Implications of a misconduct warning?

User avatar
BriaTharen
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:17 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby BriaTharen » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:31 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
ntzsch wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
ntzsch wrote:general understanding is that Cheating is much worse than DUI for LS admissions, why?


With a DUI it's easy to make an "I made a stupid mistake and I won't let it happen again" argument. You're alcohol-impaired, you can try to portray it as a valuable learning experiences about the choices you should make while you're still sober. Or you can claim that time passed between the DUI and the application to law school, and in that time you've grown and matured.

What are you supposed to say to LSAT misconduct? "I'm sorry I cheated during my law school application process, I won't do it once I'm actually in law school"? You can't say "I was too drunk to make a rational decision, and next time I know I need to make that decision while I'm still sober"...



upon what assumption does your argument rest---haha, j/k.


I am eagerly awaiting the anonymous newbie that asks for advice after taking the LSAT drunk.



I knew a LSAT prep teacher that used to take every single practice LSAT completely baked. Rat bastard got a 165+ every time and a 170+ on the real thing sober.

noname086
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:15 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby noname086 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:37 pm

I don't understand how anyone can think a misconduct or just academic dishonesty in general is worse than a DUI. As someone who has a family friend that died because of a drunk driver I would say a DUI is far worse. You are not only endangering you own life, you are endangering the life of those around you. Sure academic dishonesty gives you a dishonest edge over other people but at least you're not actually physically putting people in danger.

I'm sorry I think a DUI is far more selfish and I don't buy the whole I was too drunk to make a rational decision. Everyone knows that you shouldn't get in the car if you're drunk and you know exactly what is at risk when you get in the car.
Last edited by noname086 on Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:39 pm

noname086 wrote:I don't understand how anyone can think a misconduct or just academic dishonesty in general is worse than a DUI. As someone who has a family friend that died because of a drunk driver I would say a DUI is far worse. You are not only endangering you own life, you are endangering the life of those around you. Sure academic dishonesty gives you a dishonest edge over other people but at least your not actually physically putting people in danger.

I'm sorry I think a DUI is far more selfish and I don't buy the whole I was too drunk to make a rational decision. Everyone knows that you shouldn't get in the car if your drunk and you know exactly what is at risk when you get in the car.



why does it matter what YOU, or I for that matter, think? all that matters is what adcoms will think, and i would argue that lsat cheating matters more.
Last edited by APimpNamedSlickback on Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

noname086
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:15 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby noname086 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:40 pm

how do you know adcoms don't think its worse? for all you know an adcom could have a family member that died because of a drunk driver. than i'd like to see what would happen to the person's admission chances.

noname086
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:15 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby noname086 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:41 pm

also if you were close to a person that died because of a drunk driver, you would understand how serious drinking while driving really is. i'm sorry it just really bothers me how people don't understand how serious drinking while driving is. you can destroy not only one person's life but the life of that persons family and friends.
Last edited by noname086 on Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Pearalegal » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:41 pm

talibkweli wrote:i'm talking from the perspective of law school admissions. so everyone please spare me your emotional crying and indignation, because i'm not making any personal judgments


Actually, you said a DUI doesn't call into question a person's integrity, plain and simple. I agree with you that comparing a DUI to bubbling in answers after the time is ridiculous however...

It does. A DUI is someone who doesn't plan ahead when they are voluntarily drinking, and puts their lives and the lives of every other person in the car and on the road in extreme danger. Its selfish, its stupid and its very dangerous. Of course those actions call a person's integrity into question.

I realize everyone else has already said these things, but as someone who lost an uncle after he was hit by a drunk driver and whose boyfriend nearly died after he was dumb enough to get into a car drunk...ending up totaling the car and landing himself in the hospital...

Your opinion on DUI's is laughably immature and simpleminded.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:41 pm

noname086 wrote:how do you know adcoms don't think its worse? for all you know an adcom could have a family member that died because of a drunk driver. than i'd like to see what would happen to the person's admission chances.


don't get me wrong, i am really, really sorry about your relative. however, personal anecdotes are in general not a great way to support an argument.
Last edited by APimpNamedSlickback on Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:43 pm

Pearalegal wrote:
talibkweli wrote:i'm talking from the perspective of law school admissions. so everyone please spare me your emotional crying and indignation, because i'm not making any personal judgments


Actually, you said a DUI doesn't call into question a person's integrity, plain and simple. I agree with you that comparing a DUI to bubbling in answers after the time is ridiculous however...

