Pereos wrote: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.