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

This story is from last year, but it is very interesting. Choi failed to disclose the attendance of a community college on her application to Cornell University. After being investigated for a cheating accusation, Cornell looked at Choi's records in the National Student Clearinghouse and found that she did not send a transcript from Glendale Community College. Even though she didn't complete any courses there (received all Ws), Cornell expelled her and is requiring her to pay back $100k in aid and fines, much of which is from Cornell grants.

Cornell expels student, demands $100K in paymentThe Ithaca Voice

 

i'm never gonna hide my transcripts anymore.

:scared1::scared1::scared1:

 

It seems overly harsh to me but rules are rules.

 

peops in mgmt are always pr!ck$ ... they misguidedly think they're important.

 

Hey, you're less than 1000 posts away from being the second person to reach thew 10,ooo mark.

 

If a student withdraws they never attended the college; that's what a withdraw means. Cornell could have said, "every place you have applied and been accepted" but they did not (for obvious reasons). So simply as a matter of textual interpretation I don't think the university has a leg to stand on.

 

The article clearly states that she did attend the school just that she didn't earn a grade in her course.

My transcript from UofS shows one course with a grade of "W" (withdrawn) because I withdrew from the class mid-term. That seems to be what happened here.
She didn't just withdraw from the university without attending class. She registered for classes and withdrew from the classes. This resulted in a "W" appearing next to at least one course on her transcript.

I do find it rather amusing that you assume the University "doesn't have a leg to stand on" based upon your reading of an article in the local paper. It's an Ivy League university with a top ranked law school and a legal department bigger than many law firms. I'm pretty sure they reviewed their decision, with much more information available, before they took action.

That said it does seem extreme and she raises some pretty interesting points (i.e. the decision was not subject to appeal, she was three semesters into her program, it's kind of uncool to slap her with such an enormous bill etc.)

I'll be curious to see how it all plays out.

 

I agree. There is usually a deadline before or toward the beginning of the term to withdraw without any consequences. The deadline for withdrawing with a "W" can be as far as the middle of the term.

 

I'm a faculty member in law, have been for 12 years, the last seven FT at a state university, 21 years a member of the Bar, formerly in private practice and with a major metro law firm.

Personally, unless there's something dastardly in the undisclosed discrepancies (and there may be), on the face of it, I find Cornell's argument pretty weak. Their theory that she does not have a right to a hearing or any other form of university process because she was never really a student on a fraud in the inducement theory based on her alleged misrepresentation of material facts vis-a-vis the community college withdrawals is absurd on its face. A laugher. It's the kind of argument that attorneys make when they're using the "throw it all out there and pray something sticks" stratagem. I've used that one myself, it's usually the result of poor client control, you just can't bring your client (who is invariably ignorant of the law but who thinks you, the law whiz, can make magic) around to see that they're full of that which exits the nether regions of a bull, so you try your best to make it happen for them. Seldom works. Were Cornell a state university, the Korean student would have a very fine lawsuit based on 14th Amendment procedural due process, and I'd think any fed ct judge worth his or her salt would delight in torturing counselor Roth as he tried to make his--ahem--exotic arguments.

Just because they're Ivy or elite, doesn't mean they can veritably slap both butt cheeks in the dark. Just look at the copyright lawsuit filed years ago by Oxford and Cambridge University presses against little old Georgia State University, in which the uber elite universities pretty much had their heads handed to them in federal court.

 

Why do Universities require to report all college attendance anyway?

 

I never said that an Ivy or elite school couldn't be wrong. What I said was that it is incredibly arrogant to read a single article in a local newspaper and, from that, determine that your cursory review of selected facts is stronger than the entire legal team of an Ivy League school with a top ranked law school.

Reporters aren't lawyers. And local reporters typically have little experience reporting on legal matters. The result is often misstatements and assumptions that support one side of the narrative. A number of local publications have, for example, erroneously referred to the New York Supreme Court as "the highest court in the state." This is false, that would be the New York Court of Appeals. The NYS Supreme Court is an intermediate court (but, I guess the New York Intermediate Court doesn't have the same flair).

But, then again, you seem to be basing your legal analysis off of the same article. Have you read the briefs filed by either party? Because I'm curious if you teach law students that they needn't review the actual case and a clipping from the local newspaper would suffice.

It is very possible that this young woman's case is as reported and Cornell will ultimately lose. It's possible that Cornell's position wasn't, in fact, some elaborate strategy and someone acted hastily and now they are simply trying to see it through to save face. It is But what you've done here isn't really legal analysis. You've read a newspaper article and, under guise of being an attorney and a law professor, are proffering a personal opinion based on very few actual facts.

You also have taken the opportunity, under cover of anonymity, to crap all over the Deputy University Counsel of an Ivy League University.

So, if your "analysis" is so strong and Mr. Roth's argument is so -ahem- exotic, then perhaps you should have the fortitude to 1) actually read the filings and 2) criticize Mr. Roth under your own name.

I have no skin in the game of this fight, mind you. I just find it a bit ludicrous that a supposed law professor would make such casual remarks without even giving the appearance of having actually evaluated the case.

