Another LSAT "Cheating" Story Forum

[helfer snooterbagon]

I am pretty sure OP is the same dude that wrote the post about Hooking up with a recruiter who then smashed his windshield. He writes quality flames, even made it on to ATL! I have a hard time with:

1. Prior to the test, he checks his pants pockets but not the jacket pockets - Either you check all of your pockets or none of your pockets, particularly if you are worried about introducing contraband.

2. Who the fuck would hide their phone under some bushes in a public location? He only puts his hands in his jacket pocket for the split second before the break is over and then no-one else notices that he scurries over to some bushes and dumps the phone.

3. Then he just decides to tell this chick about it and she randomly tells the proctor. I don't buy this.

4. Once the proctor confronts him, he not only confesses, but leads her to the magic shrubbery and hands over the phone.

5. Concerned about this, he goes to a law school message board and again makes a full confession and then to liven things up a bit he adds in that there are chat logs about cheating on the test.

It doesn't add up, but again, this is a quality flame and he got a lot of great responses, so good job. **EDIT: Seems like a few others saw the inconsistencies prior to my post.

[Yazzzay]

if people don't believe the story, why waste the time writing a long response to it? it's weird. just ignore it.

[rpupkin]

I got my phone back. I can't tell if they looked through it or not.

They wouldn't tell me much about my situation except to say that the investigation is ongoing and that they were unlikely to make a determination before the end of next week. I asked if there was any chance that I would get my score. They wouldn't comment on that. I also asked if they planned to interview me about the incident. They said they would set up an interview if they felt it necessary. I think it's a good sign that they think it might be unnecessary to interview me.

I still haven't seen or talked to my friend's girlfriend, but I did see my friend last night. I told him the whole story. He looked genuinely surprised—I don't think his gf had told him about what happened on Saturday. He also asked me if I was sure she was the one who told the proctor. I told him I wasn't, but that I don't think anyone else knew about me hiding the phone. Several times, he said "she's been under a lot of stress." He kept repeating that, almost as if he did believe that she was responsible.

Anyway, I told him I wanted to talk to her about it. I realized that it would help me to know what she actually told the proctor. As I mentioned, the proctor told me that another test taker had reported that I was "using" the phone for the first part of the test. Perhaps the proctor was just being imprecise, but I do wonder if someone (likely my friend's gf) accused me of something more serious than what I was actually doing. I would like to know what my friend's gf told the proctor.

My friend reluctantly gave me his gf's cell number. I've called a couple times and left a message, but she's been about as responsive as LSAC.

[PepperJack]

Dude, calling her was a bad move. If she ratted on you for the phone, wouldn't she rat on you for "witness tampering." I don't know why he'd give you her number either. That seems like the worst possible idea. It'd be much safer and efficient if he got the info for you.

[PepperJack]

if people don't believe the story, why waste the time writing a long response to it? it's weird. just ignore it.

It is pretty good. Involves drama, betrayal and the LSAT. It's about as exciting as the test can possibly become.

[PDaddy]

OP:

You know you're not supposed to bring your phone into the test center, but you forget and do it anyway.

On your phone are "mostly joking" conversations with a buddy, talking about you getting him answers before he takes the LSAT.

You decide to stash the phone during the break, rather than just making sure it's off and leaving it in your fucking pocket.

Of course, an acquaintance sees you stash it, and is actually enough of a hosebeast bitch that she rats you out to a proctor.

When confronted by the proctor, you promptly spill your guts and confess everything, rather than just saying "Dunno what that girl's talking about; I put the phone there before the test started".

The proctor actually seizes your cellphone and is evidently going to turn it over to LSAC. For forensic analysis?


Does that pretty much sum it up? Either this whole thread is a flame, or you have the worst dumb fucking luck in the Universe.

Yeah. I see your point. And OP initially left out the part about "joking" with a friend that he could give him some info about the test.