It does. A DUI is someone who doesn't plan ahead when they are voluntarily drinking, and puts their lives and the lives of every other person in the car and on the road in extreme danger. Its selfish, its stupid and its very dangerous. Of course those actions call a person's integrity into question.

I realize everyone else has already said these things, but as someone who lost an uncle after he was hit by a drunk driver and whose boyfriend nearly died after he was dumb enough to get into a car drunk...ending up totaling the car and landing himself in the hospital...

Your opinion on DUI's is laughably immature and simpleminded.



i was thinking of integrity narrowly defined as trustworthiness. that i think a dui is potentially not as bad as lsat cheating w/ respect to admissions isn't "childish," its actually quite accurate.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby vanwinkle » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:49 pm

noname086 wrote:I don't understand how anyone can think a misconduct or just academic dishonesty in general is worse than a DUI. As someone who has a family friend that died because of a drunk driver I would say a DUI is far worse. You are not only endangering you own life, you are endangering the life of those around you. Sure academic dishonesty gives you a dishonest edge over other people but at least you're not actually physically putting people in danger.

I'm sorry I think a DUI is far more selfish and I don't buy the whole I was too drunk to make a rational decision. Everyone knows that you shouldn't get in the car if you're drunk and you know exactly what is at risk when you get in the car.



This has nothing to do with whether one is "worse" than the other in terms of the offense at the time that it happened. A DUI obviously has more potential to kill someone than cheating on the LSAT. I'm not trying to say the misconduct is "worse" from an overall moral or criminal point of view (and it's obviously not, a DUI can result in jail time and academic misconduct isn't even a crime). My points are simply this:

1) DUI is usually not an intentional act, it's not something that requires purpose like academic dishonesty typically does.

2) A DUI is something that may have happened earlier in the person's life history, meaning they may have learned from it and matured into a person that would no longer do it again today.

When you add 1 and 2, it at least creates situations where an adcomm would accept a statement admitting guilt and claiming maturity since then as genuine. However, LSAT misconduct is always going to be perceived by adcomms as an intentional act, and one that was done very recently.

The DUI person was still punished. They got the criminal offense on their record, they possibly got jail time, and they run the risk of losing their license in most states if they do it again. My point is just regarding what adcomms are looking for, which is a sign that your current integrity and maturity indicate you wouldn't make the same mistake while you're in law school. There are situations where the person who got the DUI can claim that. There's almost no way someone who cheated on the LSAT can.

noname086
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:15 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby noname086 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:55 pm

yea that true i guess, i see your point.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby MC Southstar » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:56 pm

talibkweli wrote:
noname086 wrote:how do you know adcoms don't think its worse? for all you know an adcom could have a family member that died because of a drunk driver. than i'd like to see what would happen to the person's admission chances.


don't get me wrong, i am really, really sorry about your relative. however, personal anecdotes are in general not a great way to support an argument.


This was exactly my point, and this is also why people think lawyers are evil.
Last edited by MC Southstar on Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Pearalegal » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:57 pm

talibkweli wrote:i was thinking of integrity narrowly defined as trustworthiness. that i think a dui is potentially not as bad as lsat cheating w/ respect to admissions isn't "childish," its actually quite accurate.


First of all, you only clarified that you were talking specifically about admissions after everyone jumped all over you. Unfortunately, I agree with you on that point because I definitely think LSAC violations harm your chances more than a DUI.

However, a DUI is a pretty huge indication you aren't trustworthy. You can't be trusted to figure out public transportation, can't be trusted to know where your limits are, can't be trusted to take care of yourself and can't be trusted to take care of others.

User avatar
BriaTharen
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:17 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby BriaTharen » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:58 pm

Wow... reading these, these DUI arguments have gotten really personal.

