Lying on URM survey Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

And all that makes it just fine to misrepresent your ethnicity.

I don't think anyone is saying it's just fine or ethical.

True. The "nbd" message is a little disconcerting, is all.

[juristhedoctor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

Yeah, bro. Don't lie. I mean, you will probably end up living in a cardboard box like this person (the Wikipedia page doesn't mention the cardboard box residence, but that's because Wikipedia isn't a very reliable source).

You will have no friends, your family will desert you, and your life will pretty much be over. If Yale finds out, they will TOTALLY be like "you can't go to school here because of your race." You should probably just /self if you decide to check that box.

Remember what happened to Elizabeth Warren. The truth came out and she... still got elected and no one cares any more. Ethics aside, nothing is likely to happen, assuming you don't mention it outside of your app and run for office. If the app asks for a tribal affiliation and you give a false one they could check, in theory, but I suspect they won't. In general, school's take what they're given vis-a-vis ethnic background without asking questions.

(That was kind of my point, in case you didn't detect the sarcasm)

Also this:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/dionalaniz

You could end up working at a prestigious law firm and lateraling out to make six figures as a Texas Landman. Poor Dion Alaniz. The horror.

I can only hope he gets rejected at every school to which he applies if he tries this. TLS is more widely-viewed by admissions officers than OP may have assumed, and he gave enough info to out himself.

[wiz]

And all that makes it just fine to misrepresent your ethnicity.

I don't think anyone is saying it's just fine or ethical.

True. The "nbd" message is a little disconcerting, is all.

Yeah, I agree with you.

But I just took it as typical TLS banter with posters responding to the assertion that lying would necessarily screw the applicant for life.

[wiz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

Yeah, bro. Don't lie. I mean, you will probably end up living in a cardboard box like this person (the Wikipedia page doesn't mention the cardboard box residence, but that's because Wikipedia isn't a very reliable source).

You will have no friends, your family will desert you, and your life will pretty much be over. If Yale finds out, they will TOTALLY be like "you can't go to school here because of your race." You should probably just /self if you decide to check that box.

Remember what happened to Elizabeth Warren. The truth came out and she... still got elected and no one cares any more. Ethics aside, nothing is likely to happen, assuming you don't mention it outside of your app and run for office. If the app asks for a tribal affiliation and you give a false one they could check, in theory, but I suspect they won't. In general, school's take what they're given vis-a-vis ethnic background without asking questions.

(That was kind of my point, in case you didn't detect the sarcasm)

Also this:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/dionalaniz

You could end up working at a prestigious law firm and lateraling out to make six figures as a Texas Landman. Poor Dion Alaniz. The horror.

I can only hope he gets rejected at every school to which he applies if he tries this. TLS is more widely-viewed by admissions officers than OP may have assumed, and he gave enough info to out himself.

You mean to out his "friend?"

[FattyMcFatFat]

And all that makes it just fine to misrepresent your ethnicity.

I think it's pretty clear that OP already agrees with your apparent opinion that ethnic misrepresentation is unethical, but also that he/she did not come here for ethical advice:

My friend is too afraid to post on this site because the question is unethical so I will just ask it for him.

OP wants to know (1) whether he/she will get caught, and (2) what will be the consequences if he/she does get caught. The answers are (1) probably not, and (2) demonstrably inconsequential.

[juristhedoctor]

And all that makes it just fine to misrepresent your ethnicity.

I don't think anyone is saying it's just fine or ethical.

True. The "nbd" message is a little disconcerting, is all.

Yeah, I agree with you.

But I just took it as typical TLS banter with posters responding to the assertion that lying would necessarily screw the applicant for life.

I don't think lying necessarily screws the applicant for life. I think being caught could. OP posted enough detail to get his "friend" caught.

[juristhedoctor]

You mean to out his "friend?"[/quote]

Yes, of course.

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP wants to know (1) whether he/she will get caught, and (2) what will be the consequences if he/she does get caught. The answers are (1) probably not, and (2) demonstrably inconsequential.

True, but since when do posters here feel constrained to answer only the question the OP asked, and not the question they should have asked? (see: almost every suggestion to retake after the OP has already said "I'm not going to retake"). In any case, I like to think the OP('s "friend") would suffer karmic consequences, but obviously I can't quantify that.

[FattyMcFatFat]

OP wants to know (1) whether he/she will get caught, and (2) what will be the consequences if he/she does get caught. The answers are (1) probably not, and (2) demonstrably inconsequential.

True, but since when do posters here feel constrained to answer only the question the OP asked, and not the question they should have asked? (see: almost every suggestion to retake after the OP has already said "I'm not going to retake")

Since the time they respond tangentially to a posed question, believing that they are responding to the question that "should" have been asked, and get banned by one of you purple people.

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP wants to know (1) whether he/she will get caught, and (2) what will be the consequences if he/she does get caught. The answers are (1) probably not, and (2) demonstrably inconsequential.

True, but since when do posters here feel constrained to answer only the question the OP asked, and not the question they should have asked? (see: almost every suggestion to retake after the OP has already said "I'm not going to retake")

Since the time they respond tangentially to a posed question, believing that they are responding to the question that "should" have been asked, and get banned by one of you purple people.

I'd love to see an example of that.

[wiz]

OP wants to know (1) whether he/she will get caught, and (2) what will be the consequences if he/she does get caught. The answers are (1) probably not, and (2) demonstrably inconsequential.

