misconduct at the dec lsat! HELPPP Forum

[uvabro]

id honestly get a lawyer or someone very experienced at dispute resolution not to contact lsac but to guide u in what u say so u don't come off as angry or crazy.

[cinephile]

Rules are rules, the fact was that you did have the pencil in your hand, and it was reasonable for the proctor to suspect that you wrote with it. It doesn't matter that you didn't, suspicion alone will suffice.

This isn't Nazi germany. Academic violations are like the criminal law of academia. There's no strict liability unless it's just a fine. Rules are rules doesn't apply in American law. Clearly, you're just a dork.

I think some of the people here have a tendency to make every argument into a personal attack, and that only reflects the weakness of your position. I was pointing out the obvious to the OP, the proctor did what she did according to LSAC's regulations, yes she might have been a jackass, but she didn't violate any rules, and thus the OP has pretty much no standing for contention.

OP, just retake, it's not the end of the world. I'm not sure what will be the consequence of your writeup, but from what I've heard before, LSAC will simply cancel your score, and that's the end of that.


PS: when I took the LSAT in 2010, one of my study buddies had the same infraction like yours, he didn't put down his pencil after time was called (right after section 3), he held his pencil for probably 5 more seconds, but he wasn't writing anything. He received a slip and the proctor warned him. None of us thought it was a big deal, since he wasn't removed from the room or anything like that, he was allowed to finish the test. But when scores came out, his was canceled by LSAC, due to the infraction.

Why do you feel the need to make everything you write bold?

[tepper]

Rules are rules, the fact was that you did have the pencil in your hand, and it was reasonable for the proctor to suspect that you wrote with it. It doesn't matter that you didn't, suspicion alone will suffice.

This isn't Nazi germany. Academic violations are like the criminal law of academia. There's no strict liability unless it's just a fine. Rules are rules doesn't apply in American law. Clearly, you're just a dork.

I think some of the people here have a tendency to make every argument into a personal attack, and that only reflects the weakness of your position. I was pointing out the obvious to the OP, the proctor did what she did according to LSAC's regulations, yes she might have been a jackass, but she didn't violate any rules, and thus the OP has pretty much no standing for contention.

OP, just retake, it's not the end of the world. I'm not sure what will be the consequence of your writeup, but from what I've heard before, LSAC will simply cancel your score, and that's the end of that.


PS: when I took the LSAT in 2010, one of my study buddies had the same infraction like yours, he didn't put down his pencil after time was called (right after section 3), he held his pencil for probably 5 more seconds, but he wasn't writing anything. He received a slip and the proctor warned him. None of us thought it was a big deal, since he wasn't removed from the room or anything like that, he was allowed to finish the test. But when scores came out, his was canceled by LSAC, due to the infraction.

Why do you feel the need to make everything you write bold?

what does that have to do with anything???

[uvabro]

it's suggestive of a very my statements are more important than yours personality.

[09042014]

You kinda got fucked, but if they just cancel your score it's not the end of the world.

[TripTrip]

it's suggestive of a very my statements are more important than yours personality.

At least none of those words are spelled wrong. Now if only they were formed into some sort of sentence...

[cinephile]

Why do you feel the need to make everything you write bold?

what does that have to do with anything???

No one listens to what you say when you present yourself in an obnoxious manner.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

it's suggestive of a very my statements are more important than yours personality.

At least none of those words are spelled wrong. Now if only they were formed into some sort of sentence...

it's suggestive of a very at least none of those words are spelled wrong now if only they were formed into some sort of sentence personality

[TripTrip]

Why do you feel the need to make everything you write bold?

what does that have to do with anything???

No one listens to what you say when you present yourself in an obnoxious manner.

Irrelevant. tepper still makes good points.

Think about why we give out DUIs to drunk drivers. They didn't hurt anyone (yet), they just broke a rule, much the same as OP. Obviously it's not on the same level, but the principle still applies. Curbing a behavior, like cheating, requires the enforcement of rules that are inclusive of cheating even if those rules include banning things that are not actually cheating.

[TripTrip]

it's suggestive of a very my statements are more important than yours personality.

At least none of those words are spelled wrong. Now if only they were formed into some sort of sentence...

it's suggestive of a very at least none of those words are spelled wrong now if only they were formed into some sort of sentence personality

Hey, you're right! I read that wrong.

It's suggestive of a very "my statements are more important than yours" personality.