Btw, LSAC will absolutely go as far as to look at the phone. I don't know if they need a legal warrant to do so, but it wouldn't surprise me if OP's mere refusal to allow them to look at the day's texts could give LSAC enough cause.

The rules DO state that any prohibited materials can be confiscated, which test-takers agree to when they sign in to take the exam.

OP looks guilty IMO, but that's a separate issue from whether OP has a legal defense.

[PepperJack]

OP:

You know you're not supposed to bring your phone into the test center, but you forget and do it anyway.

On your phone are "mostly joking" conversations with a buddy, talking about you getting him answers before he takes the LSAT.

You decide to stash the phone during the break, rather than just making sure it's off and leaving it in your fucking pocket.

Of course, an acquaintance sees you stash it, and is actually enough of a hosebeast bitch that she rats you out to a proctor.

When confronted by the proctor, you promptly spill your guts and confess everything, rather than just saying "Dunno what that girl's talking about; I put the phone there before the test started".

The proctor actually seizes your cellphone and is evidently going to turn it over to LSAC. For forensic analysis?


Does that pretty much sum it up? Either this whole thread is a flame, or you have the worst dumb fucking luck in the Universe.

Yeah. I see your point. And OP initially left out the part about "joking" with a friend that he could give him some info about the test.

Btw, LSAC will absolutely go as far as to look at the phone. I don't know if they need a legal warrant to do so, but it wouldn't surprise me if OP's mere refusal to allow them to look at the day's texts could give LSAC enough cause.

The rules to state that any prohibited materials can be confiscated, which test-takers agree to when they sign in to take the exam.

OP looks guilty IMO, but that's a separate issue from whether OP has a legal defense.

Ya'll are way too by the book. If our jobs were just to apply the law to fact, we'd be five-oh. There are principals behind the laws. OP forgot to take his phone out, and this can happen to anyone. Everyone carries a phone on them everywhere they go; how many kids are there whose parents won't even let them leave the house without their phone? In practice, lawyers may get fired for not bringing their phone home and with them. Were any texts sent during the test? Once OP realized his phone was on him during the break, he disposed of it. Did he check his email, texts, make a call? One can argue he substantially complied with the rules. The purpose of these rules isn't to see who could leave their phone in the car the best. They're to prevent cheating. Did OP cheat or attempt to cheat? That is what the verdict should turn on, not some idealist dorkiness. I once forgot to take a 4.2 ounce cologne bottle out of my carry on. You'd have me be locked in a federal prison for twenty-five to life for trying to blow up a plane.

[PDaddy]

OP's first mistake was violating the rules. The second mistake was telling someone he violated the rules. The third mistake was admitting to the proctor that he broke the rules. The fourth mistake was not offering the proctor $50 to forget about it. The fifth mistake was posting about his LSAT cheating in a public forum.

Agree with much of this, but the sad reality is that this poor bastard didn't actually cheat or even attempt to cheat. Any one of us could have mistakenly walked into the test with a phone in our pocket. The stress of the LSAT make all of his mistakes afterward understandable.

OP - all of this can be explained to LSAC or, worst case scenario, the law schools you apply to. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately, overzealous test proctors, enjoying what's probably the only authority they've ever had in life, made this mistake into a much bigger deal than it actually is. Try to concentrate on getting your mind right for the Feb test and move on. In the big scheme of things, you'll look back on this and laugh someday.

Bolded is assumed if we are all giving him the benefit of the doubt. The situation sucks, but like honestly how many people just flat out don't read the instructions and/or ignore them?

This test can determine the rest of your life, the stress should make you read/listen to the directions well enough that stuff like this doesn't happen. People know or at least should know it's a zero tolerance policy so takeaway point is: leave the phone at home, is that so effing hard?

So what happens in the future for a lawyer that is super stressed and makes an "understandable" mistake when someone else's future is on the line? It's all about following directions and unfortunately this guy didn't.

Man, aren't you empathetic. OP didn't forget to file an appeal in a death penalty case. He fucking brought a phone into the test center by mistake and when he realized it he made every effort to remedy the situation.

