They are developing people in an institution that has a responsibility to guide and teach them. If the best solution the institution can come up with is to expel them to cover its own butt in the cases where the students were just duped - well, it makes me want to look for opportunities to make life harder for that institution and dismantle the reputation it's willing to sacrifice students to protect. Meanwhile, I'm going to increase my alumni donation just for not being a part of this.
hah no, they are selling a prestige marker. You don't have to develop as a person to get a college degree and the institution doesn't have a 'responsibility' to guide or teach anyone. To have responsibility, there would need to be institutional accountability for a failure to guide or teach and nothing of the sort exists. The entire idea that college sells education is a misnomer - they sell degrees with value based only on reputation. I'd like it to be different, but it's not, and the only way to protect the value of the degree is to take it from every kid who got their entrance by fraud.
I do like the idea of letting them retain their credits though. Let them try and get in somewhere else, then transfer all the work they did to someone else who will sell them a new degree.
I was an architecture major in undergrad. Evidently we had very different college experiences.
If you'd had a string of bad teachers who failed to teach you anything, what was your recourse with the institution? There was none. How could you prove to me that you learned anything about architecture based on your studies? The degree claims to be a proxy for that, but unless I know enough to quiz you thoroughly, I just have to take the institution's word for it. Will they show me aggregate post-graduation success rates for architecture graduates? Nope. I just have to rely on their reputation, which is what sold you in the first place as you also had no way to judge whether your education would be good apart from the reputation.
Everything you learned about architecture was orthogonal to getting the degree. You could have maximized your free time and skated through with a 2.0 and gotten your degree and the reputation you bought would be identical to graduating in the top 1% of your class.
My work interviewer wanted to know my GPA when hiring me straight out of school. And a list of courses.
It's something i look at too now that I'm in a hiring advisory position.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
The problem is that you haven't proved the students bear any guilt.
I steal a car, gift it to you and say i bought it, police show up at your door and tell you the car was stolen.
Should you get to keep it? You didn't do any crime.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
No. This is not what I'm saying at all. No one has demonstrated that they earned their degrees through fraud. That they gained entry to the college under false pretenses is orthogonal to whether or not they successfully completed the requirements for the degree once inside.
People have this idea that once you get into somewhere like USC, that they hand you a degree after four years, and not only has no one backed it up, no one has also provided evidence that the students have done anything to violate academic policy once in the University.
A degree is more than "get into school, sit in class for four years, get degree." If they passed all their classes, regardless of major, they can keep their degrees.
There need to be punishments for the initial fraud, but removing degrees or expulsion is not one of them unless it can be demonstrated that the students were complicit in the initial fraud, which many weren't, according to news reports.
I'd suggest, as someone else did in thread, a review of their academic performance for all students admitted under fraud, a written apology, and letters of support from three faculty, with at least one being outside their major area in order to keep their degree and/or enrollment.
They violated policy in the acceptance process which requires you to claim, under threat of law and expulsion, that everything you submitted to the school is true.
No, "they" didn't. Their parents did and kept them ignorant of the entire process. They attended the school under good faith, participated in classes in good faith, and hopefully the school will recognize them as an innocent that they need to protect.
The extent of their ignorance seems to vary. With more than a few instances of screaming red flags, and at least one with the kid cc'd on the email chain.
Plus, if you buy a stolen car from someone, even if you didn't know it was stolen, the police will confiscate it and you get nothing. You don't get to benefit from a crime just because you didn't know a crime was going on.
But while a car is property, an education is not.
I don't understand how we can keep conflating the two.
If I received a stolen car from a parent and used it to work for Uber, do you get to confiscate all of my earned income from that job?
because it's not the education they're confiscating, it's the degree. The prestige marker is a separate thing from the education, and it is property.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
The problem is that you haven't proved the students bear any guilt.
I steal a car, gift it to you and say i bought it, police show up at your door and tell you the car was stolen.
Should you get to keep it? You didn't do any crime.
As has been noted, admission is not a good, and analogies to stolen property are bad.
I think if they got in because of a parent's fraud but did all the work, they materially have the thing the degree shows you have. Knowledge and training.
If you are insisting degrees do not represent that, and are merely decadent status symbols that don't meet any level of indication of capability then.... what the fuck is the point of degrees? Half of you are essentially arguing college is meaningless as a form of education and training and seemingly serves no purpose but to grant you the approval of a bourgeois ruling class that decides our fate. That outside of mindless gate keeping degrees mean nothing.
If that is the case then I see no reason to remove their degrees because they've taken no action that would exclude the from corrupt bourgeois approval. I would also see no reason to consider anyone's degrees to mean anything, and would really wonder why we're allowing colleges to exist at a base level... seemingly they are just a giant bourgeois scam.
