Cornell academic program coordinator may have played role in UNC scandal . . .

[Towerroad]

Article in Ithaca Journal: http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2014/10/23/cornell-employee-unc-scandal/17785791/

Based on the IJ article it appears as if Cornell could care less about her active participation in academic fraud, as long as it doesn't happen at Cornell.

Shameful.

So tell me, what should Cornell do, fire her? If so ,why? If not, then what should they do?

They have said they have nothing to do with what happened at UNC, and thus nothing to say about the report, at this time (my addition).

I said, "If true, they should fire her." So, rightfully I think, they are letting the process work through. I hope you wouldn't punish someone just because something is reported in the press.

Jim, I'm on the same page -- as an attorney I do believe in due process.  But certainly I don't want Cornell simply saying "it's UNC's problem" and washing their hands of the entire situation.  If there is sufficient proof that Reynolds did what the report said she did -- and her own e-mail is rather damning evidence -- then she should be fired.

This post is certainly of a different tone than your first. Let the process unwind before you condemn Cornell.

Yeah, in hindsight my initial post was a bit more forceful than intended.

Unless the employee made a significant misrepesentation about her background I doubt that Cornell has a reason to fire her. If she told the truth on her application and resume and Cornell hired her then she should be judged by the job she does at Cornell.

Honestly, is anybody really surprised that this sort of thing happens. Reminds me of Casablanca


Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

[aloud]

Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

[scoop85]

Article in Ithaca Journal: http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2014/10/23/cornell-employee-unc-scandal/17785791/

Based on the IJ article it appears as if Cornell could care less about her active participation in academic fraud, as long as it doesn't happen at Cornell.

Shameful.

So tell me, what should Cornell do, fire her? If so ,why? If not, then what should they do?

They have said they have nothing to do with what happened at UNC, and thus nothing to say about the report, at this time (my addition).

I said, "If true, they should fire her." So, rightfully I think, they are letting the process work through. I hope you wouldn't punish someone just because something is reported in the press.

Jim, I'm on the same page -- as an attorney I do believe in due process.  But certainly I don't want Cornell simply saying "it's UNC's problem" and washing their hands of the entire situation.  If there is sufficient proof that Reynolds did what the report said she did -- and her own e-mail is rather damning evidence -- then she should be fired.

This post is certainly of a different tone than your first. Let the process unwind before you condemn Cornell.

Yeah, in hindsight my initial post was a bit more forceful than intended.

Unless the employee made a significant misrepesentation about her background I doubt that Cornell has a reason to fire her. If she told the truth on her application and resume and Cornell hired her then she should be judged by the job she does at Cornell.

Honestly, is anybody really surprised that this sort of thing happens. Reminds me of Casablanca


Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

[aloud]

Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

So, I'm sure that during her interview she said, "I participated in academic fraud at UNC, so I thought I'd come back to Cornell before it hit the fan," and the interviewer said, "great -- when can you start?"

Give me a break.

[Towerroad]

Article in Ithaca Journal: http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2014/10/23/cornell-employee-unc-scandal/17785791/

Based on the IJ article it appears as if Cornell could care less about her active participation in academic fraud, as long as it doesn't happen at Cornell.

Shameful.

So tell me, what should Cornell do, fire her? If so ,why? If not, then what should they do?

They have said they have nothing to do with what happened at UNC, and thus nothing to say about the report, at this time (my addition).

I said, "If true, they should fire her." So, rightfully I think, they are letting the process work through. I hope you wouldn't punish someone just because something is reported in the press.

Jim, I'm on the same page -- as an attorney I do believe in due process.  But certainly I don't want Cornell simply saying "it's UNC's problem" and washing their hands of the entire situation.  If there is sufficient proof that Reynolds did what the report said she did -- and her own e-mail is rather damning evidence -- then she should be fired.

This post is certainly of a different tone than your first. Let the process unwind before you condemn Cornell.

Yeah, in hindsight my initial post was a bit more forceful than intended.

Unless the employee made a significant misrepesentation about her background I doubt that Cornell has a reason to fire her. If she told the truth on her application and resume and Cornell hired her then she should be judged by the job she does at Cornell.

Honestly, is anybody really surprised that this sort of thing happens. Reminds me of Casablanca


Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

[aloud]

Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

So, I'm sure that during her interview she said, "I participated in academic fraud at UNC, so I thought I'd come back to Cornell before it hit the fan," and the interviewer said, "great -- when can you start?"

Give me a break.

The topic probably never came up. If she did not misrepresent herself to Cornell then she should be judged on her Cornell performance. You can create a perfectly true resume without putting an embarassing event on the document. Nobody puts the embarrassing stuff on their resume. Would you? She was not under any obligation to disclose an embarassing fact. If Cornell asked and she did not tell the truth that is a different matter.

Next time you apply for a job, think about all the times you did embarassing or stupid things and put them on your resume.

I am not condoning what happened at UNC by any means but I am also not so green as to think this activity is not replicated 100's of other institutions.

[KeithK]

If the stories are true then this isn't just something "embarrassing" that she did at her last job. Its committing academic fraud. A pattern of such behavior indicates that this individual is unsuited for a job as ana academic program coordinator.

I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cornell has clauses in their emplyment agreements that would allow for dismissal on these grounds.

Cornell absolutely should wait until this situation plays itself out. Even though this isn't a court she deserves the presumption of innocence until culpubility is clearly demonstrated.

[Towerroad]

If the stories are true then this isn't just something "embarrassing" that she did at her last job. Its committing academic fraud. A pattern of such behavior indicates that this individual is unsuited for a job as ana academic program coordinator.

I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cornell has clauses in their emplyment agreements that would allow for dismissal on these grounds.

Cornell absolutely should wait until this situation plays itself out. Even though this isn't a court she deserves the presumption of innocence until culpubility is clearly demonstrated.

First off I doubt that Cornell has employment agreements for people in these positions. I suspect they are employees at will.

Secondly, who exactly committeed academic fraud? The person in quesiton was not an academic (an important distintion in academia). The fraud was committeed by the instructor (an academic) who clearly did not do their job and potentially by the "student" (an academic) who did not do theirs either. The advisor was just that someone who know where the "gut" classes were and encouraged "students" to take them.

Did you ever take a "gut"? Were you guilty of fraud? Or was the instructor guilty of fraud? The answer to the second question is quite possibly yes, at the least consumer fraud for failing to deliver value for the very considerable sums in question.

Provided the person in question did not lie on her application or interview, Cornell has little recourse if she is doing the administrative job she was hired for.

[Jim Hyla]

If the stories are true then this isn't just something "embarrassing" that she did at her last job. Its committing academic fraud. A pattern of such behavior indicates that this individual is unsuited for a job as ana academic program coordinator.

I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cornell has clauses in their emplyment agreements that would allow for dismissal on these grounds.

Cornell absolutely should wait until this situation plays itself out. Even though this isn't a court she deserves the presumption of innocence until culpubility is clearly demonstrated.

First off I doubt that Cornell has employment agreements for people in these positions. I suspect they are employees at will.

Secondly, who exactly committeed academic fraud? The person in quesiton was not an academic (an important distintion in academia). The fraud was committeed by the instructor (an academic) who clearly did not do their job and potentially by the "student" (an academic) who did not do theirs either. The advisor was just that someone who know where the "gut" classes were and encouraged "students" to take them.

Did you ever take a "gut"? Were you guilty of fraud? Or was the instructor guilty of fraud? The answer to the second question is quite possibly yes, at the least consumer fraud for failing to deliver value for the very considerable sums in question.

Provided the person in question did not lie on her application or interview, Cornell has little recourse if she is doing the administrative job she was hired for.

Unless you have knowledge of Cornell's contracts, I don't know where you get the basis for saying this.

[Towerroad]

If the stories are true then this isn't just something "embarrassing" that she did at her last job. Its committing academic fraud. A pattern of such behavior indicates that this individual is unsuited for a job as ana academic program coordinator.

I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cornell has clauses in their emplyment agreements that would allow for dismissal on these grounds.

Cornell absolutely should wait until this situation plays itself out. Even though this isn't a court she deserves the presumption of innocence until culpubility is clearly demonstrated.

First off I doubt that Cornell has employment agreements for people in these positions. I suspect they are employees at will.

Secondly, who exactly committeed academic fraud? The person in quesiton was not an academic (an important distintion in academia). The fraud was committeed by the instructor (an academic) who clearly did not do their job and potentially by the "student" (an academic) who did not do theirs either. The advisor was just that someone who know where the "gut" classes were and encouraged "students" to take them.

Did you ever take a "gut"? Were you guilty of fraud? Or was the instructor guilty of fraud? The answer to the second question is quite possibly yes, at the least consumer fraud for failing to deliver value for the very considerable sums in question.

Provided the person in question did not lie on her application or interview, Cornell has little recourse if she is doing the administrative job she was hired for.

Unless you have knowledge of Cornell's contracts, I don't know where you get the basis for saying this.

I suggested that there was no employment contract. I have never had an employment contract and I suspect that the vast majority of posters here have not either. Do you have knowledge to the contrary. If so I will stand corrected.

My fundamental point is that the person in question is not an academic and you have to be an academic (instructor, prof, researcher, student, dean etc) to commit academic fraud. Only an academic can commit academic fraud.

Academics jealously guard their "Academic Freedom" this includes the right to grade as they see fit. If they have Academic Freedom then they have to take responsibility for their use of that freedom. UNC fired a few at the bottom of this scheme and then said "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

I spent a semester as an instructor of Stats at a local U. I was unsure about the grading ruberic and asked the chairman of my program about what mean and standard deviaiton should be. He looked genuinely puzzled at the question and had no answer. I don't think anyone ever asked him that sort of question before. Of course I should just use my best judgement. I could have given all A's or all D's and nobody could change them.

My point is that the person who made it know what the needed grade was did not do anything wrong. I had students who came to me with tales of woe about the grade they needed. The person who committeed fraud was the person solely responsible for issuing the grade the instructor and the instructors academic supervisors if they knew what was going on.

The whole business stinks of course and far more heads should role but will not. The NC$$ will make a few grumbling noises and then the same thing will go on an 100's of other Universities (can you be sure it is not happening at Cornell?).

The interesting question is, since UNC is public and the public's money is involved did the perpetrators committ actual fraud which could entail becoming a guest of the state.

[scoop85]

If the stories are true then this isn't just something "embarrassing" that she did at her last job. Its committing academic fraud. A pattern of such behavior indicates that this individual is unsuited for a job as ana academic program coordinator.

I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cornell has clauses in their emplyment agreements that would allow for dismissal on these grounds.

Cornell absolutely should wait until this situation plays itself out. Even though this isn't a court she deserves the presumption of innocence until culpubility is clearly demonstrated.

First off I doubt that Cornell has employment agreements for people in these positions. I suspect they are employees at will.

Secondly, who exactly committeed academic fraud? The person in quesiton was not an academic (an important distintion in academia). The fraud was committeed by the instructor (an academic) who clearly did not do their job and potentially by the "student" (an academic) who did not do theirs either. The advisor was just that someone who know where the "gut" classes were and encouraged "students" to take them.

Did you ever take a "gut"? Were you guilty of fraud? Or was the instructor guilty of fraud? The answer to the second question is quite possibly yes, at the least consumer fraud for failing to deliver value for the very considerable sums in question.

Provided the person in question did not lie on her application or interview, Cornell has little recourse if she is doing the administrative job she was hired for.