If the pressure of the LSAT causes him that much distraction maybe he is heeds into the wrong line of work anyways. Proctors remind everyone to get rid of phones and other prohibited items before the tests are even passed out. How did OP not only manage to ignore the rules AND the proctors' pre-exam instructions?

Fwiw, it appears that there is evidence of cheating by OP's own admission, but I am against the LSAC throwing its weight around. The LSAC must be held to certain standards as well; that means ensuring that it's rules are legal, that proctors are well-trained and that LSAC's policies and procedures are well-outlined and fair. I believe in due process, and it looks like process is due in this case. I think OP is, at the very least, guilty of bad judgment.

[PDaddy]

OP:

You know you're not supposed to bring your phone into the test center, but you forget and do it anyway.

On your phone are "mostly joking" conversations with a buddy, talking about you getting him answers before he takes the LSAT.

You decide to stash the phone during the break, rather than just making sure it's off and leaving it in your fucking pocket.

Of course, an acquaintance sees you stash it, and is actually enough of a hosebeast bitch that she rats you out to a proctor.

When confronted by the proctor, you promptly spill your guts and confess everything, rather than just saying "Dunno what that girl's talking about; I put the phone there before the test started".

The proctor actually seizes your cellphone and is evidently going to turn it over to LSAC. For forensic analysis?


Does that pretty much sum it up? Either this whole thread is a flame, or you have the worst dumb fucking luck in the Universe.

Yeah. I see your point. And OP initially left out the part about "joking" with a friend that he could give him some info about the test.

Btw, LSAC will absolutely go as far as to look at the phone. I don't know if they need a legal warrant to do so, but it wouldn't surprise me if OP's mere refusal to allow them to look at the day's texts could give LSAC enough cause.

The rules to state that any prohibited materials can be confiscated, which test-takers agree to when they sign in to take the exam.

OP looks guilty IMO, but that's a separate issue from whether OP has a legal defense.

Ya'll are way too by the book. If our jobs were just to apply the law to fact, we'd be five-oh. There are principals behind the laws. OP forgot to take his phone out, and this can happen to anyone. Everyone carries a phone on them everywhere they go; how many kids are there whose parents won't even let them leave the house without their phone? In practice, lawyers may get fired for not bringing their phone home and with them. Were any texts sent during the test? Once OP realized his phone was on him during the break, he disposed of it. Did he check his email, texts, make a call? One can argue he substantially complied with the rules. The purpose of these rules isn't to see who could leave their phone in the car the best. They're to prevent cheating. Did OP cheat or attempt to cheat? That is what the verdict should turn on, not some idealist dorkiness.

Having the phone in the room, in and of itself, does not prove cheating, but the other evidence presents a case for it.

How about a hypo?

What do you say if a guy brings a gun into the courtroom during a trial but walks out of the courthouse during a recess and hides the gun in the bushes? He gets ratted out by someone he knows, the gun is turned in, and the suspect admits that he brought the gun into the courtroom. Then he admits that he "jokingly" conversed with a former defendant of that judge's courtroom via text about shooting that judge.

How confident are you that the suspect was not actually targeting the judge, or that he only abandoned his attempt because he saw a high probability of getting caught before he could get away with it?

[PepperJack]

The hypo sucks. The majority of people don't walk out of the house with a loaded gun. In fact, the possession of a gun may be generally illegal. Everyone carries a phone. Also even in your gun hypo there's no way he gets convicted for attempting to kill the judge lol. That's ridiculous. By your logic let's also convict him of trying to kill the barista, bailsman and Santa. Abandonment is also a defense brah. Getting rid of the phone makes him less guilty, not more guilty. He realized his mistake, albeit at a less than ideal time, and resolved it.