If however we admit that getting a college degree is in fact hard to do, and that having that degree means that you did hard work. Then taking away their degree is just petty. They did all the work. They should get the little piece of dead tree that says they did the work.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
No. This is not what I'm saying at all. No one has demonstrated that they earned their degrees through fraud. That they gained entry to the college under false pretenses is orthogonal to whether or not they successfully completed the requirements for the degree once inside.
People have this idea that once you get into somewhere like USC, that they hand you a degree after four years, and not only has no one backed it up, no one has also provided evidence that the students have done anything to violate academic policy once in the University.
A degree is more than "get into school, sit in class for four years, get degree." If they passed all their classes, regardless of major, they can keep their degrees.
There need to be punishments for the initial fraud, but removing degrees or expulsion is not one of them unless it can be demonstrated that the students were complicit in the initial fraud, which many weren't, according to news reports.
I'd suggest, as someone else did in thread, a review of their academic performance for all students admitted under fraud, a written apology, and letters of support from three faculty, with at least one being outside their major area in order to keep their degree and/or enrollment.
They violated policy in the acceptance process which requires you to claim, under threat of law and expulsion, that everything you submitted to the school is true.
No, "they" didn't. Their parents did and kept them ignorant of the entire process. They attended the school under good faith, participated in classes in good faith, and hopefully the school will recognize them as an innocent that they need to protect.
The extent of their ignorance seems to vary. With more than a few instances of screaming red flags, and at least one with the kid cc'd on the email chain.
Plus, if you buy a stolen car from someone, even if you didn't know it was stolen, the police will confiscate it and you get nothing. You don't get to benefit from a crime just because you didn't know a crime was going on.
But while a car is property, an education is not.
I don't understand how we can keep conflating the two.
If I received a stolen car from a parent and used it to work for Uber, do you get to confiscate all of my earned income from that job?
because it's not the education they're confiscating, it's the degree. The prestige marker is a separate thing from the education, and it is property.
The degree is different than just a piece of paper and it's different than just a prestige marker.
It also indicates that you've completed the requirements that the school has set out for the degree. Which means that you've passed the classes, and done any extra stuff (e.g. degrees that require a semester of co-op, etc.).
As far as we know, the people who earned the degree did actually earn it. They maybe got into the university by breaking the rules, and hey, maybe we'll find out that they cheated their way through university also, but I haven't seen that being the case. If anything, this shows how arbitrary admittance is, and that any student can succeed even if they don't fit the university's admission requirements. It doesn't say anything about whether they earned the degree though
Using GPAs for hiring makes sense for recent graduates and maybe some specialized technical fields. Even then, the utility in terms of judging candidates is going to fall greatly once they get career experience. In that case, former employers and a track record of work become much more useful. If a programmer screwed around in college, but then straightened up and has 20 years of solid career experience they can point at, then the "X GPA required" just becomes another meaningless barrier to employment.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
The problem is that you haven't proved the students bear any guilt.
I steal a car, gift it to you and say i bought it, police show up at your door and tell you the car was stolen.
Should you get to keep it? You didn't do any crime.
As has been noted, admission is not a good, and analogies to stolen property are bad.
The admission and the degree are effectively services. One gives you the right to earn the other. It’s definitely arguable that fraud on the former justifies no longer recognizing the latter...the only question is whether fraud committed by another does, and (if not) how plausible the deniability has to be.
Personally I still say revoking the degree but offering to transfer the credits is perfectly fair. You didn’t get into that university legitimately. You did do the coursework, you did spend the time of your life earning the credits, that’s what you get to keep.
Same way I believe you’d generally get to keep wages earned at a job you got through false credentials. Just dont expect a good reference in the future. The credits are the wages, the degree is the reference.
-- If you are a freshmen who was admitted through fraudulent means, you are expelled.
-- If you are a sophomore or higher, the university will perform an investigation into if you were acting in good of bad faith with regards to the application/admissions process. In addition, as a student you will have to provide references of support from university staff which speak to your character.
-- If you have graduated from that university, even if you were admitted through fraudulent means, you keep your degree because you ultimately earned it akin to everyone else.
I would amend the first one to be similar to the second bulletpoint (for sophomores) for incoming freshmen not demonstrably guilty of the acceptance fraud, but i ultimately think this is the best way to go about it.
Using GPAs for hiring makes sense for recent graduates and maybe some specialized technical fields. Even then, the utility in terms of judging candidates is going to fall greatly once they get career experience. In that case, former employers and a track record of work become much more useful. If a programmer screwed around in college, but then straightened up and has 20 years of solid career experience they can point at, then the "X GPA required" just becomes another meaningless barrier to employment.
Sure, but you typically need to first get that entry level job out of school to build the career experience later. Your SAT/ACT score is meaningless in your 40's (and a pretty sad thing to care much about. I can only remember roughly what mine was) but first you have to get through your early twenties to make it there.