Unless you have knowledge of Cornell's contracts, I don't know where you get the basis for saying this.

I suggested that there was no employment contract. I have never had an employment contract and I suspect that the vast majority of posters here have not either. Do you have knowledge to the contrary. If so I will stand corrected.

My fundamental point is that the person in question is not an academic and you have to be an academic (instructor, prof, researcher, student, dean etc) to commit academic fraud. Only an academic can commit academic fraud.

Academics jealously guard their "Academic Freedom" this includes the right to grade as they see fit. If they have Academic Freedom then they have to take responsibility for their use of that freedom. UNC fired a few at the bottom of this scheme and then said "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

I spent a semester as an instructor of Stats at a local U. I was unsure about the grading ruberic and asked the chairman of my program about what mean and standard deviaiton should be. He looked genuinely puzzled at the question and had no answer. I don't think anyone ever asked him that sort of question before. Of course I should just use my best judgement. I could have given all A's or all D's and nobody could change them.

My point is that the person who made it know what the needed grade was did not do anything wrong. I had students who came to me with tales of woe about the grade they needed. The person who committeed fraud was the person solely responsible for issuing the grade the instructor and the instructors academic supervisors if they knew what was going on.

The whole business stinks of course and far more heads should role but will not. The NC$$ will make a few grumbling noises and then the same thing will go on an 100's of other Universities (can you be sure it is not happening at Cornell?).

The interesting question is, since UNC is public and the public's money is involved did the perpetrators committ actual fraud which could entail becoming a guest of the state.

Even if only a faculty member can be guilty of perpetrating academic fraud (and I'm not so sure that's correct), Reynolds quite possibly conspired to commit academic fraud -- her own email cited in the report puts her squarely in the crosshairs.

Based on the information in the public domain I'll be disappointed if Cornell doesn't thoroughly investigate the circumstances of her hiring, especially what if any information was divulged regarding her activities at UNC

[Towerroad]

If the stories are true then this isn't just something "embarrassing" that she did at her last job. Its committing academic fraud. A pattern of such behavior indicates that this individual is unsuited for a job as ana academic program coordinator.

I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cornell has clauses in their emplyment agreements that would allow for dismissal on these grounds.

Cornell absolutely should wait until this situation plays itself out. Even though this isn't a court she deserves the presumption of innocence until culpubility is clearly demonstrated.

First off I doubt that Cornell has employment agreements for people in these positions. I suspect they are employees at will.

Secondly, who exactly committeed academic fraud? The person in quesiton was not an academic (an important distintion in academia). The fraud was committeed by the instructor (an academic) who clearly did not do their job and potentially by the "student" (an academic) who did not do theirs either. The advisor was just that someone who know where the "gut" classes were and encouraged "students" to take them.

Did you ever take a "gut"? Were you guilty of fraud? Or was the instructor guilty of fraud? The answer to the second question is quite possibly yes, at the least consumer fraud for failing to deliver value for the very considerable sums in question.

Provided the person in question did not lie on her application or interview, Cornell has little recourse if she is doing the administrative job she was hired for.

Unless you have knowledge of Cornell's contracts, I don't know where you get the basis for saying this.

I suggested that there was no employment contract. I have never had an employment contract and I suspect that the vast majority of posters here have not either. Do you have knowledge to the contrary. If so I will stand corrected.

My fundamental point is that the person in question is not an academic and you have to be an academic (instructor, prof, researcher, student, dean etc) to commit academic fraud. Only an academic can commit academic fraud.

Academics jealously guard their "Academic Freedom" this includes the right to grade as they see fit. If they have Academic Freedom then they have to take responsibility for their use of that freedom. UNC fired a few at the bottom of this scheme and then said "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

I spent a semester as an instructor of Stats at a local U. I was unsure about the grading ruberic and asked the chairman of my program about what mean and standard deviaiton should be. He looked genuinely puzzled at the question and had no answer. I don't think anyone ever asked him that sort of question before. Of course I should just use my best judgement. I could have given all A's or all D's and nobody could change them.

