d34dluk3 wrote:One thing I think hasn't been addressed here is whether cheating actually benefits you even if you get away with it. If you don't cheat, you'll get an LSAT that's reflective of your ability and go to a school with your intellectual peers. If you do, you will score higher than your ability would indicate and thus go to a school with people who are on average more intelligent. This would seem to hurt your chances of scoring well in your class. So, in the long run, cheating may not provide much of a benefit.
This seems like a horrible argument considering the weak correlation between LSAT and 1L grades. Even then, until you quantify the benefits of getting away with it (i.e. that doing it gets you into Yale and not doing gets you into GULC), it would be hard to assess whether this were even true.
d34dluk3 wrote:Also, anytime we have a thread like this, there are always like 50 people who are like "This is the most terrible idea EVARR." If that's what you think, awesome. I get the feeling, though, that people say that not from solid analysis, but from moral outrage that someone would do such a thing. If that's the case (and it's just my intuition here), then just come right out and say that, don't be all disingenuous.
I had a friend who misrepresented the chances of getting caught speeding on a particular road to me because he was morally opposed to speeding. When I found out, I despised him for it.
I do agree there should be a separate distinction between the morality of the action and a cost/benefit analysis of it.