Test Center Violations Forum

[alwayssunnyinfl]

No he was the only one in the room with certain identifying characteristics which I am sure were evident on the required photo.

Racist.

[paratactical]

No he was the only one in the room with certain identifying characteristics which I am sure were evident on the required photo.

So you never saw the photo - just described those characteristics to ...? I'm just not understanding how you reported this incident. Did you say "the guy with three nipples, no nose and blue hair in Room 314 of the center used a cellphone on break" or did you go to the proctors and they gave you his identity?

[lshopes]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

Yes, because if there's one thing that law schools love, it's a complete disregard for context and discretion.

[lshopes]

No he was the only one in the room with certain identifying characteristics which I am sure were evident on the required photo.

Racist.

He was a white dude with a distinctive beard, hair color and face and this makes me a racist? How dare you make a judgement based on the limited info I gave you. He sat in my near area so identifying him was no stretch.

[paratactical]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

Hey, I'm just asking how you determined and reported the guy's identity, because I think you're a flame. If you seriously did this, I would like to know how because it's probably against the rules for proctors to go around giving a test taker personal details about another test taker. But hey, you're not a rulesbreaker, AMIRITE?

[Zindras]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

Safe to call troll. Bravo, lshopes.

[franklyscarlet]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

The first time your torts professor talks about something ethically wrong but not legally actionable, your brain is going to make a nice little explosion.

[facile princeps]

Today we salute you, mr. overzealous lsac rules enforcer

You, sir, are a scholar and gentleman. Pay no mind to these charlatans and ne'er-do-wells who would let such insidious cheating go unabated. Our most sacred practice -- the law, in all of her splendor -- needs more devotees of such character and fortitude. I suggest that you wear a "safety patrol" sash during your first week of 1L to let the other students know that you will keep the class safe from the blasphemy of forbidden commercial outlines and will promptly report any discussion of the exams during winter break to the proper authorities.

So crack open an ice cold bud light mr., because why ignore a rule breaker even when the punishment is potentially greater than the crime?

[Dookie39]

n

[vanwinkle]

Today we salute you, mr. overzealous lsac rules enforcer

You, sir, are a scholar and gentleman. Pay no mind to these charlatans and ne'er-do-wells who would let such insidious cheating go unabated. Our most sacred practice -- the law, in all of her splendor -- needs more devotees of such character and fortitude. I suggest that you wear a "safety patrol" sash during your first week of 1L to let the other students know that you will keep the class safe from the blasphemy of forbidden commercial outlines and will promptly report any discussion of the exams during winter break to the proper authorities.

So crack open an ice cold bud light mr., because why ignore a rule breaker even when the punishment is potentially greater than the crime?

... 1-fucking-80.

[cinephile]

I turned him in since the proctor didn't seem to care.
* I wasn't enraged (just annoyed) until I found out it will delay MY score (other than wondering if the bonehead turned it off after the break or was about to get a call asking "dude how was the LSAT lets go buttchug some wine"
* I have no idea if he used it to cheat as I didn't stalk him at the break and doesn't matter anyway as the prohibition of a cell phone was not fine print and LSAC doesn't accept lack of knowledge of the regulations as a defense. The multiple layers of warnings and certifications regarding electronic devices should have, at a minimum, caused him to step up and acknowledge he had the phone but instead he decided to text someone.

Why would you turn the guy in? You didn't see him cheating and his actions weren't affecting you. Lots of people bring their phones in. The first time I took the test was winter and almost all of us had brought our phones and we were told just put them in our coat pockets and hang the coats on the rolly-rack at the back of the room. Someone's phone even beeped from back there during the test and as far as I know, no one was identified or turned in for that. Humans are generally pretty understanding of the fact that some people overlook fine print or make mistakes in good faith. Just chill and focus on your own work.

[20130312]

Today we salute you, mr. overzealous lsac rules enforcer

... 1-fucking-80.

[NoodleyOne]

I think you have some great material for your Personal Statement here.

[lshopes]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

The first time your torts professor talks about something ethically wrong but not legally actionable, your brain is going to make a nice little explosion.

This was actionable.

And just how are we sure he couldn't use it to cheat at the break? You are willing to allow 1 rule breaker (which given the number of test takers worldwide could be 1x????) to have the potential to cheat? Wouldn't just a few hundred people potentially cheating change the percentiles for everyone? Are you really sure he couldn't affect you?

Dookie39: So your ethics dictate that breaking the rules is only a problem if it has an immediate or easily identifiable impact on someone else? Does driving drunk but not causing any harm doing it get a pass? After all, it didn't cause a direct harm that we identified. So what if the law is you can't drive drunk, let it go. No one was harmed so forget about it.

[1TLStudent]

I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

We're not defending him. You just made a really, really shitty utilitarian calculation. That's all.
Edit: It doesn't actually look like you made a utilitarian calculation at all. Which is the problem.

Personally I believe that if an action is wrong (violation of rules) I should report the same regardless of the harm to myself. The utilitarian judgement I made here is that adherence to the rules ultimately provides the best outcome to everyone as a group even if it causes an undesirable outcome to one individual (whose outcome I am, again, not responsible for-he is).

What you did not only caused severe distress to the guy with the phone, but to everyone in your test center who will now have to wait a longer time to receive their score. Don't hide behind utilitarianism; it would slap you in the face for your decision. Your actions were fueled by spite against people who "think they can get away with breaking rules" possibly because you have never had the stones to do so yourself. No judgement being passed on your actions, but at least be man enough to say "fuck it I didnt like what he was doing so I did what I wanted." You'd be (ever-so-)slightly more respectable for that position rather than the obvious BS defense of I was doing it for justice and equality. Youre not runnin for office.

