Sure there is a net social benefit. You might as well say that corporate officers who cheat to enrich or advance themselves might as well be left unpunished, as if punishing them has no net social benefit. The benefit is that somewhere down the line perhaps the next prospective cheater - or cheating-related lawsuit-filer - will recall what happened to her, and choose not to follow her example. Which would mean: less cheating. Which would mean: a more fairly-operating system of education. Which is beneficial.
"The next prospective cheater" is going to act based not on the severity of the punitive punishment meted out to this, or any other individual student - which is significant solely as it influences his or her ability to obtain placement in the upcoming year, professional or academic - but instead on his or her perception of the school's ability to detect the wrongdoing in the future, from which all other consequences stem.
The functional punishment - notification of transcript recipients that this person was academically dishonest - is still operative in this instance, even though she will receive her diploma. That same punishment is what future cheaters can expect to run up against. Everything else - lengthy suspension - is either small potatoes, or, in the case of suggestions that she should have repeated the year in full, pointless drudgework that will only delay personal development. The answer isn't to demand that she "rewind" and "replay" her life, but that she move on.
Further, if the school has such problems with cheaters that it must deal with these actions on a regular basis, then the optimal approach is a better curriculum of ethical education that works to discourage these individuals from "probing the system" for likely vulnerabilities.
Lose the quotes around proper; and ditch the word apparent. As for 'contributing to someone else's misfortune,' boo fucking hoo if you mean the cheater. She's responsible for her own misfortune, here.
This is the point of view I can't understand. What makes you think that a cheater, standout or not, is really a threat to somebody who holds an earned degree? This is why I never worried about suspected dishonesty during my undergraduate years. If the individual cheated their way to a position for which they are actually ineligible, that will become quickly apparent through their sheer ineptitude. And, if they obtain, and hold, a job despite their dishonesty, then obviously your perception of the value of your degree is incorrect.
Hardly. The school can decide alone, after having been informed of her actions. It's proper to see to it that a school to which she applies has the information regarding her cheating. Making sure that they have that information is not the same as forcing - or even necessarily influencing - their decision one way, or the other.
All those who request her transcript will be made aware of the dishonesty. The intervention of the peanut gallery is unnecessary.
And obviously, those who want to inform the university of how much of a snot this girl is are motivated primarily by indignation. Nobody else gives a shit. Why waste one's time? It's spit in the bucket, and, even after "deep thought" is applied, is really a silly approach.
You don't get to a verdict of any sort, without a trial. And a trial includes a position for someone whose role it is, to lobby for a guilty verdict. We call them prosecutors.
The people on this board aren't prosecutors. They want to file the equivalent of
amicus curiæ briefs because they are interested in having a big, smarmy smile at somebody else's misfortune.
Oh, I don't know - a hope that academic institutions reward virtuous and ethical behavior, and avoid rewarding dishonest and unethical behavior?
Have I got news for you! Academic institutions routinely award behavior that is distinctly unmeritorious, and even non-virtuous. As for-profit institutions, many universities employ professors because of their ability to bring in grant money. In return, these men and women enjoy immunity from criticism of their teaching ability. As for-profit institutions, many universities perpetrate grade inflation: staff are discouraged, or even prevented, from assigning low marks, even when deserved, in order to avoid complaints that could threaten the school's ability to retain, or attract, paying boarders.
Considering the influence such institutions have upon their graduates, can you perceive a social benefit, there? Or do you find universities that are content to accept and graduate liars and cheats to be interchangeable with institutions that strive to accept and graduate people of more sound moral character?
Most top universities in this nation fit the description provided above.
Taking steps to keep this girl out really isn't virtuous. It certainly isn't socially beneficial. Her quality of life will be reduced if she cannot find means of self-improvement.
Ah, so now she's an actor and she's just pretending to cry and blubber on camera about the grave injustice she suffered, just to make her parents happy? You're even more full of shit than usual.
She isn't necessarily anything. Kindly pay attention to my point: your analysis of her attitude is subjective. Frankly, the video made her look more pathetic than smarmy.
Bullshit. If the outcome is ethical, then there is nothing wrong with "self-starting" it. If it is unethical, then it is unethical regardless of whether it is "self-starting". You have NO ethical grounds for this nonsensical position of yours.
That people would get "self-started" over this issue is disturbing. It's small fish. Like, krill small.
And I've articulated the ethical grounds quite clearly.
Classic mindless conservative thinking: projecting psychological motives onto an action as a way of judging its ethics, rather than looking at the objective ramifications of the action. This is not an ethics system; this is just you desperately spin-doctoring your obstinacy.
I've discussed the objective ramifications throughout.
And they can also decide with help from people who give them information they might not otherwise have. There is no reason why the school would necessarily know about this lawsuit unless someone tells them. It won't show up on her transcript.
A convenient reminder that you have yet to address the fact that this lawsuit may have been the work of her parents.
