Implications of a misconduct warning? Forum

[MC Southstar]

i hate to sound self righteous, but just to play a devil's advocate of sorts.....duis don't really bring one's integrity into question. therefore, it is a pretty weak analogy.

Did anyone not laugh at this?

Integrity, plain and simple, is "the quality of being honest and having strong moral/ethical principles; moral/ethical uprightness".

Having an understanding of ethics, and then use those ethics in practice, would lead someone to follow the principle that one must not engage in activity that has the potential to be detrimental to others.

I see no difference, as far as ethics go, between cross-bubbling and DUI's. Both are a clear diversion from those principles. While you shouldn't spend a night in jail for it, it is nonetheless still a black and white matter.

As far as your future, as others have posted, I wouldn't worry about admission to a reputable school and eventually bar passage. Write a good addendum and get in touch with the Dean (Admissions Director) at the school you're applying and lay it all out briefly and you'll set yourself up for the best opportunity for admittance.

I wish you the best.

Since integrity generally means adhering to a certain moral code, I agree with you since laws are the most definitive version of our society's moral code. I'd argue that both DUI and cross bubbling are those rules that everyone knows about, but everyone chooses to break at some point out of rational self-interest (low risk, high reward). Therefore, just because one person was caught and another person wasn't doesn't make the first person more immoral, just more careless. Mincing words.

Some people can drive better drunk than others can drive sober. Seriously.

[somewhatwayward]

i hate to sound self righteous, but just to play a devil's advocate of sorts.....duis don't really bring one's integrity into question. therefore, it is a pretty weak analogy.

i guess duis don't bring integrity into question, but i think they should put a red flag on someone's application. driving under the influence is really selfish and stupid, and people shouldn't let themselves get so drunk that they don't have good judgment anymore. (i am biased: my grandparents died as the result of a drunk driver).

if it was related to an alcohol problem and the person had made a successful effort to change his/her ways, that would mitigate it, but a lot of people i know who got duis just did the shit they had to do and went on drinking and driving like they did before

[APimpNamedSlickback]

i hate to sound self righteous, but just to play a devil's advocate of sorts.....duis don't really bring one's integrity into question. therefore, it is a pretty weak analogy.

Did anyone not laugh at this?

Integrity, plain and simple, is "the quality of being honest and having strong moral/ethical principles; moral/ethical uprightness".

Having an understanding of ethics, and then use those ethics in practice, would lead someone to follow the principle that one must not engage in activity that has the potential to be detrimental to others.

I see no difference, as far as ethics go, between cross-bubbling and DUI's. Both are a clear diversion from those principles. While you shouldn't spend a night in jail for it, it is nonetheless still a black and white matter.

As far as your future, as others have posted, I wouldn't worry about admission to a reputable school and eventually bar passage. Write a good addendum and get in touch with the Dean (Admissions Director) at the school you're applying and lay it all out briefly and you'll set yourself up for the best opportunity for admittance.

I wish you the best.

hey webster, if you don't recognize the obvious distinction between a dui and a calculated violation of dishonesty, i'm not sure what to tell you.

[laidoffjournalist]

i hate to sound self righteous, but just to play a devil's advocate of sorts.....duis don't really bring one's integrity into question. therefore, it is a pretty weak analogy.

Did anyone not laugh at this?

Integrity, plain and simple, is "the quality of being honest and having strong moral/ethical principles; moral/ethical uprightness".

Having an understanding of ethics, and then use those ethics in practice, would lead someone to follow the principle that one must not engage in activity that has the potential to be detrimental to others.

I see no difference, as far as ethics go, between cross-bubbling and DUI's. Both are a clear diversion from those principles. While you shouldn't spend a night in jail for it, it is nonetheless still a black and white matter.

As far as your future, as others have posted, I wouldn't worry about admission to a reputable school and eventually bar passage. Write a good addendum and get in touch with the Dean (Admissions Director) at the school you're applying and lay it all out briefly and you'll set yourself up for the best opportunity for admittance.