[PDaddy]

The hypo sucksis absolutely brilliant. The majority of people don't walk out of the house with a loaded gun. In fact, the possession of a gun may be generally illegal. Everyone carries a phone. Also even in your gun hypo there's no way he gets convicted for attempting to kill the judge lol. That's ridiculous. By your logic let's also convict him of trying to kill the barista, bailsman and Santa. Abandonment is also a defense brah.

FAIL! "The majority of people don't walk out of the house with a loaded gun..."

What in the world does that have to do with the hypo? It doesn't respond at all to the parallel, and there surely is an applicable one!

So you are a 140's test-taker right? I can just imagine your LR scores.

The poster to which I was responding asserts that the evidence doesn't suggest cheating. I am asserting that the evidence does in fact suggest an attempt to cheat. The fact that I drew a Parallel story whose circumstances appear to be much more serious does nothing to negate the actual logic employed.

Parallel reasoning has nothing to do with the story's content; it is about pure logic.

The gun in the courtroom hypo is the cell phone in OP's scenario, the courtroom is the classroom, the trial is the LSAT, the friend is the friend, and so on.

The circumstances are exactly alike!

The suspect in question brings a prohibited item into a restricted area despite clear awareness that the item is prohibited, and for unknown reasons decides to ditch the item during an intermission of some type. In both cases he is either observed doing so or reveals to another that he has done so. An authority figure approaches the suspect about the contraband, and the suspect admits to its possession, voluntarily turning over the item.

The suspect later reveals that he had recorded (or saved) conversations in which he discusses with another person the prospect of illegally using that contraband.

Then the suspect later admits that he and this friend have committed a similar crime in the past, and that there is a record of the accusation.

[Jeffort]

if people don't believe the story, why waste the time writing a long response to it? it's weird. just ignore it.

It is pretty good. Involves drama, betrayal and the LSAT. It's about as exciting as the test can possibly become.

Not only that, now we have 0/1Ls arguing the law and fact patterns! Way more entertaining than TV!

More please.

[Wrong Marx]

The gun in the courtroom hypo is the cell phone in OP's scenario, the courtroom is the classroom, the trial is the LSAT, the friend is the friend, and so on.

The circumstances are exactly alike!

The reasoning in the argument above is vulnerable to criticism, because the analogous scenario differs from the actual scenario in a critical respect. Discarding a firearm in the bushes is negligent and in itself constitutes criminal behavior, regardless of intention. On the other hand, discarding a cellphone in the bushes is merely asinine.

[PepperJack]

The hypo sucksis absolutely brilliant. The majority of people don't walk out of the house with a loaded gun. In fact, the possession of a gun may be generally illegal. Everyone carries a phone. Also even in your gun hypo there's no way he gets convicted for attempting to kill the judge lol. That's ridiculous. By your logic let's also convict him of trying to kill the barista, bailsman and Santa. Abandonment is also a defense brah.

FAIL! "The majority of people don't walk out of the house with a loaded gun..."

What in the world does that have to do with the hypo? It doesn't respond at all to the parallel, and there surely is an applicable one!

So you are a 140's test-taker right? I can just imagine your LR scores.

The poster to which I was responding asserts that the evidence doesn't suggest cheating. I am asserting that the evidence does in fact suggest an attempt to cheat. The fact that I drew a Parallel story whose circumstances appear to be much more serious does nothing to negate the actual logic employed.

Parallel reasoning has nothing to do with the story's content; it is about pure logic.

The gun in the courtroom hypo is the cell phone in OP's scenario, the courtroom is the classroom, the trial is the LSAT, the friend is the friend, and so on.

The circumstances are exactly alike!

The suspect in question brings a prohibited item into a restricted area despite clear awareness that the item is prohibited, and for unknown reasons decides to ditch the item during an intermission of some type. In both cases he is either observed doing so or reveals to another that he has done so. An authority figure approaches the suspect about the contraband, and the suspect admits to its possession, voluntarily turning over the item.

The suspect later reveals that he had recorded (or saved) conversations in which he discusses with another person the prospect of illegally using that contraband.

