your own report IIRC, dress code violations can result in suspensions (in schoolor out of school)”</p>
<p>I don’t know what you are referring to. I reported on *criminal<a href=“not%20school”>/I</a> sanctions for dress code violations. These would have to be reported under the second question, not the first.</p>
<p>IIRC some posters indicated that some schools called the cops for any school infraction, including a dress code violation, that would lead to the student having a criminal charge and possibly a criminal conviction. Zero tolerance can have unintentioned consequences.</p>
<p>jym…Nope, didn’t take it personally at all. But I can only assume those types of comments are directed towards folks who advocate telling the truth and find it equally “distasteful” when others prefer to intentionally wander in gray areas. I certainly put myself in that group. Others can define themselves however they see fit. </p>
<p>Gray areas can and do come back to bite people sometimes. I’ve known people who tried pot a time or two, came clean about it, and were still granted security clearances. I’ve also known people who tried it, lied about it, were caught in the lie, and were not granted security clearances. </p>
<p>Do you think a HS kid who admits on their Common App to getting caught smoking pot and getting punished for it, answers the question honestly even though his HS wouldn’t report it, and explains what he learned from it will be denied admission to a university? Seriously? What would this kid gain from hiding the info versus what he could possibly lose down the road? Where’s the cost/benefit analysis and the critical thinking here?</p>
<p>" Its actually quite relaxing. Thanks for asking" sounds like you took it personally. Maybe your denial is one of those "grey areas " of honesty to which you never wander?? But no matter. I think that the condescending tone of some posters here is giving me a big yawn. Have a nice day.</p>
<p>“IIRC some posters indicated that some schools called the cops for any school infraction, including a dress code violation, that would lead to the student having a criminal charge and possibly a criminal conviction. Zero tolerance can have unintentioned consequences.”</p>
<p>Yup. No disagreement. And the conviction is not going to be expunged, and the judge isn’t going to tell you (falsely) that you don’t have to report it on your Common Ap.</p>
<p>(There are kids who get caught drinking or drugging "the first time’. But that is very rare. As noted, the average drinking kid started at 13, and half of them before that.)</p>