My bad.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Think about why we give out DUIs to drunk drivers. They didn't hurt anyone (yet), they just broke a rule, much the same as OP. Obviously it's not on the same level, but the principle still applies. Curbing a behavior, like cheating, requires the enforcement of rules that are inclusive of cheating even if those rules include banning things that are not actually cheating.

I think this analogy for eap12123 would be getting a DUI for finding an old beer bottle under his seat and picking it up in front of a cop. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and eap12123 is the little innocent baby holding a pencil. Your last post was pretty funny though.

[dingbat]

Think about why we give out DUIs to drunk drivers. They didn't hurt anyone (yet), they just broke a rule, much the same as OP. Obviously it's not on the same level, but the principle still applies. Curbing a behavior, like cheating, requires the enforcement of rules that are inclusive of cheating even if those rules include banning things that are not actually cheating.

I think this analogy for eap12123 would be getting a DUI for finding an old beer bottle under his seat and picking it up in front of a cop. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and eap12123 is the little innocent baby holding a pencil. Your last post was pretty funny though.

How is the cop supposed to know the beer bottle is old?

[eap12123]

Think about why we give out DUIs to drunk drivers. They didn't hurt anyone (yet), they just broke a rule, much the same as OP. Obviously it's not on the same level, but the principle still applies. Curbing a behavior, like cheating, requires the enforcement of rules that are inclusive of cheating even if those rules include banning things that are not actually cheating.

I think this analogy for eap12123 would be getting a DUI for finding an old beer bottle under his seat and picking it up in front of a cop. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and eap12123 is the little innocent baby holding a pencil. Your last post was pretty funny though.

How is the cop supposed to know the beer bottle is old?

By doing his job and performing sobriety tests or a breathalyzer maybe?! You can't say someone is guilty until you know that they are. Let me also say I've seen this DUI analogy all over these forums-- clearly you guys enjoy it. How ANYONE can compare this to a DUI is beyond me. Drunk drivers are aware of the fact that they're drinking, aware that there are other ways to get home that are just as easily accessible (taxi, train, whatever), and decide to ignore all rational thought and get in a 3,000 lb moving metal machine that can, and often does, seriously harm, and in some cases kill, innocent bystanders on the road. Now, even if I was clearly bubbling after time was called, which I WASN'T, it still wouldn't be as bad as a DUI. Cheating doesn't really effect anyone but the cheater, unless we're going into percentiles, in which every individual student still has the opportunity to do his/her BEST possible job and avoid being at the mercy of everyone elses scores. It's not like I went around to everyone else's desks and erased answers. I held my pencil in my hand!

So back to my original point, the cop wouldn't be able to give me a DUI for holding a bottle, because it doesn't prove I was drunk. It would simply give him the ability to give me a sobriety test/further search my car. This is basically what happened with the proctor. She saw the pencil, came closer, and VERY CLEARLY saw that I had my test booklet closed, and that I hadn't written anything.

[dingbat]

Cheating doesn't really effect anyone but the cheater

No, cheating affects everyone who didn't cheat. I've never cheated at anything and I'd be pissed as hell if someone managed to get a spot I didn't because that person cheated. (well, I wouldn't, but I'm making a point)

Considering how serious most people think this test is, I agree that there should be strict liability to cheating. If someone brought their cell phone into the room, by accident, but the ringer goes off, you're still distracted by the ringtone. Whether the person meant to bring their phone in, or not, doesn't matter.

Further, there's no way of knowing whether or not you were bubbling in after time. It's not like there's a one-to-one ratio of proctors to students. So, they have to take a strict approach. Otherwise it's too easy to bubble shit in and if you get caught say "oops, I forgot to put my pencil down".

to quote yoda: "Do, or do not". There's nothing in between.

or are you suggesting everyone's minor infractions should be ignored?

[eap12123]

Cheating doesn't really effect anyone but the cheater

No, cheating affects everyone who didn't cheat. I've never cheated at anything and I'd be pissed as hell if someone managed to get a spot I didn't because that person cheated. (well, I wouldn't, but I'm making a point)

Considering how serious most people think this test is, I agree that there should be strict liability to cheating. If someone brought their cell phone into the room, by accident, but the ringer goes off, you're still distracted by the ringtone. Whether the person meant to bring their phone in, or not, doesn't matter.

Further, there's no way of knowing whether or not you were bubbling in after time. It's not like there's a one-to-one ratio of proctors to students. So, they have to take a strict approach. Otherwise it's too easy to bubble shit in and if you get caught say "oops, I forgot to put my pencil down".

to quote yoda: "Do, or do not". There's nothing in between.

or are you suggesting everyone's minor infractions should be ignored?