True, but since when do posters here feel constrained to answer only the question the OP asked, and not the question they should have asked? (see: almost every suggestion to retake after the OP has already said "I'm not going to retake")

Since the time they respond tangentially to a posed question, believing that they are responding to the question that "should" have been asked, and get banned by one of you purple people.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Since the time they respond tangentially to a posed question, believing that they are responding to the question that "should" have been asked, and get banned by one of you purple people.

That does make me think of this (though it should really be eating purple people):

[uvauvauva]

In all honesty, given URM status and stuff, it is unlikely that he will be caught while in school.

But there is the C&F. If they look at your apps (as part of the process) you'll be screwed. But that depends on what state you sit for on the bar exam.

I wouldn't do it. I personally would not be able to live with myself. If you have low grades/lsat, and you go to a top school, you'll probably will end up at the lower end of your class b/c you don't deserve to be there in the first place. Talk about taking 200k in debt, graduating at the bottom of your class, failing the bar, and three years of your life.

Basically it is stupid.

[poke800ash]

In all honesty, given URM status and stuff, it is unlikely that he will be caught while in school.

But there is the C&F. If they look at your apps (as part of the process) you'll be screwed. But that depends on what state you sit for on the bar exam.

I wouldn't do it. I personally would not be able to live with myself. If you have low grades/lsat, and you go to a top school, you'll probably will end up at the lower end of your class b/c you don't deserve to be there in the first place. Talk about taking 200k in debt, graduating at the bottom of your class, failing the bar, and three years of your life.

Basically it is stupid.

Not to be critical or offensive, while I too would not do such a thing as faking my application to score a better school, I think your performance analysis can be said for most people receiving the URM boost and I think op is perfectly aware that he will be competing with students of higher caliber even if he were to only receive the Mexican boost. OP is probably the kind of "prestige whore" that would like to do everything he can to get into hys and he is simply trying to weigh the risk/gain of an ethical breach.

[NYstate]

I don't think there is enough info on people getting caught for faking URM status while applying. I'm sure there are repurcussions if you get caught.

This would be a good question for the Spivey thread. I'm sure this has happened.

[FattyMcFatFat]

OP wants to know (1) whether he/she will get caught, and (2) what will be the consequences if he/she does get caught. The answers are (1) probably not, and (2) demonstrably inconsequential.

True, but since when do posters here feel constrained to answer only the question the OP asked, and not the question they should have asked? (see: almost every suggestion to retake after the OP has already said "I'm not going to retake")

Since the time they respond tangentially to a posed question, believing that they are responding to the question that "should" have been asked, and get banned by one of you purple people.

I'd love to see an example of that.

You must be new here.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You must be new here.

Then educate me.

(As fun as this is: yes, the OP acknowledged the idea was unethical, and I acknowledged that giving examples of two people who have managed to survive being found out as having done this does not mean you think it's fine. Happy?)

[NYstate]

You must be new here.

You realize she's a mod, right?
Ive never seen anyone banned for going off topic. Maybe if they venture into inappropriate URM boost discussion?

[wiz]

You must be new here.

You realize she's a mod, right?
Ive never seen anyone banned for going off topic. Maybe if they venture into inappropriate URM boost discussion?

Based on the purple people quip, I think FattyMcFatFat realizes that.

But I don't remember seeing anyone banned for going off topic either.

[FattyMcFatFat]

Since the time they respond tangentially to a posed question, believing that they are responding to the question that "should" have been asked, and get banned by one of you purple people.

I'd love to see an example of that.

You must be new here.

Then educate me.

I have little interest in your personal edification. I am pretty sure, however, that I'm being trolled by an ugly woman mod or a male mod with small genitals . . . . Perhaps this is a new TLS?

[wiz]

You must be new here.

Then educate me.

(As fun as this is: yes, the OP acknowledged the idea was unethical, and I acknowledged that giving examples of two people who have managed to survive being found out as having done this does not mean you think it's fine. Happy?)

I was happy when you posted the purple monster pic. Everything beyond that has just been gravy.

[FattyMcFatFat]

You must be new here.

You realize she's a mod, right?
Ive never seen anyone banned for going off topic. Maybe if they venture into inappropriate URM boost discussion?

Based on the purple people quip, I think FattyMcFatFat realizes that.

But I don't remember seeing anyone banned for going off topic either.

Here you go:

The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

You consistently post borderline off-topic comments in the on-topic threads. This is your warning to stop.

This was followed by a ban.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I have little interest in your personal edification. I am pretty sure, however, that I'm being trolled by an ugly woman mod or a male mod with small genitals . . . . Perhaps this is a new TLS?

Oh, honey, bless your heart.

[FattyMcFatFat]

I have little interest in your personal edification. I am pretty sure, however, that I'm being trolled by an ugly woman mod or a male mod with small genitals . . . . Perhaps this is a new TLS?

Oh, honey, bless your heart.

Is that a confirmation? That sounds like a confirmation.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I have little interest in your personal edification. I am pretty sure, however, that I'm being trolled by an ugly woman mod or a male mod with small genitals . . . . Perhaps this is a new TLS?

Oh, honey, bless your heart.

Is that a yes? That sounds like a yes.

If it makes you feel better to think that.

Just so the policy about off-topic posting here is clear, one poster consistently posting off-topic in a number of threads is different from following a thread in a variety of directions. Also, if it was followed by a ban, you clearly didn't heed the warning, so that's on you.

But this conversation played out its usefulness long ago.

EDIT: In case someone reads this far, Mike Spivey did take the time to respond to what the OP proposed: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 5#p7087165