If that is the case then I see no reason to remove their degrees because they've taken no action that would exclude the from corrupt bourgeois approval. I would also see no reason to consider anyone's degrees to mean anything, and would really wonder why we're allowing colleges to exist at a base level... seemingly they are just a giant bourgeois scam.
My degree from a third tier state university says I know enough about electronic theory to work as an engineer.
If that degree said USC or UC Berkeley on it instead, arguably the knowledge demonstrated is the same (ABET gonna ABET). But clearly that degree carries some value beyond saying I know a little something about Ohm’s Law. That’s what USC is selling, and that’s why Loughlin wanted her daughters at USC instead of ASU.
So yeah, maybe exclusive university admission and credentialing *is* a bit of a bourgeois scam. No offense to any USC or Yale grads in the room, it doesnt take away from your achievements. But it is what it is.
Using GPAs for hiring makes sense for recent graduates and maybe some specialized technical fields. Even then, the utility in terms of judging candidates is going to fall greatly once they get career experience. In that case, former employers and a track record of work become much more useful. If a programmer screwed around in college, but then straightened up and has 20 years of solid career experience they can point at, then the "X GPA required" just becomes another meaningless barrier to employment.
Sure, but you typically need to first get that entry level job out of school to build the career experience later. Your SAT/ACT score is meaningless in your 40's (and a pretty sad thing to care much about. I can only remember roughly what mine was) but first you have to get through your early twenties to make it there.
Does the recruiter evaluate it like that, though? My thing is that a posted requirement becomes a filter, and if it becomes a standard then that 40-year-old will never actually get to the point where their SAT/ACT/GPA become meaningless because a filtering system doesn't care about the nuances of a career professional who worked past a shitty college experience. It cares that the numbers in the application's "GPA" field meet or exceed the quantities specified in the job ad.
Phillishere on
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Personally I still say revoking the degree but offering to transfer the credits is perfectly fair. You didn’t get into that university legitimately. You did do the coursework, you did spend the time of your life earning the credits, that’s what you get to keep.
I don't exactly agree with perfectly fair, simply because I don't think once you're in this situation there's a perfectly fair way out.
If the defrauded university does kick out the student just to 'be fair', it's not simple to give that place to an applicant who was denied. They probably went to another university already, settled in there, and this might not even be in freshman year.
Likewise, the oblivious student who was kicked out now has to go through another admissions procedure, probably explaining why they are doing so in the process, which might prejudice another university against them, and in general has stupid levels of disruption, all because they assumed, like any of us would, that their parents wouldn't bribe university officials to get them in.
So no, in the absence of a 'fair' solution, I'd stick with 'least harm', which is to let those who were in the dark continue their degrees (unless they're failing, or trying to transfer to another subject, in which case, put a stop to it), and let those who achieved their degrees keep them.
For those who were actually complicit, well, there's a bus for them to go under and I'm sure we can find a good bookchucker somewhere.
Bethryn on
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+2
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Using GPAs for hiring makes sense for recent graduates and maybe some specialized technical fields. Even then, the utility in terms of judging candidates is going to fall greatly once they get career experience. In that case, former employers and a track record of work become much more useful. If a programmer screwed around in college, but then straightened up and has 20 years of solid career experience they can point at, then the "X GPA required" just becomes another meaningless barrier to employment.
Sure, but you typically need to first get that entry level job out of school to build the career experience later. Your SAT/ACT score is meaningless in your 40's (and a pretty sad thing to care much about. I can only remember roughly what mine was) but first you have to get through your early twenties to make it there.
Does the recruiter evaluate it like that, though? My thing is that a posted requirement becomes a filter, and if it becomes a standard then that 40-year-old will never actually get to the point where their SAT/ACT/GPA become meaningless because a filtering system doesn't care about the nuances of a career professional who worked past a shitty college experience. It cares that the numbers in the application's "GPA" field meet or exceed the quantities specified in the job ad.
I haven't needed to provide transcripts for awhile now thanks to having work experience and applying to mid-level positions. Just confirm that I graduated. (Though I also just literally haven't applied to anything for a few years) Has it become uniform for jobs above entry level?
I've never actually heard of USC before today. Is it well known in California or something?
I guess it can be an east coast west coast thing, but living west of the Mississippi USC has been a high profile university my whole life. Check out the wiki page. I’m a bit surprised that anybody familiar with universities in general wouldn’t have heard of it.
Beyond academics, Trojan football is pretty high profile as well.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
No. This is not what I'm saying at all. No one has demonstrated that they earned their degrees through fraud. That they gained entry to the college under false pretenses is orthogonal to whether or not they successfully completed the requirements for the degree once inside.
People have this idea that once you get into somewhere like USC, that they hand you a degree after four years, and not only has no one backed it up, no one has also provided evidence that the students have done anything to violate academic policy once in the University.
