Test Center Violations Forum

[jess]

.

[paratactical]

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.

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?

If Waterman weren't busy ranting about voter ID laws, I would swear this was his work.

[Clarity]

Well OP you might as well report me and the person that sat next to me since I brought more than three pencils and she brought more than 500ml of water. Rules are rules.

[R86]

Oh, you're reported.

I think you did the right thing OP.

My proctor was absolutely negligent when I took the test. So many people brought boxes of pencils, or at least half a dozen. LSAC clearly states you should only bring 3 or 4 pencils on the day of the test. It was a pain drawing charicatures of the offenders so I could report them later (I, of course, didn't have my phone to take pictures with) but I think that I owed it to LSAC and everyone else that justice be served.

[Pereos]

OP - You should know that you do not stand alone. I too have issues with such flagrant disregard for rules just because they don't immediately affect others. The fact is that LSAC established these "arbitrary" rules to protect the security of the test because a breach in security could cost them a lot of money! That and they are ensuring a level of fairness, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the perpetrator used his phone during the test, or even if he didn't use it during the break, the proctor still permitted him to have his phone when YOU were not. Just because certain people decide to follow the rules doesn't make them a douche, or "too scared to break the rules." I too am incredibly surprised at the negative reaction that this post has received from an audience so inclined to pursue a career in justice and the law.

Let's give this party the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't cheat on his phone during the break. Say he used his phone to listen to music for the 15 minute break to calm his nerves and re-focus himself for the final push. Were you allowed that opportunity? I sure as hell was not. I had to tackle my nerves just as everyone else did, but not this guy. You tell me how that is fair? Sure this doesn't directly affect MY score, but it unfairly could positively impact his score. It is "breaking the rules" to gain an advantage over others in such a way that LSAC explicitly prohibits. I don't know about you, but I received a couple of LSAC alert emails telling me the prohibited items, I signed an admission ticket, was warned at least three times before being assigned to rooms, and was even reminded one last time in the narrative that the proctor read for the test.

But I am a douche and should mind my own damn business. He isn't hurting me. I should let him have his advantage and I am just whining because I didn't have the balls to break a rule that the LSAC explicitly stated, because I am a loser, despite the potential consequences for my future that is in the hands of the LSAC. After all, its not like he is cheating. It's not like he can even cheat using his phone? I mean, what is he going to do? Text someone else answers about the test? There is no way that he can warn someone else about a killer !Kung passage, or warn someone to leave enough time for the zones game (I understand this was the last section for everyone, but if the order were different and before the break for some but not others). The rules are there for a reason and it is ridiculous to me that so many of you could care less to abide by them.

You would be welcomed in my law firm OP. Don't worry about the ambulance-chasing firms that these haters would prefer that you stay away from.

[lshopes]

o

OP - You should know that you do not stand alone. I too have issues with such flagrant disregard for rules just because they don't immediately affect others. The fact is that LSAC established these "arbitrary" rules to protect the security of the test because a breach in security could cost them a lot of money! That and they are ensuring a level of fairness, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the perpetrator used his phone during the test, or even if he didn't use it during the break, the proctor still permitted him to have his phone when YOU were not. Just because certain people decide to follow the rules doesn't make them a douche, or "too scared to break the rules." I too am incredibly surprised at the negative reaction that this post has received from an audience so inclined to pursue a career in justice and the law.

Let's give this party the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't cheat on his phone during the break. Say he used his phone to listen to music for the 15 minute break to calm his nerves and re-focus himself for the final push. Were you allowed that opportunity? I sure as hell was not. I had to tackle my nerves just as everyone else did, but not this guy. You tell me how that is fair? Sure this doesn't directly affect MY score, but it unfairly could positively impact his score. It is "breaking the rules" to gain an advantage over others in such a way that LSAC explicitly prohibits. I don't know about you, but I received a couple of LSAC alert emails telling me the prohibited items, I signed an admission ticket, was warned at least three times before being assigned to rooms, and was even reminded one last time in the narrative that the proctor read for the test.

But I am a douche and should mind my own damn business. He isn't hurting me. I should let him have his advantage and I am just whining because I didn't have the balls to break a rule that the LSAC explicitly stated, because I am a loser, despite the potential consequences for my future that is in the hands of the LSAC. After all, its not like he is cheating. It's not like he can even cheat using his phone? I mean, what is he going to do? Text someone else answers about the test? There is no way that he can warn someone else about a killer !Kung passage, or warn someone to leave enough time for the zones game (I understand this was the last section for everyone, but if the order were different and before the break for some but not others). The rules are there for a reason and it is ridiculous to me that so many of you could care less to abide by them.

