<p>achat, I can sympathize with your feelings, but I honestly have hardly thought about the ethnic identity of this student or her family. I think there are plenty of other examples of dishonesty (i.e. Blaire Hornstein) or gross lack of judgement (the kid at Duke who sent the horrible email the night of the frat party ‘rape’) so that this one girl does not stand out in my mind as a representative of East Indians or Americans of that origin. Lots of families of every persuasion push their kids too hard these days, and apparently lots of them teach their kids to just plow forward and never look back at their past indiscretions. To admit wrong-doing, feel shame, make amends and rebuild a moral perspective is akin to admitting defeat, I guess. And that’s not got a lot to do with ethnicity, but with our mainstream culture and perhaps our legal landscape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks, D, I see your point now. As I commented earlier, I think VK either privately repented in a way that satisfied Harvard or the selection committee was willing to segregate her book-publishing side from her college persona. My guess is that VK voiced mea culpas to the committee and was selected. Either way, I’m still disappointed in this selection. </p>
<p>Americans are incredibly forgiving when it comes to personal failure. If VK “learned her lesson”, I hope she learned it well and communicates what she learned to those whom she will be advising.</p>
<p>Americans are incredibly forgiving when it comes to personal failure. If VK “learned her lesson”,</p>
<p>I agree Americians have incredibly short memories, but IMO, there has to be a suitable space of time, before I would be at the place where I would think someone has " been learned a lesson".
Certainly, putting someone in a position of responsibilty, while the repercussions from their last act of * irresponsibility* were still in the newspapers, is not enough time I feel for a change of heart to have occurred.</p>
<p>The peer advising position and her summer position seem to really reward VK in view of her notoriety. I read that that her goal after graduation is to go into investment banking. I was hoping that all the Ibanks would take notice and shun anyone with questionable honesty and integrity. Wall Street doesn’t need more cheats. </p>
<p>I am very disappointed.</p>
<p>VK’s plagerism, awful as it is, has nothing to do with the academic standards of the school. I’d say that Harvard had no grounds to kick her out - no different than if they had a student who was in the Olympics and was found to have used steroids. This is not Harvard’s punishment to administer.</p>
<p>However, I do question the fact that she will be a peer advisor. I agree with Simba that we don’t yet know all the facts.</p>
<p>As for the advising in general, I’d be pretty astonished if a groundskeeper (or his/her boss) is my kid’s advisor. Yes, Harvard has historically had weak advising, but that was a fairly sarcastic and uncalled for comment.</p>
<p>At the pre-frosh weekend, parents were assured by one of the Deans that changes were underway and faculty advising is being improved. (Save the cracks, I’m not talking about peer advising here.) No college is perfect - Harvard just gets a lot of publicity. </p>
<p>Time will tell.</p>
<p>I’ll be back to report in September if my kid gets assigned to VK.</p>
<p>“However, I do question the fact that she will be a peer advisor. I agree with Simba that we don’t yet know all the facts.”</p>
<p>Which facts? That she will be a peer advisor or not? There are no questions left about the plagiarism. </p>
<p>*As for the advising in general, I’d be pretty astonished if a groundskeeper (or his/her boss) is my kid’s advisor. Yes, Harvard has historically had weak advising, but that was a fairly sarcastic and uncalled for comment." *</p>
<p>Unless I am mistaken, there wasn’t any sarcasm in the earlier posts about the peer advising at Harvard. On the other hand, I do not see how true statements can be labeled uncalled for, especially when made by posters with a long history of posting verifiable information about a school they know inside and out. There is a world of difference between the bashing of a ■■■■■ and the posting of negative information that is still unbiased and accurate.</p>
<p>“Gee, she’ll be a good addition to Harvard advising: complement the groundkeepers and others who advise?”</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that he knows the school inside and out.<br>
That sounded like sarcasm to me.</p>
<p>“Which facts? That she will be a peer advisor or not? There are no questions left about the plagiarism.”</p>
<p>The facts pertaining to why Harvard is allowing her to be a peer advisor at all.</p>
<p>Not sure what # post referred to a groundskeeper as advisor, I admit I dont always read carefully, but are you sure you aren’t misintrepreting?</p>
<p>If there had been a longer period, between when all this broke, and being appointed an advisor, she would have had time to have at least shown that she has learned something.</p>
<p>This is from the editorial board at the Crimson.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Not sure what # post referred to a groundskeeper as advisor”</p>
<p>Number 7</p>
<p>Based on the timeline info provided by Wisteria, I agree that “… it is very likely that nobody involved in the selection process (of peer advisors) knew of the issue at the time the first round of selections were made.”</p>
<p>So that would mean that is issue at hand is whether Harvard should have rescinded the offer once the questions of plagerism arose.</p>
<p>And regarding that, I agree with Drosselmeier that such rescinding would have been entirely inconsistent with the school’s position that the questionable actions of this girl were outside the jurisdiction of the University. Hence, the orginial position dictated their decision that they had to let the offer of an advising position stand.</p>
<p>So, the debate here is simply a rehashing of the original one: whether or not Harvard should have seen her actions in relation to her book as separate from the academic sphere of the University.</p>
<p>For me, the main consideration regarding Harvard’s original position has to do with whether the impending book deal was part of her college application and influenced her admission to the University. If this is the case, then Harvard would seem to have had sufficient grounds to terminate her enrollment once all the evidence came to light.</p>
<p>THe Crimson column brings up the point- that she refers to her status as a Harvard student to help" sell" the book. THe * mystique* and all that.