I wish you the best.

hey webster, if you don't recognize the obvious distinction between a dui and a calculated violation of dishonesty, i'm not sure what to tell you.

I think a DUI is far worse. It's very easy to, during the pressure of a timed test, notice you didn't finish bubbling and want to do it. It's another thing to get drunk, get behind the wheel and start driving, knowing you are putting other people's lives at risk. Cross-bubbling isn't going to hurt anyone but yourself. Drunk driving puts everyone on the road with you at risk.

When people get on the road to drive somewhere, it's their expectation that other drivers are not going to be drunk or dangerous. There's a social agreement that makes roads work. If you think driving drunk isn't a dishonest thing to do, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

at least with a dui, your faculties are impaired when you decide to get behind the wheel. therefore, you can at least argue that such a choice doesn't really say anything about your character. cheating on the lsat, however, says alot about how you react to pressure.

[somewhatwayward]

so if someone murdered someone else while they were drunk it wouldn't say anything about their character?

[maebysurely]

if you don't recognize the obvious distinction between a dui and a calculated violation of dishonesty, i'm not sure what to tell you.

+1

What the hell. Cross bubbling is TOTALLY cheating. But, I would rather take the cross bubbler than the dui guy. YOU'RE COMPARING A GUY WHO RISKED HIS LIFE AND RISKED MURDERING SOMEONE ELSE to someone who bubbled in "b" after time was called.

A classmate of mine is paralyzed because of some fucktard who drove while drunk. Driving while drunk is the worst mistake you can make, ever. It's not in the least bit excusable, under any circumstances. What the hell is wrong with you guys? I'm not saying that people should hang scarlet letters around their necks and be dismissed from law school or whatever. But I just cannot believe you're comparing a dui with someone who crossed bubbled.

I understand that using the word "calculated" all of a sudden makes it worse than a DUI... but you guys are seriously warped. WARPED!

[laidoffjournalist]

at least with a dui, your faculties are impaired when you decide to get behind the wheel. therefore, you can at least argue that such a choice doesn't really say anything about your character. cheating on the lsat, however, says alot about how you react to pressure.

Wow, you think that things you do when you're drunk don't say anything about your character? I guess Mel Gibson isn't a Jew-hating racist after all. If anything, being drunk reduces your inhibitions and reveals more about what kind of person you are.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

so if someone murdered someone else while they were drunk it wouldn't say anything about their character?

AND YOU GET A "WHAT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ABOVE" LSAT QUESTION WRONG. CONGRATS!

I said you can make a reasonable argument specifically with respect to a dui. way to build a strawman.

[MC Southstar]

To equate the absolute worst possible result of an action in one case with the expected result of that action in a wide range of scenarios is a logical fallacy. Getting in your car and driving to work everyday with a deadline is dangerous too.

general understanding is that Cheating is much worse than DUI for LS admissions, why?

Because DUI just means you were irresponsible and stupid in your own time. Cheating means you were irresponsible and stupid while you were doing something important. No one really cares what you do in your off time, go do coke if you want, just be in the office on time and don't fail to follow the rules when you really need to.

That's all I have to offer.

[terpstudent]

at least with a dui, your faculties are impaired when you decide to get behind the wheel. therefore, you can at least argue that such a choice doesn't really say anything about your character. cheating on the lsat, however, says alot about how you react to pressure.

I couldn't disagree more. The fact that you (presumably) willingly allowed your faculties to become impaired is a testament to your character in at least SOME way. And just because you weren't fully in control of yourself doesn't negate the wrongness (both legal and moral) of your actions fully at all. That still says something UNQUESTIONABLY about your character - aka you behaved recklessly and didn't have the good sense to make other arrangements.

Bottom line - There aren't enough similarities to make the comparison between DUIs and LSAT misconduct a compelling analogy. I'd say academic dishonesty would be closer, like if you were previously referred to your school's honor council/judicial board for cheating in class. DUIs, however, say nothing about your academic integrity.

[laidoffjournalist]

so if someone murdered someone else while they were drunk it wouldn't say anything about their character?

