MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC Forum

[prospectiveT14]

when someone goes to a drug rehab, voluntarily, admitting they did drugs but not actually getting caught with them - they don't get arrested or have a record. why is that?

but if you get caught with them, you go to jail, and then you have to go to rehab anyway - with the punishment that you did something illegal.

get caught with the same illegal drugs you had already admitted you do when you went to rehab anyway.

our legal system is NUTS. we want to punish kids for the most insane things and not teach them how it will affect them for forever.

[Eternalsunshine]

OP, it seems like you just want to argue, something I have no interest in doing with a stranger on the internet, but the advice you've gotten here is solid.
I have two semesters of Fs on my transcript from a decade ago - two semesters that I enrolled in classes at my local community college and didn't go to a single one. No medical issues, I just didn't realize that one had to withdraw in order to not receive Fs. I enlisted and served a few years in the military before deciding to go back to school. I was shocked to find out that not only did I have a bunch of failing grades on my transcript, I also had to receive special permission from the dean to reenroll at the community college. Those grades later had an impact on scholarship consideration when I transferred to a university (even though I had a 3.9 without the past semesters calculated in), and now it's reflected in my LSAC GPA. I wrote an addendum explaining that I'd made an idiotic but costly mistake, and got accepted where I wanted to go - it didn't seem to be an issue.

Write an addendum or try to get retroactive medical withdrawals if you want to, but I'd strongly encourage you to own your mistakes. It's what adults do. Even if your Fs were due to medical issues, you made a choice, a mistake, not to withdraw.

Tl;dr - stop being argumentative. Own your mistakes. Write all the addendums.

[prospectiveT14]

Mermaid, I don't disagree. There are good cops - like I mentioned the one who let my friend off with a warning when they had open container in their car.

But unfortunately the ones who are DUI cops feel this pressure to make more DUI arrests because their bosses are pressuring to do so. They feel like their livelihood is on the line, and that bleeds out into their arrest quotas.

And no, I plan to not write my addendum like I vent in therapy, I will show I have taken responsibility (which I have - I did the probation and all that even though I know I don't have a drinking problem yet they treat you like you do) and I did the license suspension, driving school, community service hours... I did all that just so it could get reduced to a lesser charge.

[prospectiveT14]

OP, it seems like you just want to argue, something I have no interest in doing with a stranger on the internet, but the advice you've gotten here is solid.
I have two semesters of Fs on my transcript from a decade ago - two semesters that I enrolled in classes at my local community college and didn't go to a single one. No medical issues, I just didn't realize that one had to withdraw in order to not receive Fs. I enlisted and served a few years in the military before deciding to go back to school. I was shocked to find out that not only did I have a bunch of failing grades on my transcript, I also had to receive special permission from the dean to reenroll at the community college. Those grades later had an impact on scholarship consideration when I transferred to a university (even though I had a 3.9 without the past semesters calculated in), and now it's reflected in my LSAC GPA. I wrote an addendum explaining that I'd made an idiotic but costly mistake, and got accepted where I wanted to go - it didn't seem to be an issue.

Write an addendum or try to get retroactive medical withdrawals if you want to, but I'd strongly encourage you to own your mistakes. It's what adults do. Even if your Fs were due to medical issues, you made a choice, a mistake, not to withdraw.

Tl;dr - stop being argumentative. Own your mistakes. Write all the addendums.

again, having something to share of personal experience that contradicts with what people are telling me does not mean I have this secret agenda to argue.

Your advice is appreciated but please don't assume you know my intentions on this board.

[cavalier1138]

Jesus. This gets better and better each time I come back to it.

[mwells56]

So are you going to accept any advice from these people or are you just going to angrily respond to everyone that says something that counts against you?

Hey, your situation sucks. I get it. But withdrawing to W's is the best realistic option you've got. Bottom line is, these schools need to report their GPAs to the rankings, and regardless of circumstance your GPA would hurt their medians. At the end of the day, these schools are businesses and they're going to do what's best for them.

