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.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Harvard Rejects Applicants Who Peeked”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
dotdot says:

Re: 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?


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...