Cornell Expels and Fines Student for Not Disclosing Community College on Application

You put it better than I could.

 

Correct. And the reason for this is because transcripts are and were designed to show one's academic achievement, not simply whether one was "in attendance." I'd argue that what Cornell is doing (and to be fair other schools do it to) is abusive of what the purpose of a transcript is. This is why I don't buy their story. Even if they had that transcript would it have changed their admission decision? I can't believe it would. Why? Because a bunch of W's tell one nothing...on the surface..about why the student withdrew. They could have withdrawn for financial reason, it could have been a medical condition, who knows.

It would be one thing if Cornell had said, "we discovered she failed to supply a transcript and when we went back and talked to school officials we found out that she was involved in a cheating issue there too." If that were the case then they would have a legitimate merit based argument that she withheld a material fact from the admissions committee. But that is not what Cornell is claiming. Cornell is making a technical paperwork claim. She didn't submit the paperwork and regardless of whether the information was material or not she loses. I think that's rubbish.

As I say, I have done the exact same thing because I thought it was easy and obvious that the admissions committee could get the material information another way. It's disturbing to me that one of my schools could come back years later and claim that because of some minor paperwork issue that now I don't have a degree.

I want to be clear about this. I understand the due process claim that her lawsuit brings. But IMO Cornell's position lacks any merit. In my view Cornell needs to satisfy a "but for" causation requirement--but for the missing information they never would have admitted her. As someone who has served on a college admissions committee I don't think Cornell can say that with a straight face.

 

One thing in my defense: I've never said I was a law school prof.

I'm a lawyer (who was not particularly distinguished but worked with some very distinguished attorneys--not that that's worth much). I have a JD from a top tier law school (but not an elite T14 or anything like that), an MBA from a second tier (large national university, good, not elite). I'm a business law prof in an accounting department at an AACSB-accredited university and have been for several years, we offer the BBA, MBA, MAcc and the college of business also offers a PhD. There are about 1,000 of us across the country who teach legal studies, business law, taxation, fraud, and occasionally accounting courses at universities. Our national organization is the Academy of Legal Studies in Business (www.alsb.org). I am a faculty member in law, but also in an accounting department and will be teaching both intro to accounting courses and business law in the next term. I taught fraud courses and business law last term.

All that said, I acted like a supercilious jerk to you before and I was wrong. I'm sorry.

 

Are schools that much different from employers? Employers fire people all the time for lying on applications even if the person turned out to be a good employee. Maybe this doesn't matter as much in college, but lying is often a sign of problems to come. And, problems did come with this student. I don't agree with the fine, but the student not only omitted a transcript and was accused of aiding someone in cheating, but there were discrepancies with her other school records. Following directions is simple. If they ask for all of the transcripts, then supply them. You need to follow directions in school and on the job no matter how pointless you think they are. Schools ask for original transcripts because transcripts with your transfer credits often do not provide all of the information that is available on the original transcript. The school shouldn't have to ask you for the transcript after seeing the transfer credits. They already asked for it once when you applied.

A lot of people are disqualified from law enforcement and corrections jobs just for lying or intentionally omitting items. They will lie about things that aren't automatic disqualifiers. The application or websites usually inform people what are automatic disqualifiers. Anything else either doesn't matter or will be handled on a case-by-case basis. But, people are too stupid to read and follow directions and have themselves temporarily or permanently disqualified from applying to the department again. Honestly, I wouldn't want to work with people who can't follow simple instructions.

It doesn't matter if the admissions decision would have been the same if they had the transcript. The lying or intentional omission is enough to either not admit someone or expel the person.

 

Wow! Good reply mate. It takes big cojones to admit when one is wrong. Do stick around the board. We do have our arguments here and there but by and large lots of good folks here. :wavey:

 

Thanks! I think it is good folks here.

With my middle-aged, cranky a--holery coming out from time to time, and living in a house with a number of teenagers and a smarter-than-me wife (not that it's all that special to be smarter than me), have had a lot of opportunities to learn how to admit I was wrong and eat dirt, do it all the time at home. Sorry for acting so condescending with Neuhaus, thought about it later, weaseled round for a day or so trying to avoid it, but finally got the guts to come back here and apologize. It would've been a whole lot better for me just to not act like a d-ck in the first place, so don't give me too much credit.

 

I thank you for your apology and I offer my apology if I had whipped you into a frenzy.

One of the things that can be challenging here is that appeals to authority are ignored a bit more actively than in the "real" world. I'm an HR professional and people frequently tell me I'm full of crap (even when I'm talking about my area of expertise). Exercise in humility, I suppose.

In any case, I certainly don't want to see you go, either. I can safely say that the people I've most vehemently disagreed with on this forum are, after the dust settles, often people I tend to have great respect for. I think our disagreements are, oddly enough, based upon more similarities than differences. So let's move forward stronger and wiser.

 

Thanks so much, and no need to apologize. Everyone can see what was said, and I think the vast majority would agree there was nothing you wrote that justified me taking a snide shot at your education, which you've certainly earned through use of intellect and at a substantial cost of time and resources. By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a FT faculty member, but a lecturer, not a tenured or tenure track prof--though I hope to remedy that deficiency within two years.