A degree is more than "get into school, sit in class for four years, get degree." If they passed all their classes, regardless of major, they can keep their degrees.
There need to be punishments for the initial fraud, but removing degrees or expulsion is not one of them unless it can be demonstrated that the students were complicit in the initial fraud, which many weren't, according to news reports.
I'd suggest, as someone else did in thread, a review of their academic performance for all students admitted under fraud, a written apology, and letters of support from three faculty, with at least one being outside their major area in order to keep their degree and/or enrollment.
They violated policy in the acceptance process which requires you to claim, under threat of law and expulsion, that everything you submitted to the school is true.
No, "they" didn't. Their parents did and kept them ignorant of the entire process. They attended the school under good faith, participated in classes in good faith, and hopefully the school will recognize them as an innocent that they need to protect.
The extent of their ignorance seems to vary. With more than a few instances of screaming red flags, and at least one with the kid cc'd on the email chain.
Plus, if you buy a stolen car from someone, even if you didn't know it was stolen, the police will confiscate it and you get nothing. You don't get to benefit from a crime just because you didn't know a crime was going on.
But while a car is property, an education is not.
I don't understand how we can keep conflating the two.
If I received a stolen car from a parent and used it to work for Uber, do you get to confiscate all of my earned income from that job?
because it's not the education they're confiscating, it's the degree. The prestige marker is a separate thing from the education, and it is property.
Also, if you apply for a job and lie on a resume saying you have the required degree, and you get that job, you do fine at that job, work there for years even and are successful then they find out you lied about the degree, say goodbye to that job. There have been several high-profile examples, too.
It's somewhat moot at this point since we don't know which or how many of the students knew what their parents had done. But the ones who were in on it, fuck 'em all.
Using GPAs for hiring makes sense for recent graduates and maybe some specialized technical fields. Even then, the utility in terms of judging candidates is going to fall greatly once they get career experience. In that case, former employers and a track record of work become much more useful. If a programmer screwed around in college, but then straightened up and has 20 years of solid career experience they can point at, then the "X GPA required" just becomes another meaningless barrier to employment.
Sure, but you typically need to first get that entry level job out of school to build the career experience later. Your SAT/ACT score is meaningless in your 40's (and a pretty sad thing to care much about. I can only remember roughly what mine was) but first you have to get through your early twenties to make it there.
Does the recruiter evaluate it like that, though? My thing is that a posted requirement becomes a filter, and if it becomes a standard then that 40-year-old will never actually get to the point where their SAT/ACT/GPA become meaningless because a filtering system doesn't care about the nuances of a career professional who worked past a shitty college experience. It cares that the numbers in the application's "GPA" field meet or exceed the quantities specified in the job ad.
I haven't needed to provide transcripts for awhile now thanks to having work experience and applying to mid-level positions. Just confirm that I graduated. (Though I also just literally haven't applied to anything for a few years) Has it become uniform for jobs above entry level?
I've seen it a few times (some federal contracting agencies use it in their applications), but it hasn't become uniform in my field. I've just watched the slow creep of credentialism long enough to know that this is an idea that really doesn't need to gain traction.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
No. This is not what I'm saying at all. No one has demonstrated that they earned their degrees through fraud. That they gained entry to the college under false pretenses is orthogonal to whether or not they successfully completed the requirements for the degree once inside.
People have this idea that once you get into somewhere like USC, that they hand you a degree after four years, and not only has no one backed it up, no one has also provided evidence that the students have done anything to violate academic policy once in the University.
A degree is more than "get into school, sit in class for four years, get degree." If they passed all their classes, regardless of major, they can keep their degrees.
There need to be punishments for the initial fraud, but removing degrees or expulsion is not one of them unless it can be demonstrated that the students were complicit in the initial fraud, which many weren't, according to news reports.
I'd suggest, as someone else did in thread, a review of their academic performance for all students admitted under fraud, a written apology, and letters of support from three faculty, with at least one being outside their major area in order to keep their degree and/or enrollment.
They violated policy in the acceptance process which requires you to claim, under threat of law and expulsion, that everything you submitted to the school is true.
No, "they" didn't. Their parents did and kept them ignorant of the entire process. They attended the school under good faith, participated in classes in good faith, and hopefully the school will recognize them as an innocent that they need to protect.
The extent of their ignorance seems to vary. With more than a few instances of screaming red flags, and at least one with the kid cc'd on the email chain.
Plus, if you buy a stolen car from someone, even if you didn't know it was stolen, the police will confiscate it and you get nothing. You don't get to benefit from a crime just because you didn't know a crime was going on.
But while a car is property, an education is not.
I don't understand how we can keep conflating the two.
If I received a stolen car from a parent and used it to work for Uber, do you get to confiscate all of my earned income from that job?
because it's not the education they're confiscating, it's the degree. The prestige marker is a separate thing from the education, and it is property.