Get the W's, write an addendum. Do well on the LSAT, keep improving your GPA, and you'll get to where you want to go. I sincerely wish you good luck.

w...who is angry? Are you mad that I don't just take information at face value on the internet? lol like what
If I have a different experience that defies blanket statements like "yeah no deans don't do that" then of course I'm going to share
and if you notice I have been saying "thank you for the replies"

Sorry if I misinterpreted you but I got a hostile vibe. My b.

[prospectiveT14]

this is why we have a politically correct world - because people are scared to step on other's toes. Something seems hostile, impolite, offensive, just cause I'm not on my knees saying "thank you!!!" to things that are less than good quality advice.

I'm sorry but there's good advice and then there's seemingly bad advice.

I appreciate everyone taking the time to write something, but I'm going to speak my mind on areas where I agree and disagree. And I truly empathize with people who have gotten Fs or any other nerve-wracking law school application process.

[cavalier1138]

this is why we have a politically correct world - because people are scared to step on other's toes. Something seems hostile, impolite, offensive, just cause I'm not on my knees saying "thank you!!!" to things that are less than good quality advice.

I'm sorry but there's good advice and then there's seemingly bad advice.

I appreciate everyone taking the time to write something, but I'm going to speak my mind on areas where I agree and disagree. And I truly empathize with people who have gotten Fs or any other nerve-wracking law school application process.

In this case, you've only gotten good advice, but you seem bound and determined to tell everyone (who has already gone through this process) that they're wrong.

Incidentally, the difference between you and the kid who gets caught with a half-ounce of weed during a stop-and-frisk is that you were driving a two-ton vehicle.

[prospectiveT14]

I'm not talking about getting frisked on the street (which is unfair also) but similar situations. If you get caught driving with weed, you will also get arrested. Say you have a weed problem and go to rehab? Okay we will fix you don't worry about it!!!

[prospectiveT14]

saying things like "don't go to UM" doesn't seem like good advice in MY opinion. I'm going to hold whatever options I feel have available open. I don't understand why you seem hell bent on assuming that everything on a forum - 3 pages worth so far is good quality advice.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Are you really saying that someone who voluntarily decides to go to rehab is similarly situated to someone who gets arrested for something involving drugs? Driving under the influence is a crime. Having a drug problem and deciding you need to get help isn't a crime.

There are definitely problems with the way our legal system criminalizes addiction but I don't think the laws against driving under the influence are an example of that.

[cavalier1138]

saying things like "don't go to UM" doesn't seem like good advice in MY opinion. I'm going to hold whatever options I feel have available open. I don't understand why you seem hell bent on assuming that everything on a forum - 3 pages worth so far is good quality advice.

Who said anything about assuming? I've been reading the advice you've been given, and it's all been pretty solid, including the stuff about UM not giving you very good employment outcomes.

But you're engaging in a common fallacy, which is that since someone is only telling you their opinion, that any contradictory opinion holds equal weight. If my opinion is that Miami doesn't offer you a very good shot at employment because their employment reports show a large portion of their class not being employed as attorneys, that is not on an equal footing with your opinion that employment opportunities are great, because you assume a large portion of their class is employed as attorneys but wasn't reported on the survey (and that this somehow negates all the people who directly report not being employed as attorneys).

[prospectiveT14]

mouse I feel like you don't really grasp what someone is saying before you spit back an answer.

Please, think critically about what you're saying. Just because someone is in a car, with weed (or any other drug), doesn't mean they don't think they don't have a problem. They could be going through a hard time in their life, it could be their first time trying it.

And you're also assuming that all people who go to rehab is of their own will. Some are court-ordered like how my boss is doing with her son, or there had to be an intervention by family members to get them to go. Or maybe some people don't understand in depth how rehab works or what rehab can do for them.

There are many many reasons that someone can go to rehab and not go to rehab. Please don't make universal statements that sum up things like "well there's a very obvious difference between person A and person B groups" that's not true. There's a lot of people in rehab who don't want to be there and end up doing more drugs later on. You cannot determine someone's substance abuse issue by whether they go to a rehab or not. You cannot determine it by whether they decided to drive that day or not.