Anyway, as I had said, colleges frequently require you to provide all of your transcripts. She didn't. But one must also not forget that this whole transcript debacle came about following an accusation of cheating. Quite possibly there were other factors at play. Even still, slapping a student with a six figure bill seems a bit excessive. Maybe it's excessive for no other reason than it would utterly destroy most students (particularly one who requires financial aid). Being saddled with $100k for three semesters of schooling (which may not be transferable for a few reasons) could very well be the difference between early success in a career or floundering. I'll be curious to see how the whole thing plays out.

 

So that you can't just run away from a bad experience.

Let's say I apply to Notre Dame as a new (non-transfer) student in Accounting. If I attempted three semesters in Accounting at a Community College and basically had crappy grades throughout that would never lead to graduation then Notre Dame might have a decent expectation that I'm not going to succeed with them.

Or, perhaps more sinisterly, perhaps I was kicked out of a program for cheating at School "A" and want to keep the transcripts from School "B."

As I stated once before, my ex had been expelled from two MSW programs (the first for poor academic performance and the second for failing to disclose her having been kicked out of the first). She eventually did get an MSW (or she's publicly lying about having one) and, I can only imagine, she didn't disclose either expulsion to the school that awarded her degree.

So schools require these reports, in part, because students lie.

 

Different schools do it differently. Some schools have what is known as a physical presence requirement while other school have a registration requirement. In other words, in some schools in order for a person to have been "in attendance" they must have physically attended class in some manner--traditionally a butt had to be in a seat. That was the case at my undergraduate school. On the other hand in other schools it is enough that a student be registered for classes to be counted as "in attendance" even if they never had a physical presence on campus. That was the case at my graduate school. Think of it as the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" in the law. It isn't clear what the "W" on her transcripts means. As I understand the case Cornell is arguing that "in attendance" means "de jure" attendance regardless of whether that is the actual policy of the school that the student attended. Meanwhile, she is saying that the school she attended uses a physical presence requirement and since she never bothered to go to class she was never "in attendance" regardless of what her transcripts say.

In any event, it isn't clear that the meaning of the "attended" language in the Cornell application packet is self-evident and that an applicant would have fair notice of what it meant. Let me give another example, a personal one. During my undergraduate education I spent a summer taking classes at another school and transferred those classes back to my main school, where they appear as transfer credits. I never, ever have listed School B on any application ever because I've always believed that it is self-evident that I went there for my transcript from school A. But using Cornell's logic I would be as guilty as she because I failed to document it separately on an application to their school. Rubbish.

 

It's an interesting take, jumbodog. The thing is that transcripts don't show whether a butt ever hit the seat or not.

If I get an "F" for a course it could mean that I failed every single test despite my best efforts. Or it could mean that I registered, paid and never showed up.

This student received a "W" for at least one course. That could be because she registered for the class and then changed her mind or she registered for the class, attended the class and dropped it. Transcripts don't include attendance record. So I can register for a class and pay for it then never show up. My transcript is going to show an "F." Is it your contention that I should willfully withhold that transcript from a future college on the basis that it wasn't an earned "F?" That it simply doesn't count because I never physically attended?

I realize here we are dealing with a non-grade. But if you agree that Cornell should have the opportunity to review my "unearned" F then they should also have the opportunity to review my "W" as many of the same criteria could apply and Cornell has no way of knowing whether I physically attended the class or not. Ultimately, it's just not that hard of a requirement. Want to apply for a degree program? Send all of your transcripts. Maybe she didn't know that the "W" would even result in a transcript. But when applying to a top tier school, you should probably double check that sort of thing.

 

Here's my suggestion for you: You should try in the future to stick to making commentary upon those areas in which an MSM and bachelor's from a for-profit institution would qualify you to make commentary and allow people who are experts within a given field to make commentary upon their field. Just an idea for you there so that you don't make an ass of yourself in the future. Friendly advice.

 

I see. So tell me, in your 21 years as a member of the bar (during which time you formulate complete legal opinions from local news articles and anonymously lash out at lawyers who are arguably more successful than yourself) have you relied solely on ad hominem attacks to make your point? Or do you just behave like a little troll when you have the benefit of anonymity? Please help clarify things. I'm trying to decide whether this is an instance of "those who can't, teach" or, far more likely, a person pretending to be a law professor under cover of the anonymity of the web.

 

Oh, and "counselor?" In another thread, where you shared your wisdom regarding the Liverpool DBA you stated:

My dept (I teach in an accounting dept) just hired a prof for a TT position who has a DBA. This is neither unusual nor exceptional.

So, to clarify things, are you teaching in a law school or in an accounting department? Considering in this thread you indicated that you've been a faculty member in a law school for 12 years in this thread I'm sure you can understand my confusion.

 

FTFaculty (with all 17-postings) has been called out … :cool2:

 

I this article reminds me of Troy University admitted me into conditional status until I provided them a copy of Indiana University's correspondence courses. Even though I did not earn grade except 3 "W's" in Calculus, History, and English. I did not disclosure Indiana University in my application, but they found it out.

 

I acted like a jerk in a previous response to you, Neuhaus. A total ass, and I'm sorry Neuhaus. No excuse for it. My wrong entirely.