
How to show that we are not “cheating” but helping - op2ed
Sometimes people misunderstand what our startup does and assume we are unethical. We feel that we are ethical and our Clients(professors, employers, and students) love us and thank us for our efforts every day. Yet some people(not our client groups, but perhaps future investors) jump to the conclusion that we are helping people &quot;cheat&quot;. I think it may be in the way we word our services.<p>We are helping amazing, and often genius level students from around the world get into western universities and secure funding. We do this because so many times we have seen the erected barriers hold back many bring minds- &quot;If you can cure cancer, but can&#x27;t write an essay, you might never get your chance.&quot;<p>Our services include:<p>1.A super-massive university search
2.CV writing software
3.Reference letter writing software which helps non-native English speaking professors, and employers write clear, precise letters for students.
4. Software that explores the personality of non-native English speaking students, and uses the data to prepare rough essays and personal statements that show western universities the quality and potential of our student-clients.<p>Service 3 sometimes brings on the stoning, but service 4 almost always does. Will we always face this problem or is there something we can do to prevent this misconception?<p>A case study:
We had a client, Sam. Sam was, without question, a genius. As an undergrad, he was accepted as a research assistant by a top professor where he developed an impressive array of self-driving algorithms. He then applied for graduate school in the USA and failed. He had no idea how to write an essay and he was so modest that he ignored all of his stellar work. On top of this, his highly-awarded professor had a weak hold on English and had been unable to write a clear reference letter. We took charge, we helped Sam, and he was offered several full scholarships from top American Universities.
======
al2o3cr
Couple thoughts:

* On #4, this is absolutely academic misconduct if you're "preparing" an essay that is subsequently submitted as the student's own work. They didn't WRITE IT.

* In general, this ignores a substantial part of why universities offer scholarships: to bring scholars to the university who will collaborate and contribute. Part of the intent of an essay is to demonstrate the applicant's ability to communicate clearly and effectively, as that's generally a key part of collaboration in most fields.

Short story shorter: helping people revise documents they've written is fine,
but writing the whole thing isn't.

~~~
op2ed
Thanks for your input, it is helping me shape a clear set of mission/values
for us.

*Our software(not me) assists our clients it expressing themselves. It asks dynamic questions(based on client's country of origin, personality, education, work, passions, life goals) in order to help applicants organize their thoughts in their distinct voice and overcome the intense biases that they are facing(Most cultures just don't do personal essays, and modesty kills most applications). The output is unique but follows a basic outline. Students later add information or make edits as needed so that they can produce their own work. We sometimes proofread their post edits.

In essence, they are writing it. My software just assists them in the same way
that an excavator helps one dig or an autotuner helps one sing.

The cultural limitations greatly hurt students, modesty is a HUGE issue that
we have to deal with, perhaps the biggest issue of all. I think universities
are looking for these kinds of students, however, the current essay system
fails to uncover most.

~~~
_ah
TL;DR: Do less automated work, and call it a "coaching service".

\----

I think the challenge here is that the student is NOT writing the essay. Or at
least that's the way it looks to me.

Your thesis holds if the intent of the essay is simply to communicate
information. With that viewpoint, asking a set of dynamic questions is a great
solution. It's the automated equivalent to having a journalist interview the
candidate, and prepare an initial draft.

However, I suspect that for many universities, the meta-intent of the essay is
to judge not only information, but also the ability to communicate that
information. If a university offers a scholarship to a high-level student, who
does potentially groundbreaking research but is unable to communicate the
findings, that can still be considered a "failure". Your software will not be
there to ask dynamic questions and write the research paper.

If you want to continue to offer the service, but you want to retain the
ethical high-ground, I can think of two possible options:

1) Disclose to the university that the essay was written with significant
help. This may impact your candidate's chances. However, it allows
universities to self-sort based on the desire for raw information and
accomplishments or communication skills.

2) Provide the same service, but make the output VERY VERY rough. In this
sense, the essay builder becomes more of a writing coaching service. This
would allow you to overcome barriers of self-modesty and grammar, but would
force the candidate to do more work.

From your various posts, it sounds to me like option #2 represents the goal of
your product, and is your true desire. However, reading between the lines, I
also get the impression that you're going rather far beyond that point. It
seems like (?) you may be doing more work than you'd like to admit and are
trying to cover that fact. I could be wrong here though.

------
joelwalsh
Are you writing the essays for them or helping them write their essays? Why
not just partner with a service like Essay Edge that has has already dealt
with these concerns?

~~~
op2ed
Thanks, I'll see what they are doing as well.

Our software(not me) assists our clients it expressing themselves. It asks
dynamic questions(based on client's country of origin, personality, education,
work, passions, life goals) in order to help applicants organize their
thoughts in their distinct voice and overcome the intense biases that they are
facing(Most cultures just don't do personal essays, and modesty kills most
applications). The output is unique but follows a basic outline. Students
later add information or make edits as needed so that they can produce their
own work. We sometimes proofread their post edits.