Anyone who thinks "there's nothing in between" probably shouldn't become an attorney. I really disagree with you when you say that cheating effects everyone. First, cheating by obtaining answers/info from someone who already took the test is a completely different infraction than someone who is randomly filling in a bubble (that, thorough the statistics of guessing, probably isn't right anyway) because time ran out. But even if you wanted to look at them as the same thing, if person A "cheated" and got an extra point, or 20, to give them a 170, it doesn't stop person B from getting a 175 through their own hard work. Your score is completely up to you. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse cheating in ANY form, but if someone wants to fake their way into Harvard, it's not going to stop me from getting into Harvard on my own merit, and it will probably only benefit me in the long run because the person who faked it in probably won't be able to do nearly as well as the students that earned their spots there. That being said, I didn't cheat, or even attempt to, which was VERY clear to the proctor. I've also read TONS of forums in which people get away with cross bubbling and cheating and their proctor has either clearly seen them and let it slide, or just didn't notice, so if there are people ACTUALLY violating the rules and getting away with it, I shouldn't be punished for innocently, albeit stupidly, holding my own pencil.

[dingbat]

I think you have a logical fallacy. Harvard (or any other school) only has a finite number of places. If someone cheats their way in, a place is taken away from a person who didn't cheat. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 400 people who manage to cheat their way into Harvard. Being that Harvard only has 400 places that would mean not a single non-cheater gets in. Care to state again that those 400 cheaters did not affect anyone other than themselves?

Every cheater who gets away with it affects at least one other person who did not cheat and did not get into that school. However, the student who got bounced from H might now end up at C instead, bouncing someone else out. That person gets into P instead, bouncing another person out. And so down the food chain; A single person cheating into H could easily affect a dozen other people.

Furthermore, statistically speaking, filling in 5 random bubbles equates to an extra point or two. Or maybe the person wasn't fast enough but was still doing EG a logic game in their head. That could be a few more points.
Considering how powerful a few more points can be, it's not insignificant.

Lastly, if you think people should not be disadvantaged for ignorance, you're very naive

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Think about why we give out DUIs to drunk drivers. They didn't hurt anyone (yet), they just broke a rule, much the same as OP. Obviously it's not on the same level, but the principle still applies. Curbing a behavior, like cheating, requires the enforcement of rules that are inclusive of cheating even if those rules include banning things that are not actually cheating.

I think this analogy for eap12123 would be getting a DUI for finding an old beer bottle under his seat and picking it up in front of a cop. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and eap12123 is the little innocent baby holding a pencil. Your last post was pretty funny though.

How is the cop supposed to know the beer bottle is old?

He isn't. He just gives an open container ticket. I was just saying that there isn't a rule on the LSAT for holding a legitimate object in a situation that might be harmful but actually isn't. This has nothing to do with justifying cheating. Cheating is wrong and so is holding a pencil at the wrong time, but the purpose of the rule isn't to catch pencil holders.

[eap12123]

I think you have a logical fallacy. Harvard (or any other school) only has a finite number of places. If someone cheats their way in, a place is taken away from a person who didn't cheat. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 400 people who manage to cheat their way into Harvard. Being that Harvard only has 400 places that would mean not a single non-cheater gets in. Care to state again that those 400 cheaters did not affect anyone other than themselves?

Every cheater who gets away with it affects at least one other person who did not cheat and did not get into that school. However, the student who got bounced from H might now end up at C instead, bouncing someone else out. That person gets into P instead, bouncing another person out. And so down the food chain; A single person cheating into H could easily affect a dozen other people.

Furthermore, statistically speaking, filling in 5 random bubbles equates to an extra point or two. Or maybe the person wasn't fast enough but was still doing EG a logic game in their head. That could be a few more points.
Considering how powerful a few more points can be, it's not insignificant.

Lastly, if you think people should not be disadvantaged for ignorance, you're very naive

Listen, I'm not trying to argue with you about cheating vs not. I've made it pretty clear that I don't support cheating in anyway, and your argument about it effecting everyone is decent, but extreme. It still doesn't take away the fact that you can go in and score a 180 regardless of anyone else's test. If your admission to a school is dependent on someone else's 2 points, you clearly weren't a solid candidate.