[vanwinkle]

OP: Utilitarianism doesn't require you to brag about your judgment of others to The Internet. HTH.

[bjsesq]

I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

My military background requires the exact same thing. I once sat in a restaurant and watched a guy not turn away from the table when he had to cough. Given my adherence to the rules, I knew I had to take action. I walked over to his table and ripped his throat out and set it down on the table. His two young daughters cried and cried, but I feel that I taught them a valuable lesson about learning manners, you know?

[Dookie39]

x

[boredtodeath]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

The first time your torts professor talks about something ethically wrong but not legally actionable, your brain is going to make a nice little explosion.

This was actionable.

And just how are we sure he couldn't use it to cheat at the break? You are willing to allow 1 rule breaker (which given the number of test takers worldwide could be 1x????) to have the potential to cheat? Wouldn't just a few hundred people potentially cheating change the percentiles for everyone? Are you really sure he couldn't affect you?

Dookie39: So your ethics dictate that breaking the rules is only a problem if it has an immediate or easily identifiable impact on someone else? Does driving drunk but not causing any harm doing it get a pass? After all, it didn't cause a direct harm that we identified. So what if the law is you can't drive drunk, let it go. No one was harmed so forget about it.

From what I can tell from reading this thread, you seem like a super douche that very little people would want to spend time with.

How can someone even cheat on the LSAT with their phone? You think he was texting someone else taking the test during the break, asking about questions? Even IF that was the case, and even IF this "cheater's" friend could give him some info about sections he's already taken, I find it highly unlikely that this information would be valuable to the "cheater" moving forward with the test. You either know what you're doing on the test or you don't, there's really no feasible way to cheat.

I'm honestly leaning towards troll here because what you claim to have done is such a douche move AND you fucked yourself over in the process, it just seems too unbelievable.

[lshopes]

I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

My military background requires the exact same thing. I once sat in a restaurant and watched a guy not turn away from the table when he had to cough. Given my adherence to the rules, I knew I had to take action. I walked over to his table and ripped his throat out and set it down on the table. His two young daughters cried and cried, but I feel that I taught them a valuable lesson about learning manners, you know?

That's good! Especially since the dickhead had signed multiple statements certifying he would not cough without turning away, was briefed not to cough toward the table and clearly jeopardized the security of those not coughing. I can see know the positive impact this situation is having on my peers.

[franklyscarlet]

I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

My military background requires the exact same thing. I once sat in a restaurant and watched a guy not turn away from the table when he had to cough. Given my adherence to the rules, I knew I had to take action. I walked over to his table and ripped his throat out and set it down on the table. His two young daughters cried and cried, but I feel that I taught them a valuable lesson about learning manners, you know?

Now I'm literally lol'ing in the library. Oh god. Someone just got up- pretty sure they're reporting me.

[lshopes]

As I said, I am amazed at the outrage focused on me. It would seem as though I hold my fellow students to the standard set forth and very few others do. I may use this in my PS on how many people's ethics appear to be going to hell, especially surprising in a group of law school applicants. The "if it doesn't directly affect me I will ignore it" code. Such a great thing, groupthink.

The first time your torts professor talks about something ethically wrong but not legally actionable, your brain is going to make a nice little explosion.

This was actionable.

And just how are we sure he couldn't use it to cheat at the break? You are willing to allow 1 rule breaker (which given the number of test takers worldwide could be 1x????) to have the potential to cheat? Wouldn't just a few hundred people potentially cheating change the percentiles for everyone? Are you really sure he couldn't affect you?

Dookie39: So your ethics dictate that breaking the rules is only a problem if it has an immediate or easily identifiable impact on someone else? Does driving drunk but not causing any harm doing it get a pass? After all, it didn't cause a direct harm that we identified. So what if the law is you can't drive drunk, let it go. No one was harmed so forget about it.

A) Comparing a silent phone in a plastic bag to the dangers of drunk driving is just stupid, they are not even close. There is no possible danger of the silent phone to anyone, compared to the threat of death or injury resulting from drunk driving. Awful comparison. A lot of LR questions have forced people to find this faulty reasoning, maybe you struggled with them. B) If breaking a rule has no negative consequences for anyone, then yeah, I have no ethical qualms about it. Moreover, I consider it a lot worse to throw someone else under the bus for literally no reason except that they didn't follow some arbitrary rules. Having the phone on silent in a bag didn't affect you, it didn't affect anyone else, it didn't affect him, and even if he was looking at his phone somehow with the bag under his desk which sounds highly unlikely, what could he possibly have on there that would give a boost? I hope he gets to keep his score.

Assumption: phone remained on silent after the break, assumption not possible to cheat. Just applying your ethical standard to another situation. So there are clearly rules you think are ok to break?

[20130312]

So there are clearly rules you think are ok to break?

Never. I'm such a gentlemen, I don't even lie when girls ask if they look fat.

[bjsesq]

I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

My military background requires the exact same thing. I once sat in a restaurant and watched a guy not turn away from the table when he had to cough. Given my adherence to the rules, I knew I had to take action. I walked over to his table and ripped his throat out and set it down on the table. His two young daughters cried and cried, but I feel that I taught them a valuable lesson about learning manners, you know?

That's good! Especially since the dickhead had signed multiple statements certifying he would not cough without turning away, was briefed not to cough toward the table and clearly jeopardized the security of those not coughing. I can see know the positive impact this situation is having on my peers.

Can't have people jeopardizing security, that's for sure. I think this says it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyFpOp8Ft0Q