My point is that the person who made it know what the needed grade was did not do anything wrong. I had students who came to me with tales of woe about the grade they needed. The person who committeed fraud was the person solely responsible for issuing the grade the instructor and the instructors academic supervisors if they knew what was going on.

The whole business stinks of course and far more heads should role but will not. The NC$$ will make a few grumbling noises and then the same thing will go on an 100's of other Universities (can you be sure it is not happening at Cornell?).

The interesting question is, since UNC is public and the public's money is involved did the perpetrators committ actual fraud which could entail becoming a guest of the state.

Even if only a faculty member can be guilty of perpetrating academic fraud (and I'm not so sure that's correct), Reynolds quite possibly conspired to commit academic fraud -- her own email cited in the report puts her squarely in the crosshairs.

Based on the information in the public domain I'll be disappointed if Cornell doesn't thoroughly investigate the circumstances of her hiring, especially what if any information was divulged regarding her activities at UNC

I would like to clarify 3 points in my argeument

1. Students can commit academic fraud they are part of the academic community. Deans, Dept Heads, Provosts, and Presidents can as well. I do not think that people who's job function is adminsitrative can. At a University there is a very real class structure line between those that consider themselves "Academis" and those lesser administrative beings that existe merely to serve them.

2. Academic fraud is not a crime. I am not sure that conspiracy to commit it is even a real thing.

3. The "Students" involved also bear some responsibility. If they took one of these courses should their diploma's be revoked?

My supositions are based on the person in question being a member of the lower admintrative class and being an employee at will. I am certain that Cornell is looking at her application and resume. But, if she did not lie on those documents then the decision to hire her is Cornell's. For all we know she told the University about her experience.

Finally, I think it would be healthy if the NC AG began investigating with an eye towards prosecution. A dean or AD or two doing the perp walk would be a real wake up call for an incredibly corrupt system.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Finally, I think it would be healthy if the NC AG began investigating with an eye towards prosecution. A dean or AD or two doing the perp walk would be a real wake up call for an incredibly corrupt system.

That'll never happen.  Think about all of the income that comes into North Carolina every Saturday afternoon (or every time there's a basketball game).  Nobody wants to kill that golden-egg laying goose.

[Jim Hyla]

And my point is that none of us have any idea about her hiring, contract or not. So none of us can make any statement, based upon facts, about what Cornell can do.

[Towerroad]

Finally, I think it would be healthy if the NC AG began investigating with an eye towards prosecution. A dean or AD or two doing the perp walk would be a real wake up call for an incredibly corrupt system.

That'll never happen.  Think about all of the income that comes into North Carolina every Saturday afternoon (or every time there's a basketball game).  Nobody wants to kill that golden-egg laying goose.

I agree, no AG is going to get reelected for putting killing the golden goose. I suspect that the NC$$ will have to issue some sort of sanction complete with double talk and hyprocacy.

[Towerroad]

And my point is that none of us have any idea about her hiring, contract or not. So none of us can make any statement, based upon facts, about what Cornell can do.

I forgot that Al Gore invented the internet soley for the purpose of diseminating verifyalby true statements and that idle conjecture and speculation is strictly forbidden. My bad, I hope the fine is not too big.

[Jim Hyla]

And my point is that none of us have any idea about her hiring, contract or not. So none of us can make any statement, based upon facts, about what Cornell can do.

I forgot that Al Gore invented the internet soley for the purpose of diseminating verifyalby true statements and that idle conjecture and speculation is strictly forbidden. My bad, I hope the fine is not too big.

Thanks, I couldn't have said it better myself. It fits the prior statement to a T.

[ugarte]

Both of you, grow up. Do people disagree with you offline? Is this how you react? Or do you nod your head and walk away? At least take it to PM. Holy shit.