Also, I wouldn't really call picking up a pencil "ignorance". I'm very aware of the rules. They say put your pencil down and stop working. I did that. She saw me, along with everyone else in the room, do that. The rules then explicitly state that after time is called you are prohibited from working on, marking, erasing or completing another section or the previous section. I didn't do either of those things. My pencil was no where near my answer sheet. My test booklet was closed. I also didn't say anywhere that I shouldn't be disadvantaged, rather that if some people ge away with actual infractions all the time, i shouldn't be punished on an ambiguity. My "mistake" does warrant an investigation, but a fair one. My violation slip should read as what happened. It should say I picked my pencil up, not that I was "filling in answers after time was called", because I was doing no such thing.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

I think you have a logical fallacy. Harvard (or any other school) only has a finite number of places. If someone cheats their way in, a place is taken away from a person who didn't cheat. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 400 people who manage to cheat their way into Harvard. Being that Harvard only has 400 places that would mean not a single non-cheater gets in. Care to state again that those 400 cheaters did not affect anyone other than themselves?

Every cheater who gets away with it affects at least one other person who did not cheat and did not get into that school. However, the student who got bounced from H might now end up at C instead, bouncing someone else out. That person gets into P instead, bouncing another person out. And so down the food chain; A single person cheating into H could easily affect a dozen other people.

Furthermore, statistically speaking, filling in 5 random bubbles equates to an extra point or two. Or maybe the person wasn't fast enough but was still doing EG a logic game in their head. That could be a few more points.
Considering how powerful a few more points can be, it's not insignificant.

Lastly, if you think people should not be disadvantaged for ignorance, you're very naive

Listen, I'm not trying to argue with you about cheating vs not. I've made it pretty clear that I don't support cheating in anyway, and your argument about it effecting everyone is decent, but extreme. It still doesn't take away the fact that you can go in and score a 180 regardless of anyone else's test. If your admission to a school is dependent on someone else's 2 points, you clearly weren't a solid candidate.

Also, I wouldn't really call picking up a pencil "ignorance". I'm very aware of the rules. They say put your pencil down and stop working. I did that. She saw me, along with everyone else in the room, do that. The rules then explicitly state that after time is called you are prohibited from working on, marking, erasing or completing another section or the previous section. I didn't do either of those things. My pencil was no where near my answer sheet. My test booklet was closed. I also didn't say anywhere that I shouldn't be disadvantaged, rather that if some people ge away with actual infractions all the time, i shouldn't be punished on an ambiguity. My "mistake" does warrant an investigation, but a fair one. My violation slip should read as what happened. It should say I picked my pencil up, not that I was "filling in answers after time was called", because I was doing no such thing.

Good scores are relative. People getting away with infractions doesn't justify anything.

[CanadianWolf]

If everything written in your initial post in this thread is accurate & not contradicted by the proctor's report, then you should be fine; but if her report states that she witnessed you filling answers after pencils down, then you may have a problem. In short, you need to know what's in her report.

[SEngland]

This is SIMPLE. Call on Monday morning and talk to someone and you will know your answer.

[dingbat]

I also didn't say anywhere that I shouldn't be disadvantaged, rather that if some people ge away with actual infractions all the time, i shouldn't be punished on an ambiguity. My "mistake" does warrant an investigation, but a fair one. My violation slip should read as what happened. It should say I picked my pencil up, not that I was "filling in answers after time was called", because I was doing no such thing.

So just because some speeders don't get caught, others should not get ticketed?
If absolute certainty was the standard for cheating very few would get caught. How many people would be filling in extra bubbles with the knowledge that they could challenge if they got caught?
This isn't a court of law where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a felony conviction. This is entry to a profession that aims to be above reproach. In an academic setting an accusation of cheating is serious and a lawyer's reputation should be spotless. If you have issues with that, you should not enter.
Hell, a judge once had his career ended for accepting a bowl of spaghetti at a charity fundraiser.

[eap12123]

I think you have a logical fallacy. Harvard (or any other school) only has a finite number of places. If someone cheats their way in, a place is taken away from a person who didn't cheat. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 400 people who manage to cheat their way into Harvard. Being that Harvard only has 400 places that would mean not a single non-cheater gets in. Care to state again that those 400 cheaters did not affect anyone other than themselves?

Every cheater who gets away with it affects at least one other person who did not cheat and did not get into that school. However, the student who got bounced from H might now end up at C instead, bouncing someone else out. That person gets into P instead, bouncing another person out. And so down the food chain; A single person cheating into H could easily affect a dozen other people.