Also, if you apply for a job and lie on a resume saying you have the required degree, and you get that job, you do fine at that job, work there for years even and are successful then they find out you lied about the degree, say goodbye to that job. There have been several high-profile examples, too.
It's somewhat moot at this point since we don't know which or how many of the students knew what their parents had done. But the ones who were in on it, fuck 'em all.
I don’t think there’s much value in encouraging parents to keep kids in the dark on this kind of fraud, or in teaching kids that plausible deniability means you get to keep your ill-gotten gains. We can’t recoup the admission spot, somebody did miss out, but I don’t think there’s substantial harm to society if there’s one less USC degree out there.
Yeah, sucks for the handful of kids who legitimately didn’t know, and legitimately did the work. Let it be a life lesson, if you lie and cheat to provide for your kids you can wind up hurting them in the end. They’ll still be children of fairly wealthy parents, they’ll still be better off than like 99% of kids (or young adults if they’ve graduated).
+2
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
Yeah expelling somebody that hasn't personally violated the code of conduct and is academically doing fine - definitely grounds for legal recourse.
I mean, if we're going to continue with the property argument, let's make it more serious: if parents commit fraud to get their kid a kidney transplant, does the kid have to return it and go back on dialysis? Or do we let the kid keep this life sustaining item, punish the parents directly, and fix the underlying fraud vulnerability?
Yeah it's hyperbolic, but this demonstrates that fraud, even property fraud, is not totally cut and dry. And college isn't exactly something you can prematurely break from without causing damage.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+2
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
Education isn't property, so I don't know how you hope to repossess it.
All you can repossess is the degree, which is the tangible symbol of the students work/effort separated from the initial act of fraud.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
Can I elect to give it back in lieu of repayment on my student loans? If I default on my student loans can they come repossess the knowledge or do they just garnish my wages because there's no tangible way to give back what they actually gave me? Trust me if I could just get rid of all this knowledge in exchange for being freed from these student loans I would do it in a second, with little hesitation.
If anything, the closest parallel would be patronage/nepotism. If I bribed the Alderman to get my cousin a job at Streets & Sanitation 4 years ago, and he's had sterling annual reviews since then, should he be fired because of the initial improper hiring process?
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
And once again, it should be noted that the students aren't the ones committing fraud, which kind of makes your whole analogy irrelevant.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
Fraud requires an active intent to deceive. We're just punishing the child to show that the parent deserves to pay for their crimes.
Which, you know, is another thing the Constitution has some things to say about.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
Technically taking away their degree would be forging their credentials in reverse.
Artificially removing note of work they have in fact done.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
Except the degree is awarded at the end and there is no evidence of fraud or faking during their studies. The fraud occurred during the enrollment. They faked their way into the school, but not out of it which is what the degree confers proof of.
Again, this applies to current degree holders. Current students strike me as a different problem to address.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
And once again, it should be noted that the students aren't the ones committing fraud, which kind of makes your whole analogy irrelevant.
I've already stated I think that's... unlikely. You know if your "proctor" sat next to you and corrected your wrong answers to the SAT while taking it. You know if you got an athletic scholarship for a sport you've never played competitively in your life. Some portion of these kids knew exactly what was going on, or should have.
If they truly had no idea, and it was all bribery behind their back? That's fine, the university should handle each of these on a case-by-case basis, and those kids shouldn't lose their degrees. But any involvement at all by the student, and I lose any sympathy whatsoever.
If anything, the closest parallel would be patronage/nepotism. If I bribed the Alderman to get my cousin a job at Streets & Sanitation 4 years ago, and he's had sterling annual reviews since then, should he be fired because of the initial improper hiring process?
Well, we’re assuming the reviews were accurate and fair, and unrelated to the fact that he’s the cousin of a friend of the alderman.
But even then...yeah, he should probably be fired. You can’t let corruption pay.
The only real gray area around the admission scandal is that corruption is already the norm, and the only difference is they chose the “side door” over the back door (with plebs having to come through the front door). It’s not about the fact that admissions were bought, it’s that fraud was used to buy them at a discount. But yeah, if we’re speaking abstractly I have no issue with the idea of an “innocent” person losing the advantage that somebody else got them illegitimately. Even if they were performing to standard.
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
Technically taking away their degree would be forging their credentials in reverse.
Artificially removing note of work they have in fact done.
The work isn’t what gets you the degree. I can walk into UW, get the syllabus, but the books, and do all the work...I’ll still never get a degree there, because I’m not a UW student. It’s acceptance of the work that leads to the degree.
That acceptance is based on admission.
+2
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
If anything, the closest parallel would be patronage/nepotism. If I bribed the Alderman to get my cousin a job at Streets & Sanitation 4 years ago, and he's had sterling annual reviews since then, should he be fired because of the initial improper hiring process?
Well, we’re assuming the reviews were accurate and fair, and unrelated to the fact that he’s the cousin of a friend of the alderman.
But even then...yeah, he should probably be fired. You can’t let corruption pay.
The only real gray area around the admission scandal is that corruption is already the norm, and the only difference is they chose the “side door” over the back door (with plebs having to come through the front door). It’s not about the fact that admissions were bought, it’s that fraud was used to buy them at a discount. But yeah, if we’re speaking abstractly I have no issue with the idea of an “innocent” person losing the advantage that somebody else got them illegitimately. Even if they were performing to standard.
So you're saying it is imperative that we as a society need to make it known that if you help someone in a way society does not approve of, we will punish the people you have helped.
Whether they knew you had done so criminally or not.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
If I was kept in the dark regarding receiving admission to a university through fraudulent means, I performed all the academic rigors/challenges to achieve a degree, and then had the university take away that degree years later, I would sue them.
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
How about a closer analogy then - fraudulent degrees? Lying about the degrees that you do hold is grounds for, and has routinely resulted in, immediate termination from pretty much any job that requires them. Regardless of whether the liar has been successfully carrying out that job - sometimes decades later.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
And once again, it should be noted that the students aren't the ones committing fraud, which kind of makes your whole analogy irrelevant.
Some of the students certainly were participating in the fraud. If they are posing for pictures holding gear for a sport they've never played and/or letting someone else take the ACT for them they're accomplices.
What about expelling the current students in a way that lets them transfer the credits to another institution, as if they decided to transfer of their own volition?
That way they keep the benefit of the work that they have done, but lose whatever cachet they would have got from graduating from that specific college
Hell, let them reapply to the same college if they want, but on their own merit on a level playing field (or as level as it gets)
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
The problem is that you haven't proved the students bear any guilt.
I steal a car, gift it to you and say i bought it, police show up at your door and tell you the car was stolen.
Should you get to keep it? You didn't do any crime.
As has been noted, admission is not a good, and analogies to stolen property are bad.
The admission and the degree are effectively services. One gives you the right to earn the other. It’s definitely arguable that fraud on the former justifies no longer recognizing the latter...the only question is whether fraud committed by another does, and (if not) how plausible the deniability has to be.
Personally I still say revoking the degree but offering to transfer the credits is perfectly fair. You didn’t get into that university legitimately. You did do the coursework, you did spend the time of your life earning the credits, that’s what you get to keep.
Same way I believe you’d generally get to keep wages earned at a job you got through false credentials. Just dont expect a good reference in the future. The credits are the wages, the degree is the reference.
How would that work though? Pretty sure you're expected to earn at least 50% of your credits at the institution you are getting your degree from. If you've graduated from USC you can't just transfer a whole degree worth of credits to Berkeley and get one from there. You'll have to go back to school for at least a while.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
oh I know, but you can't retroactively take back a degree that was earned legally. These degrees in these cases were earned through fraud.
The problem is that you haven't proved the students bear any guilt.
I steal a car, gift it to you and say i bought it, police show up at your door and tell you the car was stolen.
Should you get to keep it? You didn't do any crime.
As has been noted, admission is not a good, and analogies to stolen property are bad.
The admission and the degree are effectively services. One gives you the right to earn the other. It’s definitely arguable that fraud on the former justifies no longer recognizing the latter...the only question is whether fraud committed by another does, and (if not) how plausible the deniability has to be.
Personally I still say revoking the degree but offering to transfer the credits is perfectly fair. You didn’t get into that university legitimately. You did do the coursework, you did spend the time of your life earning the credits, that’s what you get to keep.
Same way I believe you’d generally get to keep wages earned at a job you got through false credentials. Just dont expect a good reference in the future. The credits are the wages, the degree is the reference.
How would that work though? Pretty sure you're expected to earn at least 50% of your credits at the institution you are getting your degree from. If you've graduated from USC you can't just transfer a whole degree worth of credits to Berkeley and get one from there. You'll have to go back to school for at least a while.
And hopefully your parents will support you through that couple years. If they’re not in jail.
Posts
My work interviewer wanted to know my GPA when hiring me straight out of school. And a list of courses.
It's something i look at too now that I'm in a hiring advisory position.
STEM degree though, so that might be relevant.
I steal a car, gift it to you and say i bought it, police show up at your door and tell you the car was stolen.
Should you get to keep it? You didn't do any crime.
because it's not the education they're confiscating, it's the degree. The prestige marker is a separate thing from the education, and it is property.
As has been noted, admission is not a good, and analogies to stolen property are bad.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
If you are insisting degrees do not represent that, and are merely decadent status symbols that don't meet any level of indication of capability then.... what the fuck is the point of degrees? Half of you are essentially arguing college is meaningless as a form of education and training and seemingly serves no purpose but to grant you the approval of a bourgeois ruling class that decides our fate. That outside of mindless gate keeping degrees mean nothing.
