Colleges Can Rescind Degrees!

I don't see why they took away the spy's degree.
sure, he gave a fake name, so what ?
did he do the work ? yes
did he earn the grades ? yes

if they found out he cheated on the exams, then sure, take away the degree, but if he earned it, then just suck it up
you've got a spy as an alumnus, live with it

 

Notice it says they took the degree for what he did after he received the degree. Isn't a degree for what people did before they got the degree? Notice the college said they wanted to sever the connection with Mugabe by taking his degree. Gee, its news to me that former students from 20 years ago have a formal connection to their university. I left a job 20 years ago, do I still have a connection to the company?

The reality is what I said before, a degree is not something you own, it is a seal of approval that can be canceled when they no longer approve of you.

 

The fact is, he did not own his degree. He merely paid for a seal of approval. BYU no longer approves of him, so his degree was taken. And no refund.

 

It's different with an honorary degree, IMO.

 

I think rescinding a degree may actually be good in cases were student loans taken out to earn the degree are also wiped out. The truth is once a student earns a degree, depending on what they do, rescending may not stop them from still benefiting from that degree. Further, as opined by cesmith78 above, rescinding a degree due to inability to repay student loans would actually be a viable option for many, so be careful what you wish for.

 

A college degree is like a software license. When people buy Windows, they do not own the software. They get a license to use it with a bunch of rules attached. The same with a college degree. Since a degree is like a license the college can revoke it, prevent you from using the name of the university on your resume.

People cannot take away what you own. Can GM take your car if you do something with it you do not like? Of course not, you own it. But since you do not own your degree the college can take it at will.

As far as taking away degrees for student loans nonpayment, they already withhold the transcript if the loan is owned to the school. Without the transcript the degree is worthless since anybody that cares about the degree wants the official transcripts. Besides, people end up not being able to pay loans because the degree was worthless. Victims of consumer fraud.

 

Yeah, but most of the time (especially with the changes as of June) the people who owe money for student loans don't owe it to the school. They owe it to the loan company (which happens to be the Government after June, unless they get private loans.) The school generally has nothing to do with the status of loans once the loan is found, the person signs on the dotted line for it and then the school gets its $.

So, why again should schools be allowed to recind degrees for nonpayment of loan they have nothing to do with other than being the recipients for the money?

 

I agree, the honorary degree is them bestowing an honor because of something that he has done. When he heads in the extreme opposite I would say they have every right to remove that honor.

As far as the other stuff, of course it sucks. I just don't think it is an issue. There are a few extreme cases and if all colleges work on this policy then what do you propose doing about it?

This is a discussion similar to capital punishment. It will never happen to you but because you don't like it we should all worry about it.

 

I see both sides of this issue.

Cheating, plagiarism, and academic fraud are rampant on college campuses and increasing dramatically. There are cases where students have completely fabricated their transcripts, letters of recommendation, completely made up the experiences they've described on their college essays. There are lots of cases of students hiring others to take tests for them.

A degree is not only an affirmation that a student has gained a certain amount of knowledge and understanding, it is essentially creating an association between the student and the university. While I would not condone the revocation of a degree for acts committed after a student graduated, for disagreement with political views, or that sort of thing, I do see the reasoning behind revoking the degree of a student who was found to have plagiarized, cheated, or otherwise committed academic fraud, either while a student, or on their application.

I reject the notion that the purpose of the application is solely to determine whether the student can perform adequately. I believe it also has to do with the character of the school and the student population. If a student lies materially on his application, then he likely has also been dishonest in his academic performance. And since nearly every school has an honor code, violation of that honor code is serious and can result in expulsion. Why should it be any different just because the information did not come to light until later?

I believe that policies like this, appropriately and reasonably enforced within the limits I've described above, will help to discourage aberrant behavior, and will help to maintain both the academic integrity, and the institutional integrity of a school.

 

That would be the common sense take on it Chip. It is also the way it should be. If they find out you cheated your way through, then by all means, take it away. If they don't like the way you look on your Facebook page holding a plastic cup, then no they should not.
We can all remember the case of the lady who graduated with her degree only to have it taken away because she had a picture on Facebook with the caption ”drunken pirate.”
The more I looked into this, the more cases I found on the net about this. Those are the ones who made it into the news, how many don't? This is really not that rare.

 

Security Fix - Court Rules Against Teacher in MySpace 'Drunken Pirate' Case

 

Not that rare? Throw out some numbers of the amount of people who graduate and the number who have their degree taken away. I bet it is more statistically insignificant than spontaneous combustion.

 

Rare-not happening or found often (Encarta)

Seems this does not fit the meaning of “Rare”

I never offered to throw out any numbers, nor did I even bring that aspect of it up. What I am saying is that it happens every year.

 

That judge is a dumbass.

 

Rare, not happening often. It would be in relation to the amount of events it is compared to. It is rare compared to the amount of people who don't have their degrees rescinded. That is why I mentioned numbers. How many people earn degrees and how many has this happened to? It definitely doesn't happen "often," I wouldn't think. It would be interesting to see how often it really does happen and what were the factors involved. I am in the military and we have "Good Order and Discipline" which comes out quarterly and lists all of the different infractions and the judgements, it would be similar. Of course there isn't anything for actions such as this.

 

I would be willing to bet that as a part of the enrollment process at any legitimate university/college, the student is required to sign certain legal documents that are all written in fine print and hardly, if ever are the actually read. I'm betting that the student gives the university permission to do all sorts of things when she signs.

 

I agree with Chip. I also think JB shouldn't be calling Zanger a closet criminal, that was a severe accusation based on absolutely nothing with the sole intent of being incendiary.

I think that a college should not be able to take a degree away for anything done after graduation. There should also be some sort of 10 year limitation for legitimate reasons while in college, also the burden of proof should fall on the school with an outside court making the final ruling. Making a school look bad is not a good reason to take away a credential.

This issue is closely related to the issue of strong citizen surveillance. I believe that it is inappropriate because the government is highly fallible, in this case, I would say the school is highly fallible. Generally republicans favor stronger surveillance, and thanks to them we have an astronomical incarceration rate. I believe this is a totalitarian attitude and a publicly funded school is similar to a small government. Nobody has the right to take my degree based on "reasons not specified" or almost any other reason. My loyalties, beliefs, etc, have no relevance to my degree.

Also, lying on an application shouldn't void it either. Only academic dishonesty of the highest level during your time at that school should void it.

Why is everybody so willing to trust the government, your school, your corporations? That attitude will be the death of us! Or at least our respective freedoms and governments.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this. If you engage in fraud to enter into a binding contract with an institution, that contract should become null and void once the fraud is revealed. Thus they should be able to rescind the degree.

 

Hmmm, I suppose it is a contract; however, say I lie when getting a job, you can fire me but you cannot make me pay you back for work performed without suing me and proving my work was poorer because of it. Is that statement correct? If I'm still in school, expel me, but you can't take back my "wages".

Does that make any sense?

And if I got the grades, how are you going to prove my work was inadequate?

Maybe my assumptions are wrong. If that's not how it is, I think that's how it should be