AND YOU GET A "WHAT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ABOVE" LSAT QUESTION WRONG. CONGRATS!

I said you can make a reasonable argument specifically with respect to a dui. way to build a strawman.

Way to call people names because you're trying to argue cross bubbling on a test is worse than driving drunk. A typical stance of someone who drives drunk, I'm sure.

at least with a dui, your faculties are impaired ... therefore, you can at least argue that such a choice doesn't really say anything about your character.

Hm, yep, that's what you said. Presence of alcohol = unreliable reading of someone's character.

[maebysurely]

at least with a dui, your faculties are impaired when you decide to get behind the wheel. therefore, you can at least argue that such a choice doesn't really say anything about your character. cheating on the lsat, however, says alot about how you react to pressure.

A DUI says that you are an idiotic fucktard who not only doesn't mind ruining your own life, but ruin the lives of other people, JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE SUCH A LOSER, you couldn't make a plan beforehand.

Christ in heaven. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.

Ugh, such disappointment from someone with such a cool moniker. Damnit, Talibkweli! I wanted to like you.

[laidoffjournalist]

To equate the absolute worst possible result of an action in one case with the expected result of that action in a wide range of scenarios is a logical fallacy. Getting in your car and driving to work everyday with a deadline is dangerous too.

I'm pretty sure half of all deadly car accidents are caused by alcohol, not deadlines. A logical fallacy is trying to paint driving drunk and driving while you're late as parallel examples.

[vanwinkle]

Just to add to what I said earlier... You have to look at the larger picture. Perhaps you can look at the individual example, see someone "bubbling in an answer on the wrong section" or "bubbling in answer after time ran out", and to you, that's not morally wrong or it doesn't seem serious. But look at the bigger picture. LSAC says that an "honest mistake" is not a defense. They clearly don't care about motive, and lump all the offenses together regardless of motive.

Someone seen doing what OP was doing might not have "just" been filling in answers in the wrong section. He might have referred to an illicitly obtained answer sheet, he might have figured out another person in the room had that section and started copying off of them. The filling in when he wasn't supposed to was the only part that was caught, they don't know about the underlying motives or knowledge, and they explicitly state that they don't care.

Surely those are more serious behaviors that more of you would agree are "morally wrong", and those get lumped into the same misconduct label that OP got. Look at it that way. LSAC won't accept evidence that you were doing something "innocently", they so want to discourage anything that appears to be misconduct that they lump the "innocent" mistakes with the "blatantly guilty" ones and don't care if it ends up harming people who didn't mean to do something wrong.

The LSAC report will be something probably bland and boring and legal sounding, like, "Appointed proctor observed candidate filling in answers to a section for which time had expired in violation of LSAC stated policy and rules. Candidate was notified of his rights and did not appeal this decision." That same description could apply to someone who was copying answers off someone else or cheating in some other greater way. They don't know about motives or intents and they don't care, it's the same charge either way.

It's not what OP did, it's what the law schools will see. They're going to see a report of academic dishonesty, and OP really can't explain it away on an addendum. (What's he supposed to say? "It's not as bad as it looks, I only cheated a little"?) With a notification like that, and a lack of OP's ability to explain it, schools will be free to assume whatever they want.

This is why I say I'd expect it to go badly for OP. At a school where his numbers are clearly above their medians, the schools might be willing to use that to overlook one possibly minor infraction (there's still a benefit to the school in taking them). But at a top law school that gets thousands of applications and has more qualified applicants than they have seats, especially if OP's numbers aren't absolutely stellar, those schools probably have enough applicants with good numbers who don't have unexplained warnings of academic misconduct.

[MC Southstar]

To equate the absolute worst possible result of an action in one case with the expected result of that action in a wide range of scenarios is a logical fallacy. Getting in your car and driving to work everyday with a deadline is dangerous too.

I'm pretty sure half of all deadly car accidents are caused by alcohol, not deadlines. A logical fallacy is trying to paint driving drunk and driving while you're late as parallel examples.

