 |
|
True.
Posted on: August 13, 2019 at 10:08:00 CT
GapDaddy MU
Posts:
16515
Member For:
25.15 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
UNC did not self report and then subsequently argued that their paper classes were accredited and available to all students and, therefore, were not impermissible benefits or fraud.
In response, the NCAA proposal was that the NCAA should have some role in adjudicating what is accredited and what isn't. By withdrawing this proposal in the face of an example as blatant as that of UNC, the NCAA will be criticized as not taking academic fraud seriously.
The difference for MU, however, is that MU self-reported and then agreed with the NCAA that the infractions were Level 1.
In order to refute the criticism predicted above, it will be easy for the NCAA to simply deny MU's appeal as evidence and an example of the NCAA indeed taking academic fraud seriously.
In response, the NCAA proposal was that the NCAA should have some role in adjudicating what is accredited and what isn't. By withdrawing this proposal in the face of an example as blatant as that of UNC, the NCAA will be criticized as not taking academic fraud seriously.
The difference for MU, however, is that MU self-reported and then agreed with the NCAA that the infractions were Level 1.
In order to refute the criticism predicted above, it will be easy for the NCAA to simply deny MU's appeal as evidence and an example of the NCAA indeed taking academic fraud seriously.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
True. - GapDaddy MU - 8/13 10:08:00