[LandMermaid]

saying things like "don't go to UM" doesn't seem like good advice in MY opinion. I'm going to hold whatever options I feel have available open. I don't understand why you seem hell bent on assuming that everything on a forum - 3 pages worth so far is good quality advice.

Just to touch back on this, because I think it got skipped over and probably shouldn't have, the employment reports from schools should be viewed not as potentially underreporting, but with the understanding that schools want these to reflect the best possible numbers. So "Don't go to UM" may be good advice or may be bad, depending on your career goals/network/finances/desired practice area, but don't look at the reports as some kind of worst case scenario. They will tell you how many people didn't report, and those are going to primarily be people unemployed/employed in jobs not requiring a JD, so it will actually be inflated towards an optimistic depiction of employment. I get why you think it would be too hard to get a good survey, but law schools want the data that reflects them well more than the data that doesn't. It isn't as hard for schools to obtain the information to report as you seem to want to make it out to be.

[prospectiveT14]

saying things like "don't go to UM" doesn't seem like good advice in MY opinion. I'm going to hold whatever options I feel have available open. I don't understand why you seem hell bent on assuming that everything on a forum - 3 pages worth so far is good quality advice.

Who said anything about assuming? I've been reading the advice you've been given, and it's all been pretty solid, including the stuff about UM not giving you very good employment outcomes.

But you're engaging in a common fallacy, which is that since someone is only telling you their opinion, that any contradictory opinion holds equal weight. If my opinion is that Miami doesn't offer you a very good shot at employment because their employment reports show a large portion of their class not being employed as attorneys, that is not on an equal footing with your opinion that employment opportunities are great, because you assume a large portion of their class is employed as attorneys but wasn't reported on the survey (and that this somehow negates all the people who directly report not being employed as attorneys).

the only fallacy going on here is that you are assuming - off the bat - what fallacy I'm engaging in.
I have my reasons for not believing in employment statistics - or a lot of statistics for that matter. Doing social studies is one of the hardest things to do, as explained by my professors, and it's not as simple as spitting back stats. That's why there's a lot of varying stats reported from different institutions and many factors not accounted for.

Even if only "66%" are employed as attorneys, that doesn't mean that they didn't use their JD for something else. That doesn't mean they are in fact, unemployed. That doesn't mean that they will remain unemployed either. Please look into all the varying levels of what someone is implying before simply spitting back an emotionally-driven answer.

[cavalier1138]

You cannot determine someone's substance abuse issue by whether they go to a rehab or not. You cannot determine it by whether they decided to drive that day or not.

That's absolutely correct.

What you can determine from that is whether or not they were putting others in immediate, physical danger through their actions. We punish driving under the influence more heavily than public intoxication because being publicly intoxicated is less of a threat.

As was already said, we do need to change the way we treat addiction and addicts in our justice system. But loosening the rules on drunk driving isn't one of them.

[LandMermaid]

saying things like "don't go to UM" doesn't seem like good advice in MY opinion. I'm going to hold whatever options I feel have available open. I don't understand why you seem hell bent on assuming that everything on a forum - 3 pages worth so far is good quality advice.

Who said anything about assuming? I've been reading the advice you've been given, and it's all been pretty solid, including the stuff about UM not giving you very good employment outcomes.

But you're engaging in a common fallacy, which is that since someone is only telling you their opinion, that any contradictory opinion holds equal weight. If my opinion is that Miami doesn't offer you a very good shot at employment because their employment reports show a large portion of their class not being employed as attorneys, that is not on an equal footing with your opinion that employment opportunities are great, because you assume a large portion of their class is employed as attorneys but wasn't reported on the survey (and that this somehow negates all the people who directly report not being employed as attorneys).

the only fallacy going on here is that you are assuming - off the bat - what fallacy I'm engaging in.
I have my reasons for not believing in employment statistics - or a lot of statistics for that matter. Doing social studies is one of the hardest things to do, as explained by my professors, and it's not as simple as spitting back stats. That's why there's a lot of varying stats reported from different institutions and many factors not accounted for.