*shrug* I'm not really trying to paint them as parallel examples. Obviously, driving drunk increases your risk for having an accident. I agree that it's against my personal morals. I'm just annoyed that people are making such emotional appeals to make personal attacks on talibkweli when it isn't necessary. Alcohol inhibits your GABA receptors and slows overall activity in the brain, therefore, you should not drive when you are drunk. However, it is also true that many people who drive drunk do so while they believe they are otherwise capable of driving. This is an alcohol induced decision, not a calculated one. Then what you should be stigmatizing is the act of drinking altogether, not the act of driving. It is hypocritical to call drunk driving bad while our culture glorifies the use of alcohol for just about every occasion when everyone knows that people are overconfident and stupid when they are drunk and more likely to make bad decisions.

On the other hand, the rising incidence of drunk driving related vehicle deaths in China, for example, proves that strict enforcement and social stigma against drunk driving is necessary to reduce transportation hazards (China has no stigma or laws against it and their traffic and drinking habits are much worse). It should be a stain on someone's integrity because if we don't take it seriously enough, then it will continue to be a problem.

I have a habit of defending views that are not my own, so don't confuse my arguments with my personal feelings. My personal feelings are that the existing laws and enforcement against drunk driving are sufficient. If anything, people just need to take a more active role in being responsible with their friends.

[vanwinkle]

Also, a common argument for why DUIs are punishable is that while your faculties were impaired at the time you crashed into your victim, you did make a conscious choice when you were sober to let yourself get wasted to the point that you did something stupid and killed someone. There's still a voluntary choice by the offender that's morally wrong. The person should make the decision while they are still sober that they have someone else drive them wherever they need to go after they start drinking.

[TrackTony88]

what about a person with a DUI conviction who gets a misconduct warning for that sacred bubble? DUN DUN DUN. Which reason will get him/her not admitted to law school?

[laidoffjournalist]

I'm just annoyed that people are making such emotional appeals to make personal attacks on talibkweli when it isn't necessary.

He's the one that called someone else a buffoon. Just because people disagree with the absurdity of the awful analogy cheating on a test vs. drunk driving isn't a personal attack. Sorry. I'd read the discussion closer. edit: he edited it out. Of course.

[vanwinkle]

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"...

[D. H2Oman]

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"...

Vanwinkle is right, in that there really is no good explanation for OP's cheating on the LSAT; which is why I think he should cancel, retake, and include an incredibly apologetic addenda about owning up to his mistake to go along with his applications.

How much will it hurt him if he does this; hard to say and probably highly variable from school to school. I think it's his best course of action though.

As far as DUI vs. LSAT cheating, I think it's really hard to compare the two considering they are so different. I personally think a DUI is worse. However, I have no idea how adcomm's view the two. The idea that they could view the cheating as worse seems reasonable, but this too probably varies by school, and also by how effectively the applicant "spins" (for lack of a better word) the situation.

[MC Southstar]

I'm just annoyed that people are making such emotional appeals to make personal attacks on talibkweli when it isn't necessary.

He's the one that called someone else a buffoon. Just because people disagree with the absurdity of the awful analogy cheating on a test vs. drunk driving isn't a personal attack. Sorry. I'd read the discussion closer. edit: he edited it out. Of course.

Iuno, his statements seemed pretty neutral to me when I read them. Anyway, doesn't matter.

Cross-bubbling, you're not supposed to do it, if you get caught, you're incompetent in more ways than one. DUI, just don't do it if you can help it. That is all.

[vanwinkle]

Vanwinkle is right, in that there really is no good explanation for OP's cheating on the LSAT; which is why I think he should cancel, retake, and include an incredibly apologetic addenda about owning up to his mistake to go along with his applications.

I'd go a little further. Cancel, retake, withdraw any law school apps already submitted, and wait to apply until next year.

[vanwinkle]

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.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

1. i edited it out within seconds, and i can assure you that it was not out of any concern for anyone's feelings

2. lets also get the scope right here....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, but rather am trying to think through what the tangible implications of the violation will be.

tls posters can be beyond insufferable sometimes.