Wait...what? Can they do that??? Apparently they can. Stanford's Graduate School of Business has rescinded Matthew Martoma's 2001 offer of admission, effectively saying he never attended grad school there, and thereby no longer has an MBA from the vaunted institution. How's that for revisionist history? No word yet on whether Stanford will be returning the estimated $165,000 they charged Martoma to attend.
To be fair to the school, Martoma is a world-class shitheel who was thrown out of Harvard Law for faking a transcript before changing his name and heading out to Palo Alto. That's to say nothing of his later shenanigans at SAC which teed up the next couple decades of his life behind bars. Still, this is the first time in history Stanford has ever stripped a graduate of their MBA, and that's probably true of just about every grad school in the nation. Even Raj and Jeff Skilling got to keep their lambskins (from Wharton and Harvard, respectively).
Stanford spokeswoman Barbara Buell declined to comment on Mr. Martoma’s record, citing privacy laws.However, when asked about the school’s general policy, she said, “We take very seriously any violation of the integrity of our admissions process,” she said. The school has provisions for revoking degrees or acceptance offers if a student is found to have gained admission through false pretenses, she added.
So, while lying during the admissions process is never a good idea, it's especially disadvantageous if you plan to go on and do a bunch of nefarious shit throughout the rest of your career.
On a tangentially related note, I almost felt bad writing this because it feels a bit like piling on. Not that Martoma doesn't deserve the shit that's coming his way (clearly a jury of his peers thinks he does), but nobody wants to see their life end up here.
I'm probably feeling this way today because I just got word that an old pal of mine was convicted of precious metals fraud last week and is now facing 40 years. He's 54 years old, so you do the math. On top of that, he's got teenaged kids, so it really sucks for them. Not that he doesn't deserve every minute he's going to get, it's just a shitty way to end your life (which is the outcome regardless of how long he's eventually sentenced for). I guess a man's game charges a man's price, as Marty Hart would say.
Way to disavow responsibility for accepting someone like him into their program. An institution cannot just accept the adulation for the good stuff done by its grads and disown the bad ones.
It is a cheap stunt meant to garner applause, though a good one.
It is crazy how he got away with all before the insider trading charge. I wonder how many business school programs conduct a background check before granting admissions.
I actually agree with this. I do realize that this is mostly a publicity stunt, but it does make sense. The point is that a school is depending on honesty on an application to truly evaluate a student. I don't necessarily agree with their reasons for picking one student or another, but if someone completely falsifies an application (in this case legally change your name to avoid having Stanford know that you got kicked out of Harvard) they are absolutely screwing with the acceptance process. Always remember that there was applicant 201 that was just close enough to be runner up out of a class of 200 accepted (theoretical BS figures here) that would've gotten in had it not been for this schmuck. However, I read a story a few weeks back about a guy that took hundreds of GMAT tests for people for money and guaranteed a 750ish score. They discovered some of the cheats, but to me, that would be the group of people that universities should be pursuing to pull degrees from. Stanford is embarrassed that their applications process had the wool pulled over their eyes, but schools would have no way to verify that Forrest Gump didn't score a 770 on their GMAT since the scores are certified by the GMAT board. The guy's name is Lu Xu if anyone wanted to look him up and read the articles about it.
I don't know how many do background checks, but this guy would've passed. From what I understand he legally changed his name so they wouldn't see the trail pointing back to him getting kicked out of Harvard for the forged transcript.
+1 for making me laugh out loud
I'm wondering when in his mind started doing this kind of stuff. I mean, cheating in your admission program, insider trading... when did all started? It would be interesting to know the mind of this man and know, for example, that perhaps in his family, failure wasn't an option.
I still don't understand why these guys don't IMMEDIATELY jump ship for a non-extradition country. It's not like they don't know they're breaking the law. It's not like the gov't is looking the other way lately.
I feel bad that Martoma is going to jail but he did do this to himself, he knew perfectly well the risk of cheating his way through life at other peoples' expense. Stanford is a little bit too late and is perhaps covering their ass, but at least it's something. All this means to me is that it's proof that despite the enormous amount of pressure to be perfect, the system can be hacked....I just have to make it a point to be ethical!!!
And he was born in China. He could have just gone there and built a test prep empire.