Even if only "66%" are employed as attorneys, that doesn't mean that they didn't use their JD for something else. That doesn't mean they are in fact, unemployed. That doesn't mean that they will remain unemployed either. Please look into all the varying levels of what someone is implying before simply spitting back an emotionally-driven answer.

What about that was emotionally driven?

[prospectiveT14]

You cannot determine someone's substance abuse issue by whether they go to a rehab or not. You cannot determine it by whether they decided to drive that day or not.

That's absolutely correct.

What you can determine from that is whether or not they were putting others in immediate, physical danger through their actions. We punish driving under the influence more heavily than public intoxication because being publicly intoxicated is less of a threat.

As was already said, we do need to change the way we treat addiction and addicts in our justice system. But loosening the rules on drunk driving isn't one of them.

there's factors you're not untangling here. YES there are many drunk driving accidents but there are also many accidents in general. Only a fraction are from drunk driving. This doesn't necessarily mean that alcohol directly caused the accident. These could have been people that have reckless driving habits to begin with (speeding, etc.) So how do you know that the accident was not bound to happen without alcohol anyway?

And like I said - texting and driving is not persecuted at all despite it ACTUALLY being distracting because your eyesight is completely removed from the road and onto your screen. You cannot pull someone over in Florida for texting and driving or give them a citation because it's not a primary offense. How sad right? How sad that our legal system does not have enough common sense to see what is actually a direct factor, not a factor mixed in.

People drunk drive everyday. That's why there's happy hour. They don't expect you to get out of work and then call an uber and leave your car. They expect you to have a few rounds and drive yourself home. So if the system wants drunk driving to stop it needs to happen from within not from the outskirts where the damage is.

[lymenheimer]

there's factors you're not untangling here. YES there are many drunk driving accidents but there are also many accidents in general. Only a fraction are from drunk driving. This doesn't necessarily mean that alcohol directly caused the accident. These could have been people that have reckless driving habits to begin with (speeding, etc.) So how do you know that the accident was not bound to happen without alcohol anyway?

And like I said - texting and driving is not persecuted at all despite it ACTUALLY being distracting because your eyesight is completely removed from the road and onto your screen. You cannot pull someone over in Florida for texting and driving or give them a citation because it's not a primary offense. How sad right? How sad that our legal system does not have enough common sense to see what is actually a direct factor, not a factor mixed in.

People drunk drive everyday. That's why there's happy hour. They don't expect you to get out of work and then call an uber and leave your car. They expect you to have a few rounds and drive yourself home. So if the system wants drunk driving to stop it needs to happen from within not from the outskirts where the damage is.

QFP

[TuxedoCats]

To quote the stanford rape victim "You do not know me but you have been inside of me"

And that's what it feels like, day in, day out. The memory of someone violating you fading in all the time, reminding me you of a mistake you can't escape.

I'd also like to point out that this guy compared lawful arrest and processing to rape...

[prospectiveT14]

it's the issue that cops want to find you guilty of something - while driving. They can pull you over on the road, but they can't bust inside your house without a warrant.

They find the easy way to crack down on things they can send you to jail for - which is by pulling you over and falsifying a police report. My cop said I took a flashing red when I know I didn't. And there's no footage to show for it because they can't retrieve the intersection footage or the dash cam footage which is RIDICULOUS. I was going 30 and remember the flashing red that's on at those times. He was hidden in a corner and tried to use the fact that I was over the legal limit to intimidate me into thinking I had made a driving violation. He wanted a reason to get someone who had already confessed to drinking. There was no one out on my road at that time and I'm sure he needed an arrest before the end of the night.

You can't send someone to jail for saying they have a problem beforehand. But if you smoke weed and drive, you will be sent to jail. And I know there's a lot of people who believe, very furiously, weed doesn't impair your driving. I'll let you guys debate that.

