Anonymous wrote:His defense is that it's the university's fault because it should have known that he was lying on his application?
Anonymous wrote:Now if the dad had cut the 400k check straight to Georgetown this kid would be wined and dined by the development office. The whole thing is sick and corrupt.
Anonymous wrote:His defense is that it's the university's fault because it should have known that he was lying on his application? That's ridiculous. And this isn't a life sentence--he's not going to prison, he's being kicked out of school. Which he deserves. He should get the credits for the classes he took, but otherwise, I'm not sympathetic. If he has a hard time getting admitted into another school because he's a liar--well, maybe he shouldn't have lied. People talk about how poor people need to learn to take responsibility for their choices, well, so do rich people, right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Going after the kids... really Jesuits... really?
This student KNOWINGLY sent false information as part of his application. If he genuinely did not realize (at age 17 or 18) that that was FRAUD, then he was NOT qualified to attend any university in this country.
The universities need to do the right thing here and rescind the admission of any student who KNEW about the false information on their applications, even if the student claim that they were too naive or dense to realize that it was FRAUD.
Good kids at age 17 or 18 know right from wrong.
True, but there are gray areas here. I recall from my own high school days (many decades ago now) that some kids do embellish, exaggerate or outright lie on elements of their applications to make themselves look more competitive. Should anyone who makes any misstatement on an application have their credits voided? A classmate of mine who was on the tennis team said he was tennis team captain and got into Harvard. No one else from our school was applying to Harvard so he knew he wouldn't get caught. He's now a successful surgeon. If I tattle on him would Harvard need to rescind his degree due to false statements?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Going after the kids... really Jesuits... really?
This student KNOWINGLY sent false information as part of his application. If he genuinely did not realize (at age 17 or 18) that that was FRAUD, then he was NOT qualified to attend any university in this country.
The universities need to do the right thing here and rescind the admission of any student who KNEW about the false information on their applications, even if the student claim that they were too naive or dense to realize that it was FRAUD.
Good kids at age 17 or 18 know right from wrong.
Anonymous wrote:Going after the kids... really Jesuits... really?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Nope, he should not be able to keep the credits. He knew his application was fraudulent so he should not accrue any benefits as a result of the fraud - starting from the moment the fraud began.
This. If he knew, I agree.
The best possible education you could give this kid is to cancel his credits.
Shame on those suggesting otherwise, I wonder if they would show the same sympathy for a less "relatable" issue of fraud...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Nope, he should not be able to keep the credits. He knew his application was fraudulent so he should not accrue any benefits as a result of the fraud - starting from the moment the fraud began.
This. If he knew, I agree.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wonder if most of the kids in these cases do realize that their parents paid bribes?
Even if they don't, coming down hard on the kids as well as the parents is the only way to stop this nonsense. Parents should be terrified of tanking their kid's future by pulling such shenanigans.
Like umm.. if you would cut a hole in the fence of a country club and push your kid in and send him to enjoy the fabulous banquet,
nobody would really mind, not at all. Especially when they found out that the privileged kid sneaked in without paying the "dues"
whichever the dues in each case are, in this case academic dues.
Please understand, I'm not at all defending the parents or the kids in these cases or saying they didn't do something terrible. I'm just wondering if the kids knew all along or figured it out once they got to school.
In this case, he must've known, given that he was supposed to be some kind of tennis star.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wonder if most of the kids in these cases do realize that their parents paid bribes?
Even if they don't, coming down hard on the kids as well as the parents is the only way to stop this nonsense. Parents should be terrified of tanking their kid's future by pulling such shenanigans.
Like umm.. if you would cut a hole in the fence of a country club and push your kid in and send him to enjoy the fabulous banquet,
nobody would really mind, not at all. Especially when they found out that the privileged kid sneaked in without paying the "dues"
whichever the dues in each case are, in this case academic dues.
Please understand, I'm not at all defending the parents or the kids in these cases or saying they didn't do something terrible. I'm just wondering if the kids knew all along or figured it out once they got to school.
In this case, he must've known, given that he was supposed to be some kind of tennis star.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wonder if most of the kids in these cases do realize that their parents paid bribes?
Even if they don't, coming down hard on the kids as well as the parents is the only way to stop this nonsense. Parents should be terrified of tanking their kid's future by pulling such shenanigans.
Like umm.. if you would cut a hole in the fence of a country club and push your kid in and send him to enjoy the fabulous banquet,
nobody would really mind, not at all. Especially when they found out that the privileged kid sneaked in without paying the "dues"
whichever the dues in each case are, in this case academic dues.
Anonymous wrote:Nope, he should not be able to keep the credits. He knew his application was fraudulent so he should not accrue any benefits as a result of the fraud - starting from the moment the fraud began.