Nice one Stanford. Such hypocritical bullshit. I suppose they only like people using their branding when they do sort of, not full on, illegal shit. I hope he starts a twitter where he takes his Stanford diploma to all kinds of debauch places and tags the school.
And since when did insider trading become akin of murder.
@"UFOinsider" - 100% agree. There is zero chance anyone is getting a fair trial in the US and once you are charged, just leave. This dude had to have known it was going to happen. The second you hear the govt is investigating SAC you liquidate everything and leave. Raj could have been kicking it nicely in Singapore or something, instead he is in jail.
I'm beyond "taking sides" here, I think it was a fair trial. Just because they haven't gotten everyone doesn't change that...there's always a few guys that weasel off the hook. What I'm getting at is that if you break the law and they catch on....don't stick around to be sent to jail. Think: these guys have TONS of money and could very easily plan for this contingency by having money stashed around the world. When the boom is lowered, get a haircut, put some shades on, and get on a one way bus across the border.
There's no conspiracy here, and I have no illusions about the ethics: I'm just saying "take the money and run" :D
Like the shower room for a little sexy time?
Love love LOVE this idea. +1
I think another takeaway from the past few years is that the only way to foolproof cheat the system is to avoid insider trading but create intricate financial products that your firm "supports" and sells to willing buyers all the while holding a 100/1 net short position (1 long to be able to use the term "net short" in a court of law with a confused jury). Make sure you are an executive or a managing director though, and you have some French whiz from Stanford working under you to pin it all on. And since emails are all the rage to be brought up during discovery... send one or two that make you look a slight bit confused about the product so you can plead ignorant during trial. (That last bit didn't necessarily happen, but would be a bit better of an idea than calling clients names and raving about how stupid they are to buy what your firm is selling/shorting.) You won't reap Raj or SAC millions, but your bonus might look bigger after the measly settlement is dealt with.
> Even Raj and Jeff Skilling got to keep their lambskins (from Wharton and Harvard, respectively).
I don't think it's a fair comparison. Raj and Skilling got into their respective schools legitimately. Now, obviously, one could speculate that if they were willing to cheat or commit fraud in their professional careers, then everything that they have done in the past (including applying to business school) would be called into question.
However, until there is any proof or evidence that surfaces that they cheated or gained admission under false pretenses, you cannot really make such a claim.
I agree with TNA, he did not murder anyone, just did little bit of insider trading. Also what is with the SEC going on this tear of trying to find insider trading cases when they did not stop Bernie Madoff. Insider trading does not really hurt investors as much as a ponzi scheme they completely failed to discover.
I don't really have strong opinions on insider trading, but this logic is completely asinine. The SEC fucked up with Madoff so they should just stop doing their jobs? It's not the SEC's job to decide how much a crime hurts investors - their task is simply to enforce the laws on the books.
I am waiting on someone to sue and jail the SEC and other regulatory agencies for dereliction of duty with regards to Maddoff and SAC.
But of course we know this won't happy. They will sue banks for not knowing better or not having systems in place to stop what they should have stopped themselves.
God Bless government. Fucking shit up and making others pay for it.
Why is it that elite universities don't do better due diligence? Every year, two or three people make the news for falsifying transcripts and somehow making it into one of these places. (For this article, this is targeted more at Harvard Law than Stanford)
At the very least, the registrars' offices should communicate better. Also in the day and age of the Internet, I should have an option to check a box stating "I authorize NYU Stern to pull my transcript from UIUC" rather than go running around at the last minute trying to get a paper transcript.
@Eddie sorry about your friend.
There is far, far more resume/transcript fraud at UIUC (with its 10,000 international students) than at the "elite" schools you mentioned.
Increase the application fee $50 and hire a grad student for $10/hour to call and verify transcripts and references. Employers do it. Why can't schools?
Nulla asperiores quaerat voluptas. Omnis quod commodi in sed aut rerum quae culpa. Magnam nobis qui ut. Est qui porro atque. Totam harum incidunt sapiente aspernatur aut natus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Sint et rem qui corrupti ea. Nostrum non aut sint voluptates adipisci et nam ut.
Maiores cupiditate nihil numquam ullam non qui voluptatem totam. Cumque dolore qui ex nobis ipsam sed.