Then the suspect later admits that he and this friend have committed a similar crime in the past, and that there is a record of the accusation.

LOL. I'm not going to be a pompous a-hole, but I did very well at a t-14. I guess it would be impressive to set curves with a 140, but unfortunately I cannot attest to the latter.

And the thing about the house has a lot of relevance. You're comparing having a cell phone in your pocket to having a loaded gun in your pocket. The odds of someone having the item in the pocket without intending harm are pretty relevant. Or are we going with the old 180 if you disagree with me -> FAIL logic pattern?

[PepperJack]

The gun in the courtroom hypo is the cell phone in OP's scenario, the courtroom is the classroom, the trial is the LSAT, the friend is the friend, and so on.

The circumstances are exactly alike!

The reasoning in the argument above is vulnerable to criticism, because the analogous scenario differs from the actual scenario in a critical respect. Discarding a firearm in the bushes is negligent and in itself constitutes criminal behavior, regardless of intention. On the other hand, discarding a cellphone in the bushes is merely asinine.

Please don't quote me with arguments I did not make.

Also, maybe you should both try using your brains, and thinking like people. There is a presumption when one carries a loaded gun on them, they intend to do something bad. When someone carries their phone, there's a presumption they may make a phone call. There are many innocent reasons why someone would have their phone on them. Nobody's life should be ruined for forgetting to take a phone out of their pocket. And if you insist on using the courtroom example, courtrooms have metal detectors bro. The innocent person with the gun would have a way of removing it before entering. LSAT's cheapness about having them at test centers isn't reason to ruin someone's life. It's early in the morning and stressful, people forget. People are, you know, people.

[PDaddy]

The gun in the courtroom hypo is the cell phone in OP's scenario, the courtroom is the classroom, the trial is the LSAT, the friend is the friend, and so on.

The circumstances are exactly alike!

The reasoning in the argument above is vulnerable to criticism, because the analogous scenario differs from the actual scenario in a critical respect. Discarding a firearm in the bushes is negligent and in itself constitutes criminal behavior, regardless of intention. On the other hand, discarding a cellphone in the bushes is merely asinine.

Wrong! "Illegal", is defined in each circumstance as violating a rule. Whether one is both criminal and civil while the other is theoretically civil, is irrelevant.

The flaw in YOUR REASONING, is that you presume, without justification, that two scenarios are wholly different because they differ in one respect.

[PDaddy]

The gun in the courtroom hypo is the cell phone in OP's scenario, the courtroom is the classroom, the trial is the LSAT, the friend is the friend, and so on.

The circumstances are exactly alike!

The reasoning in the argument above is vulnerable to criticism, because the analogous scenario differs from the actual scenario in a critical respect. Discarding a firearm in the bushes is negligent and in itself constitutes criminal behavior, regardless of intention. On the other hand, discarding a cellphone in the bushes is merely asinine.

Please don't quote me with arguments I did not make.

Also, maybe you should both try using your brains, and thinking like people. There is a presumption when one carries a loaded gun on them, they intend to do something bad. When someone carries their phone, there's a presumption they may make a phone call. There are many innocent reasons why someone would have their phone on them. Nobody's life should be ruined for forgetting to take a phone out of their pocket. And if you insist on using the courtroom example, courtrooms have metal detectors bro. The innocent person with the gun would have a way of removing it before entering. LSAT's cheapness about having them at test centers isn't reason to ruin someone's life. It's early in the morning and stressful, people forget. People are, you know, people.

So, in this instance, the LSAC doesn't suspect that OP was attempting to do something "bad"? Cheating is not bad?

Get past the fact patterns and focus on the logic!!! The two scenarios are in fact parallel, and anyone who cannot see that should be taking the LSAT or applying to law school.

I laid it out above, and no one has yet taken apart the actual logic of the argument. Pointing out that one offense sounds more extreme or potentially harmful does absolutely NOTHING to address the logic.

