UCLA rejects 52 applicants for plagiarism in their essay

I still can't feel bad for those who paid consultants to write their essays. I have enough friends and family, who had been through the application process when I decided to apply, which is why I felt comfortable consulting them instead. However, I am certain that there are people who have no such resources. And so, I totally understand that some people have to pay for professional services so that they can be asked all the necessary leading questions to help them figure out how to package themselves effectively. Having a consultant write your essays is a totally different story. It is inexcusable for anybody to pay somebody and take whatever they get back from these paid consultants as a final product. It is lazy and unethical, and I am glad that schools are starting to do something to weed these slackers out.

Using turnitin by UCLA is not a great strategy. My college used it, and the software used to mark a lot of content to be from the net though it wasn't the case; I had written the material. My college usually let the students explain the match.

The software must have matured since then, but 10% is not a good threshold.

Good to see this development!

I wonder if all our apps are archived into Turnitin's database?

What about accidental plagiarism? Maybe you read a passage a year ago in some obscure paper and then unknowingly reproduce it in your application essay thinking it to be your own? Obviously, this is still plagiarism. And with so much information being published online and so easily available, an applicant cant really be keeping a track of all the articles he has read.

So what do applicants have to do? Use a service like writecheck https://www.writecheck.com/static/home.html every time they submit an essay?

I can only imagine this getting tougher and more frustrating as the years go by.

I am all for using a plagiarism checking tool, and yes plagiarism is definitely an indication of weak moral values, but let us not forget that human thoughts and ideas are infinitely more complex than a tool. Two people can and often do come up with the same string of words, but just because the second person came up with it 3 months later does not make it any less original.

That's a risk I think is worth taking. While I agree with you on principle that you don't want to deny someone admission who did not intentionally plagiarize, my own amateur opinion is that far fewer individuals will be victims of this than the will be caught having submitted an application with willfully plagiarized materials.

I wonder how they handle applicants submitted their essays to multiple schools.. e.g. using the same essays across multiple schools.

Or.. applicants that submitted to essay snark who then posts on the website. The applicant then uses the original essay as the basis for the revised one

I do agree with you in some respects, but if you go a little deeper into the article it becomes apparent that this is a direct response to admissions consultants. I think the ultimate goal is to build up a database of essays from over the years, and not allow recycling of essays by admissions consultants and the students that can afford to pay them. There are some consultants out there that will litterally "write" your essay, or give you a huge nudge in the right direction (use an old essay, or pull something right off the web). Where as there are other consultants that will allow you to bounce ideas off them, and point you in the right direction without creating your essay.

This seems to be a direct response to the lazy/unethical admissions consultant and the students that are trying to buy their way into Bschool. But, in the process they will also find students that have plagerized their own essays without help of a consultant to do that for them.

Although you are correct, that it is possible that someone might put the same string of words together, there are certain instances where a sentence composed of 20 words become absolutely impossible that anyone would string those together. The example in the article seems to prove this point.

The real people that I feel bad for are the few students that can't afford admissions consultants, but choose to pay one b/c they feel like this is their only shot. Then unknowingly, the consultant takes them for a ride and gives them "amazing" essays that will only get them a string of dings for plagerism and put them on the blacklist for all the schools they would have had a better shot at if they had written the essay themselves.

Disclaimer: It is not believed that any admissions consultants represented by GMAT club use, or claim to use, any of these essay writing tactics. They are the best of the best, and would not fall under the "unethical" admissions consultant tab. But be weary of any consultant that will claim to write your essays for you. A consultant should only be there to help guide you, and frame you in the right light.

1. Each school would keep their own database, so I don't think submitting essays to multiple schools would be any problem. Especially if all the essays are your personal intellectual capital. They understand, and are fine with applicants using similiar essays sent to multiple schools. They're your ideas and essays, you can do whatever you want with them! As long as those essays are yours, you get credit for them, and your name would go along with the your writing as the author. If you ever had a match in a database they would see that you are the original author of that essay and it would make sense. I think this would especially hold true for reapplicants.

2. I'm unfamiliar with his blog or products

I would love to hear from one of our many excellent and ethical admissions consultants on GMAT club, and hear their stance on all these topics.

I quickly looked at Stanford's user agreement and they state the following:

serves them right. I hope more schools crack down on these shady consultants (and consultants in general)

But why would a consultant be writing ANY portion of an applicant's essay for them? Ultimately everything that applicant submits is his/her responsibility. An unethical admissions consultant is not to blame if an applicant allows that person to rewrite sections of their essays. And that in and of itself is plagiarism so the result should still remain the same.

Your assertions about Essay Snark and the expectation that schools expect you've had no outside help are way off.

1) I have used Essay Snark's services and had one of my essay drafts posted on the blog. In fact I sent 4 essays to him for critique and he refused to review one of them publicly for fear it would be plagiarized. If an essay is critiqued on the blog all identifying information is stripped and he/she simply provides feedback on what works and doesn't work. After the free critique I paid for a full essay critique and at no time did Essay Snark write my essays for me or tell me what to say. I only received insight into how my message was coming across. Essay Snark is very conscious about making sure that everyone's work stays anonymous.

2) Schools make you sign a statement that everything in the app is true and that no one else wrote it for you. That's a far cry from saying you had no outside help. B-school applications are not take home tests. It's expected that other people will have seen your essays, resume, and supplemental info. It's not unethical to get feedback from friends, current students, alums, or even a consultant. It is only unethical when these people actually write your application materials for you. I have no sympathy for applicants who allow others to write any part of their application for them and then claim they had the wool pulled over their eyes. Write your own apps and that won't happen.

Your points are taken, and I do understand where you're coming from. I just personally would not want my essay plastered on the web b/c those plagerism programs bring in information from the web. And as you said yourself, all identifying information is stripped. Sooo, if you essay has a bunch of exact info from that essay and it gets caught by that program, then how do they know that you were the original author of the essay on his blog??

All I meant to say was that I just wouldn't want my essays all over the web. Even if there was NO plagerism at all. But, if you believe it was valuable to your essay creation, then kudos to you and essay snark.

I've edited my post to show that I have no clue about Essay Snark. Could be great

A couple of points...

1. I'm pretty sure when your essay is run through turnitin it is added to the general database (i.e. it is not school specific). I can definitely see this causing matches between an applicant's essays to multiple schools, with the goals essay obviously being the biggest problem. However, they can compare the potentially plagiarized essay to the source material. If it was your essay to another school, it will be obvious since all the companies, clubs, etc. you mention in the essay will be the same. Then the school will just reject you for being lazy, not for being a plagiarizer

2. This isn't in the printable app, but I remember thinking when I submitted for UCLA that their "I swear that this is all true and I wrote it myself..." prompt was more sternly written than at other schools, almost in a way that said "I did not use a consultant." But maybe I am misremembering

GMATLA - I think my points were civil and coherent, so I'm curious why my post was deleted?

All I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't want my intellectual property associated with any consulting companies, especially one that would post online about it.

Buuut, that being said, I do now know anything about Essay Snark, so I again concede that I should not have commented on a consultant that I do not know anything about...

I agree with this 100%. I remember it said something about how I wrote it all myself without any outside help. And this is the phrase I'm referring to when I refered to Essay Snark. I don't remember the exact words, but it directly talked about recieving now outside help, and writing it yourself... etc...

It does kind of make sense they would have added that verbage if they are using this program now... it definitely seemed more stern than others have said about these other institutions...