As far as what would happen if the driver killed someone, DUI charges can have other charges heaped on top of them- which include vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter. Also, DUI charges can have enhancements- such as fleeing, causing injury, causing damage, etc- that will make their charges more serious than a kid who gets pulled over 5 minutes after leaving the bar that caused no damage or injury and broke no other laws. All of these show up on the record. Not just the DUI.

Also, when a person is taking the LSAT, they know full and well that this goes to the law schools and can determine your entire future. This test is taken when the person has law school "on the brain." The DUI, and the effect it has on your application, is severely impacted by when the implication occurred. An occurrence in freshman year is taken much less lightly than on in senior year, as you can prove that you have realized the error of your actions beyond the legal implications, while senior year is harder to prove a change in thinking. The LSAT is the same way- it is much harder to prove that you have significantly matured when you committed an action in one of the most important area's of your application.

Bottom line is that it is much easier to minimize a DUI due to time committed and circumstances, while LSAT infractions- not so much.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby MC Southstar » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:59 pm

Pearalegal wrote:
talibkweli wrote:i was thinking of integrity narrowly defined as trustworthiness. that i think a dui is potentially not as bad as lsat cheating w/ respect to admissions isn't "childish," its actually quite accurate.


First of all, you only clarified that you were talking specifically about admissions after everyone jumped all over you. Unfortunately, I agree with you on that point because I definitely think LSAC violations harm your chances more than a DUI.

However, a DUI is a pretty huge indication you aren't trustworthy. You can't be trusted to figure out public transportation, can't be trusted to know where your limits are, can't be trusted to take care of yourself and can't be trusted to take care of others.


Personal responsibility and professional responsibility are two different things to judge, unless you're like a public figure.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Pearalegal » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:02 pm

shadowfrost000 wrote:
Personal responsibility and professional responsibility are two different things to judge, unless you're like a public figure.


Lol, or...pilot, doctor, truck driver, social worker and oh yeah, lawyer.

And about a 1,000 other positions. And anyone applying for security clearances. And anyone trying to work for the government. Come on, man.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby MC Southstar » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:05 pm

Pearalegal wrote:
shadowfrost000 wrote:
Personal responsibility and professional responsibility are two different things to judge, unless you're like a public figure.


Lol, or...pilot, doctor, truck driver, social worker and oh yeah, lawyer.

And about a 1,000 other positions. And anyone applying for security clearances. And anyone trying to work for the government. Come on, man.


Hm, actually you're right about the security clearances. I retract my previous statement in regards to how other people judge these things. However, I guess from my own point of view, I find it illogical to hold something like a DUI against someone where it has no bearing on his ability to perform their job. I'm sure if I had a personal anecdote to draw upon, I'd feel the same way as you, and that's probably why there's so much built up stigma around it.

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:09 pm

shadowfrost000 wrote:
Pearalegal wrote:
shadowfrost000 wrote:
Personal responsibility and professional responsibility are two different things to judge, unless you're like a public figure.


Lol, or...pilot, doctor, truck driver, social worker and oh yeah, lawyer.

And about a 1,000 other positions. And anyone applying for security clearances. And anyone trying to work for the government. Come on, man.


Hm, actually you're right about the security clearances. I retract my previous statement in regards to how other people judge these things. However, I guess from my own point of view, I find it illogical to hold something like a DUI against someone where it has no bearing on his ability to perform their job. I'm sure if I had a personal anecdote to draw upon, I'd feel the same way as you, and that's probably why there's so much built up stigma around it.


If someone goes out and drives drunk,I think that shows as much about their character and integrity as cheating does. Just because it wasn't done in the professional setting doesn't seem that important.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby MC Southstar » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:10 pm

Dwaterman86 wrote:
shadowfrost000 wrote:
Pearalegal wrote:
shadowfrost000 wrote:
Personal responsibility and professional responsibility are two different things to judge, unless you're like a public figure.


Lol, or...pilot, doctor, truck driver, social worker and oh yeah, lawyer.

And about a 1,000 other positions. And anyone applying for security clearances. And anyone trying to work for the government. Come on, man.


Hm, actually you're right about the security clearances. I retract my previous statement in regards to how other people judge these things. However, I guess from my own point of view, I find it illogical to hold something like a DUI against someone where it has no bearing on his ability to perform their job. I'm sure if I had a personal anecdote to draw upon, I'd feel the same way as you, and that's probably why there's so much built up stigma around it.