[prospectiveT14]

To quote the stanford rape victim "You do not know me but you have been inside of me"

And that's what it feels like, day in, day out. The memory of someone violating you fading in all the time, reminding me you of a mistake you can't escape.

I'd also like to point out that this guy compared lawful arrest and processing to rape...

#1 I'm not a guy, I'm a female, as I mentioned in my FIRST post
#2 have you ever been arrested?
#3 guilty of a violation does not mean guilty of punishment
#4 have you ever been raped?

[lymenheimer]

To quote the stanford rape victim "You do not know me but you have been inside of me"

And that's what it feels like, day in, day out. The memory of someone violating you fading in all the time, reminding me you of a mistake you can't escape.

I'd also like to point out that this guy compared lawful arrest and processing to rape...

Holy shit I missed that. Was going to make a statutory rape comparison earlier, but I didn't want to substantively engage.

[prospectiveT14]

there's factors you're not untangling here. YES there are many drunk driving accidents but there are also many accidents in general. Only a fraction are from drunk driving. This doesn't necessarily mean that alcohol directly caused the accident. These could have been people that have reckless driving habits to begin with (speeding, etc.) So how do you know that the accident was not bound to happen without alcohol anyway?

And like I said - texting and driving is not persecuted at all despite it ACTUALLY being distracting because your eyesight is completely removed from the road and onto your screen. You cannot pull someone over in Florida for texting and driving or give them a citation because it's not a primary offense. How sad right? How sad that our legal system does not have enough common sense to see what is actually a direct factor, not a factor mixed in.

People drunk drive everyday. That's why there's happy hour. They don't expect you to get out of work and then call an uber and leave your car. They expect you to have a few rounds and drive yourself home. So if the system wants drunk driving to stop it needs to happen from within not from the outskirts where the damage is.

QFP

thank you for your attempt at slanting my paragraph like someone who is promoting drinking and driving when I am actually trying to teach someone how to analyze statistics

[A. Nony Mouse]

mouse I feel like you don't really grasp what someone is saying before you spit back an answer.

Please, think critically about what you're saying. Just because someone is in a car, with weed (or any other drug), doesn't mean they don't think they don't have a problem. They could be going through a hard time in their life, it could be their first time trying it.

And you're also assuming that all people who go to rehab is of their own will. Some are court-ordered like how my boss is doing with her son, or there had to be an intervention by family members to get them to go. Or maybe some people don't understand in depth how rehab works or what rehab can do for them.

There are many many reasons that someone can go to rehab and not go to rehab. Please don't make universal statements that sum up things like "well there's a very obvious difference between person A and person B groups" that's not true. There's a lot of people in rehab who don't want to be there and end up doing more drugs later on. You cannot determine someone's substance abuse issue by whether they go to a rehab or not. You cannot determine it by whether they decided to drive that day or not.

Maybe you need to express yourself more clearly or read what I'm saying more closely. I never said you could determine someone's substance abuse problem by whether they go to rehab or get a DUI. I'm talking about what's legal and what isn't. Driving under the influence is illegal because it poses a tremendous risk to the rest of the public. Having a substance abuse problem and choosing to go to rehab isn't illegal because it doesn't pose a risk to the public and in fact shows an attempt to address a problem. Whether rehab will work or whether the person who gets a DUI actually has a substance abuse problem or just made a mistake is totally irrelevant. You're drawing comparisons that don't make sense. There is nothing unfair about treating someone who drives under the influence differently than someone who otherwise uses drugs. It's truly bizarre to say otherwise.

Simple possession laws are different, I would say. But if you're operating a car totally different considerations come into play.

Your arguments about drunk driving are actually pretty disturbing, as is the comparison to getting taken into custody and rape. It is not okay for people to drunk drive every day, it is not okay to have a few rounds and drive home, and alcohol absolutely does impair people's ability to drive safely. I don't even know what to say to that.

And Florida may be ass-backwards but plenty of states criminalize and prosecute texting and driving. Even if they didn't, though, because one kind of unsafe driving doesn't have a penalty doesn't mean it's okay to engage in other kinds of unsafe driving.