If that is the case then I see no reason to remove their degrees because they've taken no action that would exclude the from corrupt bourgeois approval. I would also see no reason to consider anyone's degrees to mean anything, and would really wonder why we're allowing colleges to exist at a base level... seemingly they are just a giant bourgeois scam.
If however we admit that getting a college degree is in fact hard to do, and that having that degree means that you did hard work. Then taking away their degree is just petty. They did all the work. They should get the little piece of dead tree that says they did the work.
The degree is different than just a piece of paper and it's different than just a prestige marker.
It also indicates that you've completed the requirements that the school has set out for the degree. Which means that you've passed the classes, and done any extra stuff (e.g. degrees that require a semester of co-op, etc.).
As far as we know, the people who earned the degree did actually earn it. They maybe got into the university by breaking the rules, and hey, maybe we'll find out that they cheated their way through university also, but I haven't seen that being the case. If anything, this shows how arbitrary admittance is, and that any student can succeed even if they don't fit the university's admission requirements. It doesn't say anything about whether they earned the degree though
The admission and the degree are effectively services. One gives you the right to earn the other. It’s definitely arguable that fraud on the former justifies no longer recognizing the latter...the only question is whether fraud committed by another does, and (if not) how plausible the deniability has to be.
Personally I still say revoking the degree but offering to transfer the credits is perfectly fair. You didn’t get into that university legitimately. You did do the coursework, you did spend the time of your life earning the credits, that’s what you get to keep.
Same way I believe you’d generally get to keep wages earned at a job you got through false credentials. Just dont expect a good reference in the future. The credits are the wages, the degree is the reference.
I would amend the first one to be similar to the second bulletpoint (for sophomores) for incoming freshmen not demonstrably guilty of the acceptance fraud, but i ultimately think this is the best way to go about it.
Sure, but you typically need to first get that entry level job out of school to build the career experience later. Your SAT/ACT score is meaningless in your 40's (and a pretty sad thing to care much about. I can only remember roughly what mine was) but first you have to get through your early twenties to make it there.
My degree from a third tier state university says I know enough about electronic theory to work as an engineer.
If that degree said USC or UC Berkeley on it instead, arguably the knowledge demonstrated is the same (ABET gonna ABET). But clearly that degree carries some value beyond saying I know a little something about Ohm’s Law. That’s what USC is selling, and that’s why Loughlin wanted her daughters at USC instead of ASU.
So yeah, maybe exclusive university admission and credentialing *is* a bit of a bourgeois scam. No offense to any USC or Yale grads in the room, it doesnt take away from your achievements. But it is what it is.
Does the recruiter evaluate it like that, though? My thing is that a posted requirement becomes a filter, and if it becomes a standard then that 40-year-old will never actually get to the point where their SAT/ACT/GPA become meaningless because a filtering system doesn't care about the nuances of a career professional who worked past a shitty college experience. It cares that the numbers in the application's "GPA" field meet or exceed the quantities specified in the job ad.
If the defrauded university does kick out the student just to 'be fair', it's not simple to give that place to an applicant who was denied. They probably went to another university already, settled in there, and this might not even be in freshman year.
Likewise, the oblivious student who was kicked out now has to go through another admissions procedure, probably explaining why they are doing so in the process, which might prejudice another university against them, and in general has stupid levels of disruption, all because they assumed, like any of us would, that their parents wouldn't bribe university officials to get them in.
So no, in the absence of a 'fair' solution, I'd stick with 'least harm', which is to let those who were in the dark continue their degrees (unless they're failing, or trying to transfer to another subject, in which case, put a stop to it), and let those who achieved their degrees keep them.
For those who were actually complicit, well, there's a bus for them to go under and I'm sure we can find a good bookchucker somewhere.
US News & World Report puts USC at #22 in their rankings of national universities. They also have a storied history when it comes to sports.
I haven't needed to provide transcripts for awhile now thanks to having work experience and applying to mid-level positions. Just confirm that I graduated. (Though I also just literally haven't applied to anything for a few years) Has it become uniform for jobs above entry level?
I guess it can be an east coast west coast thing, but living west of the Mississippi USC has been a high profile university my whole life. Check out the wiki page. I’m a bit surprised that anybody familiar with universities in general wouldn’t have heard of it.
Beyond academics, Trojan football is pretty high profile as well.
Also, if you apply for a job and lie on a resume saying you have the required degree, and you get that job, you do fine at that job, work there for years even and are successful then they find out you lied about the degree, say goodbye to that job. There have been several high-profile examples, too.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-big-shots-who-lied-on-their-resumes-2014-09-18
It's somewhat moot at this point since we don't know which or how many of the students knew what their parents had done. But the ones who were in on it, fuck 'em all.
