Rejected Peeking MBA Applicants Wonder What They Did Wrong
from the is-that-so-wrong? dept
Following the decision from a group of top MBA programs to deny admission to anyone who made use of a security hole to check on the status of their admission a bit early, some of those rejected students are fighting back and saying that there was nothing ethically wrong with what they did. When you look at the details, they might just be right. First of all, this wasn’t so much “hacking” as it was changing the URL once you logged into the system. Second, there was no way to make any changes. All the applicants were doing was checking on their status. Finally, there was no clear indication that this wasn’t allowed. Many applicants were told it was a way to check on their status. Of course, the schools are unlikely to change their minds, now that this has received so much publicity. It’s a “cheap” way for them to appear tough on ethics — when the lesson we’re really learning is that publicity concerning how strong you are on ethics trumps an actual look at the ethics of the situation. Of course, maybe they really are training future managers for the workplace. It appears that it’s the same logic that Boeing is working under these days. The appearance of being tough on ethics is more important than actually being ethical.
Comments on “Rejected Peeking MBA Applicants Wonder What They Did Wrong”
Harvard...
They don’t have a good program in my specialty, though I did apply anyway last year. Their application form asks you to state how much money you have in your checking account, savings account, and IRA’s. Also, they ask if you are a member of particular family trusts. Other questions asked how you intend to pay for schooling. No other school I applied to asked questions like that. The application costs about $80, about twice what it costs at other schools.
No Subject Given
How do you define “hacking”? To me, looking at the source code of a program/webpage, determining how it works, and then exploiting it with that knowledge to perform a function not intended by its authors all equal hacking.
Re: No Subject Given
I call that poking around (equal to peeking through shop windows, or looking at how they are scanning my CC when I buy something)
Hacking is taking that further to actually perform mischief: IE breaking through that window to do whatever.
If I walk into a store and peek around at how they set up the store, does that mean I’m a criminal?
same thing if I go to a website and peek around at how it works.
-simple really
Re: No Subject Given
Except the students in question did not necessarily complete the “looking at the source code” and “determine how it works” steps.
Many allegedly received emails that said – hey, want to access your results? Plug your ID number into this URL.
it doesn't take much to get rejected
True, you could charitably characterize the students’ actions as momentary lapses in judgement. But a typo on the application form or a poorly worded paragraph on an essay could just as easily have led to rejection. So enough of this boo-hoo business… it’s not as if these students were fired from anything. It’s time for everyone to move on.
opening themselves up to lawsuits
Seems like the schools had better not tell anyone they were denied because they peeked. I think that there would be proof problems.