RSS
Twitter
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.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
Mike, that should be "peeked"
However, if applicants "peaked" in high school, perhaps Harvard shouldn't let them in....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Ha! Good point. Sorry about that. Fixed now...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
harvard shmarvard
this is the school with a dean that publicly states girls are genetically inferior to boys.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
ahhh
The smart applicant checked everyone elses' status with a little script or something.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ahhh
Except you needed to know each person's password to check...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
possibly unjust in some cases
but still, a cheap lesson that may pay off later in their careers. Maybe if something like that had happened to a young Martha Stewart...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: harvard shmarvard
This is also the school that bans from campus the same military that is protecting their collective asses. I can't say I'm surprised they would stoop to something like this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: harvard shmarvard
dodot,
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: harvard shmarvard
yes, he basically did. He speculated that there were innate differences in male and female math and science aptitude that may account for the different population representations in the higher levels of scientific study.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: harvard shmarvard
dotdot, the new dorpus?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment