Test Center Violations Forum

[lshopes]

From annaivey.com

"As a law school applicant, you're looking to join a profession that lives and dies by nitty-gritty procedural rules..."

[kwais]

OP is the Todd Akin of posters, the General Butt Naked of test takers.

[lshopes]

OP is the Todd Akin of posters, the General Butt Naked of test takers.

Really-Todd Akin? A completely absurd comparison. This one actually infuriates me as Akin is clearly a sexist idiot. As a woman with a MS (he would benefit from a basic reproductive bio class) I found his rape statements so unbelievable that I cannot imagine anyone ever accepting any of his future statements as worthy of consideration.

[kwais]

OP is the Todd Akin of posters, the General Butt Naked of test takers.

Really-Todd Akin? A completely absurd comparison. This one actually infuriates me as Akin is clearly a sexist idiot. As a woman with a MS (he would benefit from a basic reproductive bio class) I found his rape statements so unbelievable that I cannot imagine anyone ever accepting any of his future statements as worthy of consideration.

he says dumb things, you say dumb things. Admittedly, there is a divergence on subject matter.

[lshopes]

OP is the Todd Akin of posters, the General Butt Naked of test takers.

Really-Todd Akin? A completely absurd comparison. This one actually infuriates me as Akin is clearly a sexist idiot. As a woman with a MS (he would benefit from a basic reproductive bio class) I found his rape statements so unbelievable that I cannot imagine anyone ever accepting any of his future statements as worthy of consideration.

he says dumb things, you say dumb things. Admittedly, there is a divergence on subject matter.

I have made no statements contradicting accepted facts. There is no comparison.

[kwais]

OP is the Todd Akin of posters, the General Butt Naked of test takers.

Really-Todd Akin? A completely absurd comparison. This one actually infuriates me as Akin is clearly a sexist idiot. As a woman with a MS (he would benefit from a basic reproductive bio class) I found his rape statements so unbelievable that I cannot imagine anyone ever accepting any of his future statements as worthy of consideration.

he says dumb things, you say dumb things. Admittedly, there is a divergence on subject matter.

I have made no statements contradicting accepted facts. There is no comparison.

faulty premise: there is only one way to be an idiot.

[lshopes]

he says dumb things, you say dumb things. Admittedly, there is a divergence on subject matter.[/quote]

I have made no statements contradicting accepted facts. There is no comparison.[/quote]

faulty premise: there is only one way to be an idiot.[/quote]

You said the comparison was he said dumb things I said dumb things. I used your explanation.

[ChikaBoom]

I know what it is to be misunderstood, op. I remember that one fateful day when Coach took me aside. I knew what was coming. "You don't have to tell me," I said. "I'm off the team, aren't I?" "Well," said Coach, "you never were really ON the team. You made that uniform you're wearing out of rags and towels, and your helmet is a toy space helmet. You show up at practice and then either steal the ball and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to tackle people at inappropriate times." It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He saw something in me, some kind of raw talent that he could mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on.

tyft

[vanwinkle]

During section 5 the girl next to me kept working on section 4. The Proctor came up to her and said "You're supposed to be working on section 5". I thought that it was about to go down, but the girl looked absolutely perplexed, the proctor said it again and she apologized and turned the page.

Am I a bad person for not turning her in? Should I write an addendum in my application or make a note for C&F?

The proctor saw it. Who else were you supposed to turn her into, the local police?

[whatisthewhat]

Oh, you're reported.

I think you did the right thing OP.

My proctor was absolutely negligent when I took the test. So many people brought boxes of pencils, or at least half a dozen. LSAC clearly states you should only bring 3 or 4 pencils on the day of the test. It was a pain drawing charicatures of the offenders so I could report them later (I, of course, didn't have my phone to take pictures with) but I think that I owed it to LSAC and everyone else that justice be served.

I actually don't think that's true. They suggest 3 or 4, but never say you can't bring more.

- Fellow rule-bound, socially retarded person. Not quite as bad as this though.

[hume85]

o

OP - You should know that you do not stand alone. I too have issues with such flagrant disregard for rules just because they don't immediately affect others. The fact is that LSAC established these "arbitrary" rules to protect the security of the test because a breach in security could cost them a lot of money! That and they are ensuring a level of fairness, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the perpetrator used his phone during the test, or even if he didn't use it during the break, the proctor still permitted him to have his phone when YOU were not. Just because certain people decide to follow the rules doesn't make them a douche, or "too scared to break the rules." I too am incredibly surprised at the negative reaction that this post has received from an audience so inclined to pursue a career in justice and the law.

Let's give this party the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't cheat on his phone during the break. Say he used his phone to listen to music for the 15 minute break to calm his nerves and re-focus himself for the final push. Were you allowed that opportunity? I sure as hell was not. I had to tackle my nerves just as everyone else did, but not this guy. You tell me how that is fair? Sure this doesn't directly affect MY score, but it unfairly could positively impact his score. It is "breaking the rules" to gain an advantage over others in such a way that LSAC explicitly prohibits. I don't know about you, but I received a couple of LSAC alert emails telling me the prohibited items, I signed an admission ticket, was warned at least three times before being assigned to rooms, and was even reminded one last time in the narrative that the proctor read for the test.

But I am a douche and should mind my own damn business. He isn't hurting me. I should let him have his advantage and I am just whining because I didn't have the balls to break a rule that the LSAC explicitly stated, because I am a loser, despite the potential consequences for my future that is in the hands of the LSAC. After all, its not like he is cheating. It's not like he can even cheat using his phone? I mean, what is he going to do? Text someone else answers about the test? There is no way that he can warn someone else about a killer !Kung passage, or warn someone to leave enough time for the zones game (I understand this was the last section for everyone, but if the order were different and before the break for some but not others). The rules are there for a reason and it is ridiculous to me that so many of you could care less to abide by them.

You would be welcomed in my law firm OP. Don't worry about the ambulance-chasing firms that these haters would prefer that you stay away from.

Just as I was beginning to lose faith in my fellow future attorneys a lone voice in the wilderness. I can only hope there are more like you applying to my first choice school. You are right, I would expect those who intend to uphold our laws in the future would not turn a blind eye to such disregard for the rules governing the most important test we will take until the bar exam. If I'm a douche, loser, pos, whatever I can live with that. I broke no rules. In Knoxville, we have 4 convicted rapists/murderers to retry because the attorneys involved in the trial turned a blind eye to the fact the presiding judge was high on pain pills during the trial. I guess the were justified, after all, they got their (now worthless) convictions. Even worse, because of double jeopardy laws, they cannot be convicted of any crime status higher than those they were already convicted of. Expediency=3 lost chances for the death penalty.

Anyone who tries to say this is different just fails to realize the slippery slope if situational ethics.

Please tell me these are not the guys that killed that young couple and did terrible things to them before they died.

[R86]

Perhaps mommy and daddy should have disciplined a few of you more when you broke rules. It seems to me that the groupthink on TLS has determined the action (not reporting and/or bringing the cell phone) they advocate is the appropriate action even when faced with incontrovertible evidence it was not.

You keep saying groupthink like it's going to offend us.

When I took the test, a guy in the hallway took a cellphone out of his pocket, called his Mom to let her know he was going in (it sounded like she wished him luck). He then took out his battery and put it in is pocket. Never once did it cross my mind to report the kid. This is well before I came to TLS and was brainwashed by the collective groupthink machine.

No one is arguing that what this kid did wasn't against LSAC's rules. There just really is no 'incontrovertible evidence' that the appropriate action was to report the kid. LSAC doesn't ask you to file anonymous reports on your neighbors, and the right thing to do in this situation would be to relax and realize that him having a phone his pocket really doesn't affect you.

Stop painting this as a black and white situation where you absolutely had to report this kid and were completely justified in doing so. Someone made a very small mistake, and you anonymously decided it was your duty to fuck them over big time for it.

[sunynp]

What test center was this? At least let the other test takers know that their scores will be delayed so they dont waste time waiting.

[lshopes]

o

OP - You should know that you do not stand alone. I too have issues with such flagrant disregard for rules just because they don't immediately affect others. The fact is that LSAC established these "arbitrary" rules to protect the security of the test because a breach in security could cost them a lot of money! That and they are ensuring a level of fairness, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the perpetrator used his phone during the test, or even if he didn't use it during the break, the proctor still permitted him to have his phone when YOU were not. Just because certain people decide to follow the rules doesn't make them a douche, or "too scared to break the rules." I too am incredibly surprised at the negative reaction that this post has received from an audience so inclined to pursue a career in justice and the law.

Let's give this party the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't cheat on his phone during the break. Say he used his phone to listen to music for the 15 minute break to calm his nerves and re-focus himself for the final push. Were you allowed that opportunity? I sure as hell was not. I had to tackle my nerves just as everyone else did, but not this guy. You tell me how that is fair? Sure this doesn't directly affect MY score, but it unfairly could positively impact his score. It is "breaking the rules" to gain an advantage over others in such a way that LSAC explicitly prohibits. I don't know about you, but I received a couple of LSAC alert emails telling me the prohibited items, I signed an admission ticket, was warned at least three times before being assigned to rooms, and was even reminded one last time in the narrative that the proctor read for the test.

But I am a douche and should mind my own damn business. He isn't hurting me. I should let him have his advantage and I am just whining because I didn't have the balls to break a rule that the LSAC explicitly stated, because I am a loser, despite the potential consequences for my future that is in the hands of the LSAC. After all, its not like he is cheating. It's not like he can even cheat using his phone? I mean, what is he going to do? Text someone else answers about the test? There is no way that he can warn someone else about a killer !Kung passage, or warn someone to leave enough time for the zones game (I understand this was the last section for everyone, but if the order were different and before the break for some but not others). The rules are there for a reason and it is ridiculous to me that so many of you could care less to abide by them.

You would be welcomed in my law firm OP. Don't worry about the ambulance-chasing firms that these haters would prefer that you stay away from.

Just as I was beginning to lose faith in my fellow future attorneys a lone voice in the wilderness. I can only hope there are more like you applying to my first choice school. You are right, I would expect those who intend to uphold our laws in the future would not turn a blind eye to such disregard for the rules governing the most important test we will take until the bar exam. If I'm a douche, loser, pos, whatever I can live with that. I broke no rules. In Knoxville, we have 4 convicted rapists/murderers to retry because the attorneys involved in the trial turned a blind eye to the fact the presiding judge was high on pain pills during the trial. I guess the were justified, after all, they got their (now worthless) convictions. Even worse, because of double jeopardy laws, they cannot be convicted of any crime status higher than those they were already convicted of. Expediency=3 lost chances for the death penalty.

Anyone who tries to say this is different just fails to realize the slippery slope if situational ethics.

Please tell me these are not the guys that killed that young couple and did terrible things to them before they died.

Indeed they are.

[hume85]

o

OP - You should know that you do not stand alone. I too have issues with such flagrant disregard for rules just because they don't immediately affect others. The fact is that LSAC established these "arbitrary" rules to protect the security of the test because a breach in security could cost them a lot of money! That and they are ensuring a level of fairness, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the perpetrator used his phone during the test, or even if he didn't use it during the break, the proctor still permitted him to have his phone when YOU were not. Just because certain people decide to follow the rules doesn't make them a douche, or "too scared to break the rules." I too am incredibly surprised at the negative reaction that this post has received from an audience so inclined to pursue a career in justice and the law.

Let's give this party the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't cheat on his phone during the break. Say he used his phone to listen to music for the 15 minute break to calm his nerves and re-focus himself for the final push. Were you allowed that opportunity? I sure as hell was not. I had to tackle my nerves just as everyone else did, but not this guy. You tell me how that is fair? Sure this doesn't directly affect MY score, but it unfairly could positively impact his score. It is "breaking the rules" to gain an advantage over others in such a way that LSAC explicitly prohibits. I don't know about you, but I received a couple of LSAC alert emails telling me the prohibited items, I signed an admission ticket, was warned at least three times before being assigned to rooms, and was even reminded one last time in the narrative that the proctor read for the test.