Furthermore, statistically speaking, filling in 5 random bubbles equates to an extra point or two. Or maybe the person wasn't fast enough but was still doing EG a logic game in their head. That could be a few more points.
Considering how powerful a few more points can be, it's not insignificant.

Lastly, if you think people should not be disadvantaged for ignorance, you're very naive

Listen, I'm not trying to argue with you about cheating vs not. I've made it pretty clear that I don't support cheating in anyway, and your argument about it effecting everyone is decent, but extreme. It still doesn't take away the fact that you can go in and score a 180 regardless of anyone else's test. If your admission to a school is dependent on someone else's 2 points, you clearly weren't a solid candidate.

Also, I wouldn't really call picking up a pencil "ignorance". I'm very aware of the rules. They say put your pencil down and stop working. I did that. She saw me, along with everyone else in the room, do that. The rules then explicitly state that after time is called you are prohibited from working on, marking, erasing or completing another section or the previous section. I didn't do either of those things. My pencil was no where near my answer sheet. My test booklet was closed. I also didn't say anywhere that I shouldn't be disadvantaged, rather that if some people ge away with actual infractions all the time, i shouldn't be punished on an ambiguity. My "mistake" does warrant an investigation, but a fair one. My violation slip should read as what happened. It should say I picked my pencil up, not that I was "filling in answers after time was called", because I was doing no such thing.

Good scores are relative. People getting away with infractions doesn't justify anything.

It does if the original argument is to hold a strict standard for cheating. Why is it okay to penalize one person on a suspicion and let numerous people get away with an actual infraction? Good scores are relative, but again, you can answer every question correctly even if everyone else does, which is why schools look at things other than just your LSAT. When LSAT's were taken in much higher numbers your chances of getting in to Harvard were much smaller. Does that mean the people that get in this cycle with a 173 are cheating the people that got rejected four years ago for the same score?

[eap12123]

This is SIMPLE. Call on Monday morning and talk to someone and you will know your answer.

Agreed. I think i'll be fine. These arguments and DUI comparisons have become exhausting.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

I think you have a logical fallacy. Harvard (or any other school) only has a finite number of places. If someone cheats their way in, a place is taken away from a person who didn't cheat. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 400 people who manage to cheat their way into Harvard. Being that Harvard only has 400 places that would mean not a single non-cheater gets in. Care to state again that those 400 cheaters did not affect anyone other than themselves?

Every cheater who gets away with it affects at least one other person who did not cheat and did not get into that school. However, the student who got bounced from H might now end up at C instead, bouncing someone else out. That person gets into P instead, bouncing another person out. And so down the food chain; A single person cheating into H could easily affect a dozen other people.

Furthermore, statistically speaking, filling in 5 random bubbles equates to an extra point or two. Or maybe the person wasn't fast enough but was still doing EG a logic game in their head. That could be a few more points.
Considering how powerful a few more points can be, it's not insignificant.

Lastly, if you think people should not be disadvantaged for ignorance, you're very naive

Listen, I'm not trying to argue with you about cheating vs not. I've made it pretty clear that I don't support cheating in anyway, and your argument about it effecting everyone is decent, but extreme. It still doesn't take away the fact that you can go in and score a 180 regardless of anyone else's test. If your admission to a school is dependent on someone else's 2 points, you clearly weren't a solid candidate.

Also, I wouldn't really call picking up a pencil "ignorance". I'm very aware of the rules. They say put your pencil down and stop working. I did that. She saw me, along with everyone else in the room, do that. The rules then explicitly state that after time is called you are prohibited from working on, marking, erasing or completing another section or the previous section. I didn't do either of those things. My pencil was no where near my answer sheet. My test booklet was closed. I also didn't say anywhere that I shouldn't be disadvantaged, rather that if some people ge away with actual infractions all the time, i shouldn't be punished on an ambiguity. My "mistake" does warrant an investigation, but a fair one. My violation slip should read as what happened. It should say I picked my pencil up, not that I was "filling in answers after time was called", because I was doing no such thing.

Good scores are relative. People getting away with infractions doesn't justify anything.

It does if the original argument is to hold a strict standard for cheating. Why is it okay to penalize one person on a suspicion and let numerous people get away with an actual infraction? Good scores are relative, but again, you can answer every question correctly even if everyone else does, which is why schools look at things other than just your LSAT. When LSAT's were taken in much higher numbers your chances of getting in to Harvard were much smaller. Does that mean the people that get in this cycle with a 173 are cheating the people that got rejected four years ago for the same score?

No. This is wrong. Test equating.