Top Law Schools

Disclose. Even if you are 99% sure they don't want to know.

Disclose because:
1) I promise it will not affect your cycle
2) You don't have to worry about any C&F issues down the road for the BAR.


Above is TCR.

/Thread.

Nicholasnickynic wrote:Disclose. Even if you are 99% sure they don't want to know.

Disclose because:
1) I promise it will not affect your cycle
2) You don't have to worry about any C&F issues down the road for the BAR.


Above is TCR.

/Thread.

.

freestallion wrote:

Nicholasnickynic wrote:Disclose. Even if you are 99% sure they don't want to know.

Disclose because:
1) I promise it will not affect your cycle
2) You don't have to worry about any C&F issues down the road for the BAR.


Above is TCR.

/Thread.

Thanks. It just seems silly/weird to mark 'yes' to committing a crime, or a misdemeanor, when you just have some traffic violations. I don't want them to think I can't follow their directions but I guess I'll just disclose. -___-

ETA: Is it possible to check "no" to being convicted of a misdemeanor, but then write an addendum disclosing tickets anyway to be clear? I mean, I was not convicted of a misdemeanor as far as I know. So wouldn't it be weird to check "YES" to that?

Put Yes, say you're not sure on the classification of the ticket and be done with it.

Unequivocally the single most idiotic thread I've ever read. At a loss for words.

shmoo597 wrote:Unequivocally the single most idiotic thread I've ever read. At a loss for words.

Then I bring you this gem (unfortunately) from one of my classmates in the OCI thread yesterday:

Anonymous User wrote:So...is it possible to negotiate for higher pay if you have more than one offer? Or is it possible to ask for more weeks of work, e.g. 12 weeks instead of 10? I know this is a good problem to have, but I am having trouble deciding.

blowhard wrote:

shmoo597 wrote:Unequivocally the single most idiotic thread I've ever read. At a loss for words.

Then I bring you this gem (unfortunately) from one of my classmates in the OCI thread yesterday:

Anonymous User wrote:So...is it possible to negotiate for higher pay if you have more than one offer? Or is it possible to ask for more weeks of work, e.g. 12 weeks instead of 10? I know this is a good problem to have, but I am having trouble deciding.

That's pretty idiotic, no doubt about it.

But here we have people seriously debating, in DEPTH, the merits of disclosing a parking ticket on a law school application, and then concluding that the OP SHOULD disclose the ticket.

Seriously? Do any of you people really think that anyone, anyone on any admissions committee, C&F committee, or on earth, gives a shit about the disclosure or non-disclosure of a parking ticket? I mean, god...If anything, making the effort to disclose a parking ticket makes you look deranged.

shmoo597 wrote:

blowhard wrote:

shmoo597 wrote:I mean, god...If anything, making the effort to disclose a parking ticket makes you look deranged.

.

freestallion wrote:

shmoo597 wrote:

blowhard wrote:

shmoo597 wrote:I mean, god...If anything, making the effort to disclose a parking ticket makes you look deranged.

Really? Then why is everyone in this thread advising OP (and myself) to disclose ANY AND ALL traffic violations?! I don't think it is deranged... we're nervous because we don't want to get into trouble with C&F. It's not that stupid. I think it's a legitimate concern.

No, actually it is that stupid.

The reason everyone is advising the OP to disclose a parking ticket that no one one earth gives a shit about is because 1. law students are generally neurotic, 2. TLS is an even more neurotic subsample of an already neurotic population, and 3. this thread is an even more neurotic subsample of an already neurotic subsample of an already neurotic population.

shmoo597 wrote:

freestallion wrote: Really? Then why is everyone in this thread advising OP (and myself) to disclose ANY AND ALL traffic violations?! I don't think it is deranged... we're nervous because we don't want to get into trouble with C&F. It's not that stupid. I think it's a legitimate concern.

No, actually it is that stupid.

The reason everyone is advising the OP to disclose a parking ticket that no one one earth gives a shit about is because 1. law students are generally neurotic, 2. TLS is an even more neurotic subsample of an already neurotic population, and 3. this thread is an even more neurotic subsample of an already neurotic subsample of an already neurotic population.

Dude, it's not necessarily a parking ticket. See my earlier reply. Just because the vehicle was parked ≠ a parking ticket. It depends on the offense. There is a fine and potentially even points associated with it.

I agree the debate it stupid as it will have no impact. But I don't think disclosing it is stupid depending on the wording of the application. I know someone who was held up at C&F for over a year because he didn't get a driver's license in the state his school was located as required by that state's law. He just kept the one with his parents address.

I know someone else who was held up in C&F because he failed to disclose an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment in the military) on his law school application even though it clearly was not within the language...it's specifically designed not to be criminal. But the C&F examiner thought he was evading the intent of the question.

Better safe than sorry.

At least one law school posts example answers for their C&F questions, and indicates that they want disclosure of parking tickets.

http://www.uakron.edu/law/admissions/ap ... itness.dot

While I wouldn't recommend attending Akron Law, it demonstrates that these disclosures can matter. The key, of course, is to disclose all that is necessary; while Akron Law makes clear they want disclosure of parking tickets, other law school applications make clear they exempt parking tickets from disclosure. But when in doubt, you should disclose. There is more danger in not disclosing something you should have disclosed, and admitting to a single parking ticket should not affect your admissions cycle in any way.

For the most part it shouldn't matter, but if there are schools that want such disclosure, then not disclosing could be a problem. Thus, "disclose" makes sense as a default. Or, if you want clarity, just call the school in question and ask, "Does the disclosure requirement include parking tickets or nonmoving traffic violations?" Then you know.

vanwinkle wrote:At least one law school posts example answers for their C&F questions, and indicates that they want disclosure of parking tickets.

http://www.uakron.edu/law/admissions/ap ... itness.dot

While I wouldn't recommend attending Akron Law, it demonstrates that these disclosures can matter. The key, of course, is to disclose all that is necessary; while Akron Law makes clear they want disclosure of parking tickets, other law school applications make clear they exempt parking tickets from disclosure. But when in doubt, you should disclose. There is more danger in not disclosing something you should have disclosed, and admitting to a single parking ticket should not affect your admissions cycle in any way.

For the most part it shouldn't matter, but if there are schools that want such disclosure, then not disclosing could be a problem. Thus, "disclose" makes sense as a default. Or, if you want clarity, just call the school in question and ask, "Does the disclosure requirement include parking tickets or nonmoving traffic violations?" Then you know.

TITCR.

Shmoo - Help, or GTFO.

/thread

DoubleChecks wrote:Hide your cars, hide your bikes, cuz they ticketing everybody in Opie's town.

LOL!