If someone goes out and drives drunk,I think that shows as much about their character and integrity as cheating does. Just because it wasn't done in the professional setting doesn't seem that important.


You don't necessarily need character and integrity to be a good worker bee. That is all I mean.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby vanwinkle » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:11 pm

Pearalegal wrote:However, a DUI is a pretty huge indication you aren't trustworthy. You can't be trusted to figure out public transportation, can't be trusted to know where your limits are, can't be trusted to take care of yourself and can't be trusted to take care of others.


A DUI is a pretty huge indication you weren't trustworthy. There is still room to argue that you have learned from your mistake and you won't ever do it again.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Pearalegal » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:11 pm

shadowfrost000 wrote:Hm, actually you're right about the security clearances. I retract my previous statement in regards to how other people judge these things. However, I guess from my own point of view, I find it illogical to hold something like a DUI against someone where it has no bearing on his ability to perform their job. I'm sure if I had a personal anecdote to draw upon, I'd feel the same way as you, and that's probably why there's so much built up stigma around it.


Well, taking one of the examples I mentioned earlier--any pilot who is pulled over for a DUI has their license immediately suspended and must go in front of a review board and jump a whole lotta hoops to get their position back if the board determines they even can.

Why? Because if someone is willing to put their life and other's lives in danger for a few more beers, do you want that person flying a plane full of people? Or operating on people? Or representing people in court?

Its not the DUI (and I would like to clarify that in no way do I think a DUI indicates you are an evil person...we all make mistakes, but I think its a bad idea to dismiss the consequences of operating a car when you aren't sober) that calls into their ability to perform their job, its their (cough) integrity, trustworthiness and maturity.
Last edited by Pearalegal on Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Duralex » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:11 pm

Just to keep the discussion from going totally off the rails, keep in mind that two concerns were bought up here:

-the likely reaction of adcomms

-possible problems with bar licensing

The DUI comparison was intended to speak to the latter, as the bar's moral review considers not just some general evaluation of your integrity or the quality of your character (you must be THIS good of a person to ride) but rather the more precise and question of whether or not you have the sufficient moral/ethical judgment to be trusted with a law license. DUI is pretty strong evidence of poor judgment, not to mention disrespect for the law (and not just a test rule, albeit one you agreed to in writing.) The adcomm's considerations are going to be different: given your actions, do you deserve an admit over other applicants who did not engage in such conduct?

Law school admissions are a zero sum game and emphasize academic concerns, licensing review is not a zero sum game and emphasizes professional/legal concerns.

Let's avoid the ad hominem.
Last edited by Duralex on Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Pearalegal » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:13 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
Pearalegal wrote:However, a DUI is a pretty huge indication you aren't trustworthy. You can't be trusted to figure out public transportation, can't be trusted to know where your limits are, can't be trusted to take care of yourself and can't be trusted to take care of others.


A DUI is a pretty huge indication you weren't trustworthy. There is still room to argue that you have learned from your mistake and you won't ever do it again.


Definitely! In no way do I disagree with that. However, that doesn't mean that that person doesn't need to face the consequences of their actions--even the long ranging ones that pop up long after the event. Thats how people continue to grow up.

I would argue someone who has a DUI and really learned from the experience wouldn't whine about having to explain themselves when it comes to law school admissions and the bar.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Duralex » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:15 pm

I would argue someone who has a DUI and really learned from the experience wouldn't whine about having to explain themselves when it comes to law school admissions and the bar.


...and this was true of the people I've known who've successfully dealt with it.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:16 pm

i don't think "untrustworthy" applies to a person with a dui in the same sense that it does someone who cheats on a high-stakes test.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Implications of a misconduct warning?

Postby Pearalegal » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:17 pm

Duralex wrote:
I would argue someone who has a DUI and really learned from the experience wouldn't whine about having to explain themselves when it comes to law school admissions and the bar.


...and this was true of the people I've known who've successfully dealt with it.


Right. I don't know if your "..." was indicating I was stating the obvious or that I was arguing someone hadn't, but I was just making a point.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests