<p>According to wikipedia:
</p>
<p>I’m trying to imagine if my son were a first year at Harvard and told me this was his peer advisor.</p>
<p>I think the timing thing was a definitely a factor…the decision was probably made before the really damning stuff came out—there’s no way, in my opinion, they would have picked her with all we know now. As for not rescinding the offer, maybe they felt it was wrong to do that, ie. a position of innocent 'til proven guilty or the position that given the boundaries they had defined concerning academic plagerism vs. something that’s outside the bounds of the school, they didn’t have the right to take it back.</p>
<p>The Crimson broke the story on April 23, one week after applications were due. By May 2, the concerns were substantial enough that it would have been better not to appoint Kaavya.</p>
<p>This is bad for Harvard PR–I can’t believe they would have brought this on themselves knowing the full picture.</p>
<p>I wonder what else she cheated on.</p>
<p>The whole mess has adversely affected others too. One of my daughter’s roommates is an Indian American with hair about the same length, and she has overheard some of the unbiquitous tourists stare at her and whisper not so quietly as she goes by: “Is that Kaavya?”</p>
<p>Hmmm. I find it difficult to believe Harvards academic advising system is so vulnerable to leadership changes and other, less important factors, that it was unaware of this kids situation. I think it is more likely that Harvard decided to let the kid move on, since she would likely do a great job, and, according to Harvard, the question of her dishonesty lays outside of the concern of the administration. If Harvard is claiming that it needs to act in a manner consistent with its decision to keep this kid, then I understand its accepting the girl as an advisor. After all, as far as Harvard is concerned, the dishonesty with her book does not keep her from doing her job at school. Fundamentally, and I hate to say this, but I think Harvard is taking advantage of the Clinton Loophole, where we are expected to allow people to act despicably in one sphere, and then treat them as a saints in others.</p>
<p>I don’t believe for one minute that “Harvard” did not know of the case; a new Dean, in any event, would make it her business to acquaint herself with Harvard by reading the Crimson more thoroughly rather than ignoring the paper.</p>
<p>Whether or not Harvard decided to use the Clinton Loophole, it is a failure to see the larger picture. It is not about how Kaavya should be treated, but how this decsion will be perceived by others and how her advisees will feel about being assigned to her. Once again, one has to ask “What were they thinking?”</p>
<p>As for Kaavya and her family, there is a French phrase that comes to mind, “elle a un sacré culot” which is not quite the same thing as chutzpah.</p>
<p>As the parent of an incoming Harvard freshman, I have been wondering how I might feel if my daughter were assigned to KV for advising. I think the problems may well remain in the bigger picture and not affect individual advisees, who will surely be well aware of KV’s history and can appropriately filter the information and advice she provides. Perhaps we’ll find out in a few weeks.</p>
<p>Well, yeah. But try to see the thing from Harvard’s point of view. If the school claims VM’s controversy does not concern it because the controversy does not concern academics, and then Harvard deliberately seeks to deny VM the full benefits given other students, Harvard would be in the wrong, right? It seems to me once Harvard decided to allow this kid to remain at the school, especially in view of the reasons the school gave for its decision, it had no choice but to treat her as it would treat every other student. Once Harvard got over the ethical hurdle initially created by the scandal, VM became a regular gal.</p>
<p>I have no problem with her being an advisor because I think the kid would do a great job. I have a problem with how she was able to stay at the school in the first place. But, c’mon, she is a kid. I have little doubt that when this thing broke, she had more than enough adult “advisors” telling her that the best policy was to lie. If this is true, then just imagine her standing up against these people, probably including her own parents, and then telling the truth. Impossible. So I don’t really scorn this kid that much. Kids do stupid things (shoot, so do adults). She was wrong, and I think she ought to pay the penalty of a lost spot at Harvard. But I don’t think she is the only guilty one here. If Harvard is gonna turn a blind eye to what she did, well, it makes sense that she be made an advisor and anything else she can be. Harvard is probably trying to let the kid move on. I really disagree with its decision, but I also understand why it might not wish to keep beating this kid to death.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier:</p>
<p>Being a peer advisor is not a benefit. I suspect the advisors are paid. I don’t think Harvard “owes” any student anything. A peer advisor is not just one who can dispense good advice; that person, to some extent, acts as a role model. In letting KV be peer advisor, Harvard is not allowing her to move on, as she continues to be in the spotlight–as she is right here on CC and will be, I’m sure, when classes resume in a month or so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>marite, according to the Crimson article linked below, 90 of the 180 peer advisors were selected and notified in a controversial fast-track no-interview process during the week of April 17-21. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512989[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512989</a></p>
<p>The very first story suggesting issues with the book appeared on Sunday April 23.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512968[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512968</a></p>
<p>I think it is very likely that nobody involved in the selection process knew of the issue at the time the first round of selections were made.</p>
<p>Edit: Dean Rinere wrote a subsequent article to describe the entire selection process in more detail.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513603[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513603</a></p>
<p>Still, drosselmeier, this is a selective process. I find it hard to believe that there were no more qualified applicants for the position than just this girl. I’m sure there was at least one more applicant with the same abilities, one who did not come with the same baggage.</p>
<p>Edit: If the selection was made before the controversy broke, then they ought to have revoked the decision. The admissions office would have done the same if they heard such a thing about a prospective student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree totally.</p>
<p>The controversy broke just a few days after their selection of the “special” advisors (the ones that wisteria says were selected without interviews, etc.). So revoking the decision wouldn’t have been that difficult–I’m sure the advisees didn’t find out right away who their advisor was going to be. Revoking the decision wouldn’t have hurt them–and they’re the people who are going to be affected most, considering Kaavya is going to be advising them. And since Harvard still had to go about selecting the other 90 advisors (the non-“special” ones) I’m sure they could pick just one more to fill Kaavya’s position.</p>
<p>comon guys give break to a 19 year old. Every one here is having ‘hollier than thou’ attidtude without knowing the full details. This thread also smells the one filled with a bit of jealousy. There are only two possibilities" (1) She intentionally did it - got caout and she did get punishment. (2) She was manipulated by adults for motives of their own - she did get punishment.</p>
<p>In either case, she was punished.</p>
<p>Even the criminals get better treatment after they have served their ‘time’</p>
<p>Simba:</p>
<p>In which way was she punished? She has been given a break. Harvard has not thrown her out. How does she “deserve” being a peer advisor? How do incoming freshmen deserve to be advised by KV?</p>
<p>“In which way was she punished?”</p>
<p>She lost her ‘name’.</p>
<p>If she cared about losing her name, she would keep herself and her name quiet for a while and hope the whole thing faded away and someone else did something worse very, very soon.</p>
<p>Nope, she is collecting material for the next book she will write. “How I Cheated, Lied and Graduated from Harvard Anyways.” And then she will go on Oprah and claim she really didn’t know that plagarizing was wrong so long as you didn’t do it for papers you submitted to Harvard, and that she was treated poorly, etc.- but then, some forgiving Dean saw the light and let her be a peer advisor and she turned her life around. Wow. </p>
<p>Honestly, where are her parents.</p>
<p>I suppose she may have lost her “good” name, but she does have a Wikipedia entry, which is more than most Harvard undergraduates have. I’m not so sure I see punishment here, as people do manage to ride out a damaged reputation, and the public has been known to have a short memory. </p>
<p>Do we know for sure that her selection as a peer advisor has not been rescinded?</p>