So it isn’t identified as something not connected with Harvard at all.</p>
<p>THis is asmaller scale, but for instance my daughters high school has rules that if you break them, even if you are away from campus, like on a school trip- if you are there as a school student, you will be disciplined as if it happened on campus.
So smoking drinking etc, same punishments as if you did it in the principals office, as if you did it on a camping trip to Maui.</p>
<p>Her book she “wrote”, in her role as a Harvard student, so if you use the same reasoning, it wouldnt be that far of a jump to have her disciplined as a Harvard student is it?
I think it would be much , much different, if she didn’t capitalize on her connection with the school .
I also don’t think this would have even been an issue or as big of one, if she was attending U Bloomington.</p>
<p>Twinmom,</p>
<p>If you read an earlier post of marite’s you will note her confirmation of what I alluded to in my groundskeeper comment. Yes, it was sarcastic, but also largely true. Harvard is unusual in allowing a wide range of university employees, including staffers, be advisors to undergrads. I do not know if a groundskeeper is currently an advisor, but when I was there, no rule existed to keep one from doing so. </p>
<p>Is it a good or bad system? No firsthand experience as a student, but I do know from many an alum that advising is not viewed as a strength. Of course, Harvard has plenty of company in that regard.</p>
<p>Truth is though, that advising is more important at schools like Chicago, where my D goes, because of the challenges in completing the core. Beyond core requirements, at pretty much any school, advising tends to be handled on a departmental basis anyway.</p>
<p>Just don’t be tooooo quick to criticize. Sometimes, we posters actually are in the know.</p>
<p>
If the first cut in peer advisor selection occurred before VK’s plagiarism was discovered/publicized, I assume her book contributed to why they selected her as a peer advisor. </p>
<p>If the fact that she wrote her book was known to the selection committee, and especially if she included the publication of her book in her resume when she applied to be a peer advisor (and it’s hard to believe that she did not include it), then I think Harvard would not only have grounds to rescind her selection as a peer advisor but that it would have a duty to do so once the plagiarism was uncovered. Having said that, though, Harvard certainly could have put the brakes on her selection at any time and either deliberately or inadvertently chose not to.</p>
<p>The peer advising position is given out based on an application process. It’s the same as admissions–or it should be. Admissions-wise, seniors submit applications to Harvard, and some are accepted. If accepted students get terrible grades or violate the Honor code, the university revokes admission–it’s not unheard of. Why can’t the university apply those same standards to this position?</p>
<p>Newmassdad:</p>
<p>Understood. Sometimes, however, sarcasm might be tempered while still getting one’s point across. I suppose it’s individual style.</p>
<p>According to the Sept-Oct 2006 issue of Harvard Magazine (a magazine for alumni):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This newest info confirms my original sense that Harvard’s original decision slipped through before the major scandal was known. They would never, IMO, have assigned her as a peer advisor with all that emerged. It’s not that I think Harvard does everything right, it’s just that giving her such a position amongst her peers under the currently known circumstances is a PR nightmare.</p>
<p>As the parent of an incoming frosh I read this thread with great interest. But I don’t quite get all the anger. Why do you all care so much?</p>
<p>For what it is worth, I wouldn’t care if my daughter were assigned to this young woman. I expect my daughter’s values and ethics, the ones she lives by now, will guide her, and that she’s intelligent enough to take any advice, from anyone at H, analyze it, and make the right decision for her.</p>
<p>The biggest breach of academic ethics is plagiarism. And that’s what KV committed.</p>
<p>Being a peer advisor is not a right, it is a privilege and an honor. And it is a sign that the academic deans think that one can be relied on to provide reliable and ethical advice. </p>
<p>Granted that the selection was made before the scandal broke out. But people have had their admissions to Harvard rescinded before; KV was not asked to leave Harvard; the deans could just have gone back on their decision, especially since it was not made public until after the scandal broke out.</p>
<p>IA great deal has been made of the revamping of freshman advising. f we all felt that our kids could just learn through the grapevine, the position of peer advisors would not be necessary. There are nearly 4,000 upperclassmen from among whom peer advisors could have been selected to help guide freshmen.</p>
<p>“But I don’t quite get all the anger. Why do you all care so much?”</p>
<p>This is e-lynching at its best (without knowing all the facts)</p>