dingbat wrote:eap12123 wrote:I also didn't say anywhere that I shouldn't be disadvantaged, rather that if some people ge away with actual infractions all the time, i shouldn't be punished on an ambiguity. My "mistake" does warrant an investigation, but a fair one. My violation slip should read as what happened. It should say I picked my pencil up, not that I was "filling in answers after time was called", because I was doing no such thing.
So just because some speeders don't get caught, others should not get ticketed?
If absolute certainty was the standard for cheating very few would get caught. How many people would be filling in extra bubbles with the knowledge that they could challenge if they got caught?
This isn't a court of law where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a felony conviction. This is entry to a profession that aims to be above reproach. In an academic setting an accusation of cheating is serious and a lawyer's reputation should be spotless. If you have issues with that, you should not enter.
Hell, a judge once had his career ended for accepting a bowl of spaghetti at a charity fundraiser.
Other speeders should get ticketed, but people driving in cars that look like they might speed shouldn't.
I'm very aware of how terrible an accusation of cheating looks in an academic setting, which is exactly why they shouldn't go around pointing fingers at people without being aware of how serious the consequences are. The majority of these proctors are random people that have never taken tests like this in their lives. LSAC should work to hire legitimate people that know what they're doing, or, even better, computerize the exam to avoid crap like this happening. I really don't want to argue about whether I acted similarly to a drunk driver anymore. I came on this forum to see if anyone else has been in a similar situation that could provide advice, not to have you lecture me on the effects of cheating and the "ignorance" of holding a pencil.