You would be welcomed in my law firm OP. Don't worry about the ambulance-chasing firms that these haters would prefer that you stay away from.

Just as I was beginning to lose faith in my fellow future attorneys a lone voice in the wilderness. I can only hope there are more like you applying to my first choice school. You are right, I would expect those who intend to uphold our laws in the future would not turn a blind eye to such disregard for the rules governing the most important test we will take until the bar exam. If I'm a douche, loser, pos, whatever I can live with that. I broke no rules. In Knoxville, we have 4 convicted rapists/murderers to retry because the attorneys involved in the trial turned a blind eye to the fact the presiding judge was high on pain pills during the trial. I guess the were justified, after all, they got their (now worthless) convictions. Even worse, because of double jeopardy laws, they cannot be convicted of any crime status higher than those they were already convicted of. Expediency=3 lost chances for the death penalty.

Anyone who tries to say this is different just fails to realize the slippery slope if situational ethics.

[franklyscarlet]

I really want this to be OP alting and backing himself up. That's my favorite fail.

[paratactical]

I really want this to be OP alting and backing himself up. That's my favorite fail.

C'mon, you gotta give him a chance for a bit more back and forth before you call him out on it. Go quote my third post in this thread.

[uvabro]

I will gladly say I brought my phone to the LSAT turned off and kept in my pocket. I took it in an area of high crime, and my car would have been broken into. Almost everyone does this. I wouldn't put it past this area to have figured out when the LSAT was, and break into everyone's cars to steal their iPhones. It is a law that makes sense, but I think LSAC expects people will break it in sensible fashion.

[lshopes]

I really want this to be OP alting and backing himself up. That's my favorite fail.

I can assure you I'm not posting under any other name. I don't have time for that and really don't care what any of you no-ethics losers think of me. I'm just stunned at how many of you have posted a defense of this guy or an attack of me. I stand by my actions.

[shifty_eyed]

I think you did the right thing OP.

My proctor was absolutely negligent when I took the test. So many people brought boxes of pencils, or at least half a dozen. LSAC clearly states you should only bring 3 or 4 pencils on the day of test. It was a pain drawing charicatures of the offenders so I could report them later (I, of course, didn't have my phone to take pictures with) but I think that I owed it to LSAC and everyone else that justice be served.

This made me laugh the most in this thread.

[052220151]

I think you did the right thing OP.

My proctor was absolutely negligent when I took the test. So many people brought boxes of pencils, or at least half a dozen. LSAC clearly states you should only bring 3 or 4 pencils on the day of test. It was a pain drawing charicatures of the offenders so I could report them later (I, of course, didn't have my phone to take pictures with) but I think that I owed it to LSAC and everyone else that justice be served.

180

[05062014]

I would not have reported him unless his phone went off during the test. I do see the value in the no phone rule though. The fucking exclamation points in the kung passage caught me off guard as I was buzzing from a caffeine pill (or two) I popped before the exam. I literally thought there was some sort of formatting error on my copy of the test. Knowing to expect that passage, and even the first one with the weird perspective would have given me a critical edge in my weakest section of the test. For others who have issues killing games, knowing that the formal logic required for the hardest game was not really all that convoluted if you stayed calm, or, what order to complete the games could have yielded great benefits to people taking the test in different time zones or in a different section order. With the increasing curves of the Oct and Dec tests, it seems as if a substantial component of your end score is how you react to the unknown or tricky aspects of the test, and how you are able to effectively cut your losses in these situations. A cellphone can make these components of the test a cakewalk if you even have a fraction of time longer to know they are coming.

[Pereos]

I would not have reported him unless his phone went off during the test. I do see the value in the no phone rule though. The fucking exclamation points in the kung passage caught me off guard as I was buzzing from a caffeine pill (or two) I popped before the exam. I literally thought there was some sort of formatting error on my copy of the test. Knowing to expect that passage, and even the first one with the weird perspective would have given me a critical edge in my weakest section of the test. For others who have issues killing games, knowing that the formal logic required for the hardest game was not really all that convoluted if you stayed calm, or, what order to complete the games could have yielded great benefits to people taking the test in different time zones or in a different section order. With the increasing curves of the Oct and Dec tests, it seems as if a substantial component of your end score is how you react to the unknown or tricky aspects of the test, and how you are able to effectively cut your losses in these situations. A cellphone can make these components of the test a cakewalk if you even have a fraction of time longer to know they are coming.

Thank you for your agreement. I don't need to justify my own account. That suggestion only serves to distract from the real issue: that you are fine with some people not being held to the same standards as the rest of the LSAT population.

[052220151]

I would not have reported him unless his phone went off during the test. I do see the value in the no phone rule though. The fucking exclamation points in the kung passage caught me off guard as I was buzzing from a caffeine pill (or two) I popped before the exam. I literally thought there was some sort of formatting error on my copy of the test. Knowing to expect that passage, and even the first one with the weird perspective would have given me a critical edge in my weakest section of the test. For others who have issues killing games, knowing that the formal logic required for the hardest game was not really all that convoluted if you stayed calm, or, what order to complete the games could have yielded great benefits to people taking the test in different time zones or in a different section order. With the increasing curves of the Oct and Dec tests, it seems as if a substantial component of your end score is how you react to the unknown or tricky aspects of the test, and how you are able to effectively cut your losses in these situations. A cellphone can make these components of the test a cakewalk if you even have a fraction of time longer to know they are coming.

Thank you for your agreement. I don't need to justify my own account. That suggestion only serves to distract from the real issue: that you are fine with some people not being held to the same standards as the rest of the LSAT population.

Is this OP alting?

[uvabro]

I really want this to be OP alting and backing himself up. That's my favorite fail.

I can assure you I'm not posting under any other name. I don't have time for that and really don't care what any of you no-ethics losers think of me. I'm just stunned at how many of you have posted a defense of this guy or an attack of me. I stand by my actions.

LOLLLLL.

Law requires you to work and connect with other people, which is hard to do on your giant high horse. Yes, attorneys or prospective attorneys should be held to a higher level, but there is something called judgment. If he wasn't doing it to cheat or didn't have any bad intent, maybe it wasn't worth your getting involved. Do you also call the cops when you see someone driving over the speed limit by 5 miles?

Maybe you could have read into the situation more to see if it really violated what LSAC's logic was - disturbing others by calling/trying to gain an advantage rather than employing your own high horse better than you strict liability standard. By your making it a big deal to a proctor, you also make the proctor handle the situation differently than they may have otherwise, which might entail using their own judgment of whether something is truly "cheating".

[uvabro]

I would not have reported him unless his phone went off during the test. I do see the value in the no phone rule though. The fucking exclamation points in the kung passage caught me off guard as I was buzzing from a caffeine pill (or two) I popped before the exam. I literally thought there was some sort of formatting error on my copy of the test. Knowing to expect that passage, and even the first one with the weird perspective would have given me a critical edge in my weakest section of the test. For others who have issues killing games, knowing that the formal logic required for the hardest game was not really all that convoluted if you stayed calm, or, what order to complete the games could have yielded great benefits to people taking the test in different time zones or in a different section order. With the increasing curves of the Oct and Dec tests, it seems as if a substantial component of your end score is how you react to the unknown or tricky aspects of the test, and how you are able to effectively cut your losses in these situations. A cellphone can make these components of the test a cakewalk if you even have a fraction of time longer to know they are coming.

i still wouldn't have reported him because the damage it would do to him so far exceeds what a slight 10 second distraction does to me that despite him being a stranger i just wouldn't f someone like that unless it was evident they were trying to gain an advantage, and f me and everyone else.

[Pereos]

I will gladly say I brought my phone to the LSAT turned off and kept in my pocket. I took it in an area of high crime, and my car would have been broken into. Almost everyone does this. I wouldn't put it past this area to have figured out when the LSAT was, and break into everyone's cars to steal their iPhones. It is a law that makes sense, but I think LSAC expects people will break it in sensible fashion.

Give your phone to the proctor then? I can understand your situation but there are feasible alternatives that still comply with the rules. I am not making any judgment about you, but are we other test takers supposed to just have faith that you won't pull your phone out of your pocket during the break for any reason (even excluding for cheating)? You perjured yourself by signing the admission ticket, and writing out the paragraph certification claiming that you did not have any electronics with you, did you not? You certified a lie. Is that not a wrong action?

[franklyscarlet]

I really want this to be OP alting and backing himself up. That's my favorite fail.

C'mon, you gotta give him a chance for a bit more back and forth before you call him out on it. Go quote my third post in this thread.

I just got so damn excited It happens to lots of posters, right?

[Pereos]

I would not have reported him unless his phone went off during the test. I do see the value in the no phone rule though. The fucking exclamation points in the kung passage caught me off guard as I was buzzing from a caffeine pill (or two) I popped before the exam. I literally thought there was some sort of formatting error on my copy of the test. Knowing to expect that passage, and even the first one with the weird perspective would have given me a critical edge in my weakest section of the test. For others who have issues killing games, knowing that the formal logic required for the hardest game was not really all that convoluted if you stayed calm, or, what order to complete the games could have yielded great benefits to people taking the test in different time zones or in a different section order. With the increasing curves of the Oct and Dec tests, it seems as if a substantial component of your end score is how you react to the unknown or tricky aspects of the test, and how you are able to effectively cut your losses in these situations. A cellphone can make these components of the test a cakewalk if you even have a fraction of time longer to know they are coming.

Thank you for your agreement. I don't need to justify my own account. That suggestion only serves to distract from the real issue: that you are fine with some people not being held to the same standards as the rest of the LSAT population.

Is this OP alting?

Betty White, remember my Hot Dog breakfast suggestion that you turned down? Think what you want, but I have been a longtime member but never really posted since my first LSAT, June 2010. Feel free to continue your ad hominems if you like.

[05062014]

i still wouldn't have reported him because the damage it would do to him so far exceeds what a slight 10 second distraction does to me that despite him being a stranger i just wouldn't f someone like that unless it was evident they were trying to gain an advantage, and f me and everyone else.

Honestly right now it seems like it would not be a big deal to lose concentration for a few seconds but during the test that would surely cost me on RC, which would fuck me over. Even if he never looked at an admissions ticket, is it not common sense to put a phone on silent during an exam? Not doing so shows a lack of concern for others including me, so fuck him at that point

[052220151]

Betty White, remember my Hot Dog breakfast suggestion that you turned down? Think what you want, but I have been a longtime member but never really posted since my first LSAT, June 2010. Feel free to continue your ad hominems if you like.

you mad bro?

[bjsesq]

I know what it is to be misunderstood, op. I remember that one fateful day when Coach took me aside. I knew what was coming. "You don't have to tell me," I said. "I'm off the team, aren't I?" "Well," said Coach, "you never were really ON the team. You made that uniform you're wearing out of rags and towels, and your helmet is a toy space helmet. You show up at practice and then either steal the ball and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to tackle people at inappropriate times." It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He saw something in me, some kind of raw talent that he could mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on.

[Pereos]

Betty White, remember my Hot Dog breakfast suggestion that you turned down? Think what you want, but I have been a longtime member but never really posted since my first LSAT, June 2010. Feel free to continue your ad hominems if you like.

you mad bro?

No, but now I am hungry for breakfast...damn you.

[lshopes]

I really want this to be OP alting and backing himself up. That's my favorite fail.

I can assure you I'm not posting under any other name. I don't have time for that and really don't care what any of you no-ethics losers think of me. I'm just stunned at how many of you have posted a defense of this guy or an attack of me. I stand by my actions.

LOLLLLL.

Law requires you to work and connect with other people, which is hard to do on your giant high horse. Yes, attorneys or prospective attorneys should be held to a higher level, but there is something called judgment. If he wasn't doing it to cheat or didn't have any bad intent, maybe it wasn't worth your getting involved. Do you also call the cops when you see someone driving over the speed limit by 5 miles?

Maybe you could have read into the situation more to see if it really violated what LSAC's logic was - disturbing others by calling/trying to gain an advantage rather than employing your own high horse better than you strict liability standard. By your making it a big deal to a proctor, you also make the proctor handle the situation differently than they may have otkherwise, which might entail using their own judgment of whether something is truly "cheating".

I don't need to know their logic (which btw was not based solely on disturbance, I called and asked prior to making the report). According to the folks I talked to at test sdministration it is an inviolable rule NOT subject to proctor discretion. The integrity of all scores is dependent upon all test takers/proctors adhering to the rules to attempt to control external variables as much as possible. This is one of those instances where no means no. Perhaps mommy and daddy should have disciplined a few of you more when you broke rules. It seems to me that the groupthink on TLS has determined the action (not reporting and/or bringing the cell phone) they advocate is the appropriate action even when faced with incontrovertible evidence it was not.

As to the accusation I'm alting, completely untrue. I just found this group Saturday after the test and joined then. I have no idea who my supporter is but it is clear we are of the same opinion. Here's a LR for you, poster A advocates a position. Poster B agrees with poster A. Therefore Poster B MUST be Poster A. This would be an illogical choice given the fact that there are many TLS users. It's much more likely that AT LEAST one other user would agree and be inclined to post their agreement.