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)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 10:09am

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Mar 8th, 2005 @ 10:16am

    Re: No Subject Given

    Ha! Good point. Sorry about that. Fixed now...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    dodot, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 10:28am

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    kai, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 10:55am

    ahhh

    The smart applicant checked everyone elses' status with a little script or something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Mar 8th, 2005 @ 11:11am

    Re: ahhh

    Except you needed to know each person's password to check...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    nonuser, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 12:02pm

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 1:19pm

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    jayrtfm, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 4:29pm

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    dotdot, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 7:23pm

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 8th, 2005 @ 9:42pm

    Re: harvard shmarvard

    dotdot, the new dorpus?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This