Yes, I read what could be seen from outside the paywall, and I've already read what the guy did in other articles (i.e. https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/a

Yes, I read what could be seen from outside the paywall, and I've already read what the guy did in other articles (i.e. https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/ai-for-leetcode-coding-tests-chungin-lee https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/ai-for-leetcode-codin...). The creation, distribution, and commercialization of a tool that allows anyone to deceive employers is very dubious and ethically challenged. The fact that he used access from school services in the creation of the tool places the school in legal hot-water. There's no leg to stand on for defense. Sure he can argue that companies forcing applicants to spend hours completing those tests is abusive, but that fact which I agree with has no bearing or link to the fact that he created and published a tool whose primary purpose is to interfere tortiously with both candidates and prospective employers in the labor market, and the problem the software tries to solve is a cursed problem that can never be solved in a constrained socialist market. The tool imposes costs on the company, and on the candidates themselves which is not negligible. The situation shows a complete lack of ethics needed to do business, and that is what Columbia incentivized. Their preventing attendance given the situation is a perfect example of how colleges today operate, which goes back to my original post. Incentivize and induce people to step over the line with the promise that they can get a degree, then take it away because you stepped over the line. Did you actually read what happened?