But I am a douche and should mind my own damn business. He isn't hurting me. I should let him have his advantage and I am just whining because I didn't have the balls to break a rule that the LSAC explicitly stated, because I am a loser, despite the potential consequences for my future that is in the hands of the LSAC. After all, its not like he is cheating. It's not like he can even cheat using his phone? I mean, what is he going to do? Text someone else answers about the test? There is no way that he can warn someone else about a killer !Kung passage, or warn someone to leave enough time for the zones game (I understand this was the last section for everyone, but if the order were different and before the break for some but not others). The rules are there for a reason and it is ridiculous to me that so many of you could care less to abide by them.

You would be welcomed in my law firm OP. Don't worry about the ambulance-chasing firms that these haters would prefer that you stay away from.

Just as I was beginning to lose faith in my fellow future attorneys a lone voice in the wilderness. I can only hope there are more like you applying to my first choice school. You are right, I would expect those who intend to uphold our laws in the future would not turn a blind eye to such disregard for the rules governing the most important test we will take until the bar exam. If I'm a douche, loser, pos, whatever I can live with that. I broke no rules. In Knoxville, we have 4 convicted rapists/murderers to retry because the attorneys involved in the trial turned a blind eye to the fact the presiding judge was high on pain pills during the trial. I guess the were justified, after all, they got their (now worthless) convictions. Even worse, because of double jeopardy laws, they cannot be convicted of any crime status higher than those they were already convicted of. Expediency=3 lost chances for the death penalty.

Anyone who tries to say this is different just fails to realize the slippery slope if situational ethics.

Please tell me these are not the guys that killed that young couple and did terrible things to them before they died.

Indeed they are.

I cannot lie, that really bothers me. That was one of the more disturbing stories I heard in a while. Keep me posted on whether justice is served.

[vinnnyvincenzo]

OP do you have any friends?

[hume85]

During section 5 the girl next to me kept working on section 4. The Proctor came up to her and said "You're supposed to be working on section 5". I thought that it was about to go down, but the girl looked absolutely perplexed, the proctor said it again and she apologized and turned the page.

Am I a bad person for not turning her in? Should I write an addendum in my application or make a note for C&F?

The proctor saw it. Who else were you supposed to turn her into, the local police?

I've got to get my sarcasm chip fixed

I don't think you do. I was going to point out to vanwinkle that you were being sarcastic. But I was recovering from a hangover, and I was afraid I couldn't put a coherent sentence together.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

This is obviously a troll. Someone needs to lock this up.

[20130312]

This is obviously a troll. Someone needs to lock this up.

[uvabro]

During section 5 the girl next to me kept working on section 4. The Proctor came up to her and said "You're supposed to be working on section 5". I thought that it was about to go down, but the girl looked absolutely perplexed, the proctor said it again and she apologized and turned the page.

Am I a bad person for not turning her in? Should I write an addendum in my application or make a note for C&F?

this is actually cheating.....

[abcde12345]

OP is the Todd Akin of posters, the General Butt Naked of test takers.

Do you go to Columbia?
Also, this is my favorite thread. OP is a troll hero.

[paratactical]

OP is the Todd Akin of posters, the General Butt Naked of test takers.

Do you go to Columbia?
Also, this is my favorite thread. OP is a troll hero.

Five pages does not a troll hero make. A troll hero will take the moderator's April Fools joke and use it to grant themselves administrator powers on the board or will host a 100 page thread about their cheating girlfriend and their amazing abs.

[abcde12345]

Five pages does not a troll hero make. A troll hero will take the moderator's April Fools joke and use it to grant themselves administrator powers on the board or will host a 100 page thread about their cheating girlfriend and their amazing abs.

True. Are these real troll occurrences on TLS? Admirable if so.
OP should have played the moral angle up. He should have pulled out religion.

[mpd1690]

.

[paratactical]

Five pages does not a troll hero make. A troll hero will take the moderator's April Fools joke and use it to grant themselves administrator powers on the board or will host a 100 page thread about their cheating girlfriend and their amazing abs.

True. Are these real troll occurrences on TLS? Admirable if so.
OP should have played the moral angle up. He should have pulled out religion.

They are. TLS HoF are good places to start looking for DAT HISTORY.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0&t=174892