There is no flaw in the parallel, and the LSAT uses scenarios that differ in extremes all of the time. In fact, trap answers in the LSAT often exploit unwary test takers who don't understand that the logic is based on "form", not "content".

If you think that the difference between a gun and a cell phone means the two scenarios are not parallel, have fun at Cooley.

[Yazzzay]

if people don't believe the story, why waste the time writing a long response to it? it's weird. just ignore it.

It is pretty good. Involves drama, betrayal and the LSAT. It's about as exciting as the test can possibly become.

Not only that, now we have 0/1Ls arguing the law and fact patterns! Way more entertaining than TV!

More please.

HAHA no, I definitely think it's interesting and actually believe the poor OP and think the situation sucks. I just don't get the 5 paragraph responses trying to get him to admit he lied. THAT'S weird.

Also, now all the parallel reasoning, flaw in the reasoning arguments...I can't. LOL.

[jd2121]

Look-
This thread is absolute gold. OP has masterfully assumed the role of the 'endearing naive' guy who always seems to find himself in some seemingly outlandish predicament; were talking 90s sitcom stuff here. Absolutely love it. Just when you think he's gonna cross the line and expose himself, he manages to swindle his way back into your heart. Well done my friend. Well f*ckin done.

[Jeffort]

Look-
This thread is absolute gold. OP has masterfully assumed the role of the 'endearing naive' guy who always seems to find himself in some seemingly outlandish predicament; were talking 90s sitcom stuff here. Absolutely love it. Just when you think he's gonna cross the line and expose himself, he manages to swindle his way back into your heart. Well done my friend. Well f*ckin done.

ha ha, totally a 90s sitcom or movie wacky type of situation with those story qualities!
I'm looking forward to whatever details get uncovered about tension with the friends GF and why she allegedly tried to throw OP under the bus, that's gotta be enough for another good segment of the story to keep the drama twists coming. I'm staying tuned in for the next episode!

[redsox]

ha ha, totally a 90s sitcom or movie wacky type of situation with those story qualities!
I'm looking forward to whatever details get uncovered about tension with the friends GF and why she allegedly tried to throw OP under the bus, that's gotta be enough for another good segment of the story to keep the drama twists coming. I'm staying tuned in for the next episode!

I hear they're having trouble argeeing on a contract for next season with the actress who plays the GF. So they might have to find a way to explain her absence in the finale. I do like the element she brings to the show, but at the same time, wouldn't it be so satisfying to see them kill her off?

Also, there are rumors of a Saul Goodman cameo as OP's lawyer.

[jd2121]

Hahahahahhah I am telling you guys--OP Is a legend. He managed to successfully incorporate a casino cheating ring, and a potential interstate LSAT scandal (spanning from Hawaii to the "mainland" to be specific lol).. All in the SAME post and with the SAME friend. And yet I am still able to suspend disbelief enough to remain sympathetic and interested.


He's also a highly effective narrator; when he said "my friend reluctantly gave me his gfs cell phone number" I laughed out loud.

[redsox]

Can we ask the OP to give the characters names? "OP", "The Friend", "The Girlfriend", and "The Proctor" are so...impersonal. I'm having trouble relating.

Alternatively, we could just name them ourselves. Ideas?

[ScottRiqui]

Can we ask the OP to give the characters names? "OP", "The Friend", "The Girlfriend", and "The Proctor" are so...impersonal. I'm having trouble relating.

Alternatively, we could just name them ourselves. Ideas?

The girlfriend sounds like a "Meghan" to me for some reason.

[redsox]

Can we ask the OP to give the characters names? "OP", "The Friend", "The Girlfriend", and "The Proctor" are so...impersonal. I'm having trouble relating.

Alternatively, we could just name them ourselves. Ideas?

The girlfriend sounds like a "Meghan" to me for some reason.

^ has an ex named Meghan.

But let's roll with that.

OP: ?
The Friend: ?
The Girlfriend: Meghan
The Proctor: ?