I've seen it a few times (some federal contracting agencies use it in their applications), but it hasn't become uniform in my field. I've just watched the slow creep of credentialism long enough to know that this is an idea that really doesn't need to gain traction.
I don’t think there’s much value in encouraging parents to keep kids in the dark on this kind of fraud, or in teaching kids that plausible deniability means you get to keep your ill-gotten gains. We can’t recoup the admission spot, somebody did miss out, but I don’t think there’s substantial harm to society if there’s one less USC degree out there.
Yeah, sucks for the handful of kids who legitimately didn’t know, and legitimately did the work. Let it be a life lesson, if you lie and cheat to provide for your kids you can wind up hurting them in the end. They’ll still be children of fairly wealthy parents, they’ll still be better off than like 99% of kids (or young adults if they’ve graduated).
Not saying it would be legally solid or the correct step, but that would absolutely be my gut reaction.
It still would be in the lines of accepting stolen property. Just because you do not know the property is stolen does not mean you can't be arrested for possessing it.
It's really not property, though. You cannot impound an intangible asset.
I mean, if we're going to continue with the property argument, let's make it more serious: if parents commit fraud to get their kid a kidney transplant, does the kid have to return it and go back on dialysis? Or do we let the kid keep this life sustaining item, punish the parents directly, and fix the underlying fraud vulnerability?
Yeah it's hyperbolic, but this demonstrates that fraud, even property fraud, is not totally cut and dry. And college isn't exactly something you can prematurely break from without causing damage.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Education isn't property, so I don't know how you hope to repossess it.
All you can repossess is the degree, which is the tangible symbol of the students work/effort separated from the initial act of fraud.
Can I elect to give it back in lieu of repayment on my student loans? If I default on my student loans can they come repossess the knowledge or do they just garnish my wages because there's no tangible way to give back what they actually gave me? Trust me if I could just get rid of all this knowledge in exchange for being freed from these student loans I would do it in a second, with little hesitation.
Fraud of intellectual credentials is still fraud, and subjects you to loss of any benefits obtained through said fraud. Academic integrity is something people care about, even after you're done with school. Faking your way into a job by lying about/forging your credentials doesn't seem materially different to me than faking your way into college by lying about/forging your credentials. In one case, you lose your job, regardless of whether or not you can/cannot do that job. In the other, I have no problem if people lose their degree, whether or not they completed the academic work.
And once again, it should be noted that the students aren't the ones committing fraud, which kind of makes your whole analogy irrelevant.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Fraud requires an active intent to deceive. We're just punishing the child to show that the parent deserves to pay for their crimes.
Which, you know, is another thing the Constitution has some things to say about.
Technically taking away their degree would be forging their credentials in reverse.
Artificially removing note of work they have in fact done.
Except the degree is awarded at the end and there is no evidence of fraud or faking during their studies. The fraud occurred during the enrollment. They faked their way into the school, but not out of it which is what the degree confers proof of.
Again, this applies to current degree holders. Current students strike me as a different problem to address.
If they truly had no idea, and it was all bribery behind their back? That's fine, the university should handle each of these on a case-by-case basis, and those kids shouldn't lose their degrees. But any involvement at all by the student, and I lose any sympathy whatsoever.
Well, we’re assuming the reviews were accurate and fair, and unrelated to the fact that he’s the cousin of a friend of the alderman.
But even then...yeah, he should probably be fired. You can’t let corruption pay.
The only real gray area around the admission scandal is that corruption is already the norm, and the only difference is they chose the “side door” over the back door (with plebs having to come through the front door). It’s not about the fact that admissions were bought, it’s that fraud was used to buy them at a discount. But yeah, if we’re speaking abstractly I have no issue with the idea of an “innocent” person losing the advantage that somebody else got them illegitimately. Even if they were performing to standard.
The work isn’t what gets you the degree. I can walk into UW, get the syllabus, but the books, and do all the work...I’ll still never get a degree there, because I’m not a UW student. It’s acceptance of the work that leads to the degree.
That acceptance is based on admission.
So you're saying it is imperative that we as a society need to make it known that if you help someone in a way society does not approve of, we will punish the people you have helped.
Whether they knew you had done so criminally or not.
Some of the students certainly were participating in the fraud. If they are posing for pictures holding gear for a sport they've never played and/or letting someone else take the ACT for them they're accomplices.
That way they keep the benefit of the work that they have done, but lose whatever cachet they would have got from graduating from that specific college
Hell, let them reapply to the same college if they want, but on their own merit on a level playing field (or as level as it gets)
How would that work though? Pretty sure you're expected to earn at least 50% of your credits at the institution you are getting your degree from. If you've graduated from USC you can't just transfer a whole degree worth of credits to Berkeley and get one from there. You'll have to go back to school for at least a while.
And hopefully your parents will support you through that couple years. If they’re not in jail.