RSS
Harvard Rejects Applicants Who Peeked
from the overreaction? dept
Last week, a story made the rounds about someone who revealed a security hole in an online system that many business schools used to mange their application process. With the knowledge of that security hole, applicants could check on the status of their application before they were officially notified one way or the other. This isn't a huge deal, as they were just looking to see whether or not they got in -- something that many anxious business school applicants would do. They weren't changing anything -- just finding out what they would be doing for the next two years. However, the publicity over the situation has made Harvard Business school decide to reject any applicant who looked -- even if the applicants didn't realize they were using a security hole (some people found out about it via emails from friends, where it sounded perfectly legitimate). This seems a bit harsh, and more designed to respond to the publicity over the matter than to determine whether or not there was a real ethical violation.
I’m looking for policy...
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
Policy Resources: Software Patents
I have a business...
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
I have an idea...
Finding Co-Founders in a Recovering Economy
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
However, if applicants "peaked" in high school, perhaps Harvard shouldn't let them in....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
harvard shmarvard
so they also make cruel decisions to bump their pr at the expense of students.
they suck, but so do you if you pay them 40-100k per year to fill your head with crap.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ahhh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ahhh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
possibly unjust in some cases
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: harvard shmarvard
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: harvard shmarvard
Larry Summers did NOT say "girls are genetically inferior to boys."
He was raising questions to examing the reasons why women are underrepresented in the sciences.
IMHO he's been getting a raw deal by people unable to be good scientists.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: harvard shmarvard
In other words, women and minorities represent such a small percentage of phd work, so maybe they are innately incapable of that level of work.
And you of course imply the same thing in your response - he's getting a raw deal by people "unable to be good scientists".
You cant even understand the position of the person you are defending, but you can claim his critics are unable to be good scientists?
pshaw!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: harvard shmarvard
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment