Violation of LSAT test center regulations Forum

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:18 am

Post removed.

splittermcsplit88 · Post by **splittermcsplit88** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:05 pm

robotrick wrote:
splittermcsplit88 wrote:Can only imagine how bad OP must feel right now. But even if someone wanted to be sympathetic/lenient towards OP...I think it'll be hard....I mean if you can't follow/aren't aware of even the most basic rules related to your desired profession...what can I say? What are you going to tell your client when you miss the deadline for submitting your brief to court by a few minutes and they refuse to accept it?
Bolded is an absurd slippery slope argument that's also used to marginalize disabled test-takers who receive accommodations on the LSAT.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Don't try to relate OP's case to disabled test-takers who receive accommodation - it's not even close.

basedvulpes · Post by **basedvulpes** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:13 pm

Post removed.

GreatBraffsby · Post by **GreatBraffsby** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:15 pm

splittermcsplit88 wrote:
robotrick wrote:
splittermcsplit88 wrote:Can only imagine how bad OP must feel right now. But even if someone wanted to be sympathetic/lenient towards OP...I think it'll be hard....I mean if you can't follow/aren't aware of even the most basic rules related to your desired profession...what can I say? What are you going to tell your client when you miss the deadline for submitting your brief to court by a few minutes and they refuse to accept it?
Bolded is an absurd slippery slope argument that's also used to marginalize disabled test-takers who receive accommodations on the LSAT.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Don't try to relate OP's case to disabled test-takers who receive accommodation - it's not even close.

I think the poster is referencing the notion that extended time and other such accommodations should not be granted to test takers with learning disabilities, ADHD, dislexia, etc. because they will have to compete against lawyers without such handicaps and do the same amount of work as everyone else in the professional world and in law school.

I'm not sure what they mean by it being a slippery slope, but that's the argument they're arguing against.

splittermcsplit88 · Post by **splittermcsplit88** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:18 pm

Oh then why is it an absurd slippery slope argument?

A. Nony Mouse · Post by **A. Nony Mouse** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:33 pm

People use the whole "what will you do when your employer won't give you more time" argument to say that people with ADHD shouldn't get accommodations on the LSAT, and it's dumb because those are two completely different situations and the argument fails to acknowledge that the conditions for the LSAT aren't like work conditions.

I think that's true here, too, actually - not understanding the rules for a one-time test isn't the same as saying someone is going to try to make that argument if they don't get a filing in on time, since the circumstances surrounding those two things are pretty different. Though I get the general point.

I think the OP is pretty clear by now that they're in a difficult position.

splittermcsplit88 · Post by **splittermcsplit88** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:50 pm

I understand the argument for people with learning disabilities - it's not the same - but it's about carelessness and lack of attention to detail/instructions for someone who has no learning disability here. Also, I have heard that courts refuse to accept briefs that are even a minute late, so...just trying to convey the general point that OP's lackluster, carelessness isn't going to bode well.

osgiliath · Post by **osgiliath** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:43 pm

splittermcsplit88 wrote:I understand the argument for people with learning disabilities - it's not the same - but it's about carelessness and lack of attention to detail/instructions for someone who has no learning disability here. Also, I have heard that courts refuse to accept briefs that are even a minute late, so...just trying to convey the general point that OP's lackluster, carelessness isn't going to bode well.

Well given your quickness to rule out any possibility of sympathy and inability to consider any possible recourse for OP, this does not bode well for your ability to advocate on behalf of your future clients so you should abandon your hopes as well.

GreatBraffsby · Post by **GreatBraffsby** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:55 pm

osgiliath wrote:
splittermcsplit88 wrote:I understand the argument for people with learning disabilities - it's not the same - but it's about carelessness and lack of attention to detail/instructions for someone who has no learning disability here. Also, I have heard that courts refuse to accept briefs that are even a minute late, so...just trying to convey the general point that OP's lackluster, carelessness isn't going to bode well.
Well given your quickness to rule out any possibility of sympathy and inability to consider any possible recourse for OP, this does not bode well for your ability to advocate on behalf of your future clients so you should abandon your hopes as well.

Just to get this straight, you deride someone for having no sympathy or empathy and then criticize his viewpoint harshly without providing justification and claim he has no chance at succeeding at his professional goals? Not sure if trolling or pot-kettle-black scenario.

rpupkin · Post by **rpupkin** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:59 pm

splittermcsplit88 wrote:I understand the argument for people with learning disabilities - it's not the same - but it's about carelessness and lack of attention to detail/instructions for someone who has no learning disability here. Also, I have heard that courts refuse to accept briefs that are even a minute late, so...just trying to convey the general point that OP's lackluster, carelessness isn't going to bode well.

Yeah, you'll hear those stories, but they're the exception. Most courts won't care if you're a few minutes (or even a few hours) late with a filing. In fact, I've seen courts accept filings that are days or even weeks late. Sometimes, they'll embarrass the attorneys by making them submit a letter explaining why they're so late, but then the court goes ahead and accepts the brief.

There are very few hard deadlines in real life.

splittermcsplit88 · Post by **splittermcsplit88** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:59 pm

osgiliath wrote:
splittermcsplit88 wrote:I understand the argument for people with learning disabilities - it's not the same - but it's about carelessness and lack of attention to detail/instructions for someone who has no learning disability here. Also, I have heard that courts refuse to accept briefs that are even a minute late, so...just trying to convey the general point that OP's lackluster, carelessness isn't going to bode well.
Well given your quickness to rule out any possibility of sympathy and inability to consider any possible recourse for OP, this does not bode well for your ability to advocate on behalf of your future clients so you should abandon your hopes as well.

My sympathy comes with merit, but don't get so mad just because you've shared similar concerns with scantrons.

osgiliath · Post by **osgiliath** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:10 pm

GreatBraffsby wrote:
osgiliath wrote:
splittermcsplit88 wrote:I understand the argument for people with learning disabilities - it's not the same - but it's about carelessness and lack of attention to detail/instructions for someone who has no learning disability here. Also, I have heard that courts refuse to accept briefs that are even a minute late, so...just trying to convey the general point that OP's lackluster, carelessness isn't going to bode well.
Well given your quickness to rule out any possibility of sympathy and inability to consider any possible recourse for OP, this does not bode well for your ability to advocate on behalf of your future clients so you should abandon your hopes as well.
Just to get this straight, you deride someone for having no sympathy or empathy and then criticize his viewpoint harshly without providing justification and claim he has no chance at succeeding at his professional goals? Not sure if trolling or pot-kettle-black scenario.

My point was exactly that - to highlight the result of drawing conclusions about someone's career prospects from one limited piece of evidence. In short, unfounded.

BCgirl · Post by **BCgirl** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:33 pm

The best intentions don't mitigate the fact that he will have to disclose this to all the law schools he applies to, and to the bar as well.

As for career prospects, well, career prospects are awful for the average law graduate, period.

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:42 pm

Post removed.

robotrick · Post by **robotrick** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:57 pm

^What A. Nony Mouse said.

The slippery slope line of reasoning being: "if you can't follow directions once on a test that actually means very little beyond getting into law school in the first place, then clearly you will never be able to follow a rule or be a successful lawyer." Which, of course, is nonsense.

I'd have thought all the brilliant legal minds in this thread would have understood that a little more easily. Or, y'know, picked up on the difference between analogous lines of reasoning and analogous circumstances, since that's on the LSAT. It doesn't bode well for your future success

galeatus · Post by **galeatus** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:03 pm

This argument is still going?!

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:31 pm

galeatus wrote:This argument is still going?!

One of the longest non-mega threads on these fora.

Nagster5 · Post by **Nagster5** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:25 am

Post removed.

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:45 am

Post removed.

josh9308 · Post by **josh9308** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am

Somewhat random and unrelated, but can you take the test with a hood on? I find it easier to keep distractions away. I'm assuming, though, that this is probably against the rules as I could be cheating or doing something that the proctor couldn't see.

cbbinnyc · Post by **cbbinnyc** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:10 am

josh9308 wrote:Somewhat random and unrelated, but can you take the test with a hood on? I find it easier to keep distractions away. I'm assuming, though, that this is probably against the rules as I could be cheating or doing something that the proctor couldn't see.

Yeah no hoods or hats (or jackets, I think).

pterodactyls · Post by **pterodactyls** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:11 pm

cbbinnyc wrote:
josh9308 wrote:Somewhat random and unrelated, but can you take the test with a hood on? I find it easier to keep distractions away. I'm assuming, though, that this is probably against the rules as I could be cheating or doing something that the proctor couldn't see.
Yeah no hoods or hats (or jackets, I think).

When I took the GRE, the test center had these noise cancelling earmuff things you could wear while you took the test (similar to what you'd see someone wearing when they operate heavy machinery), which was nice and helped block out the sound of people coughing and such.

I wish the LSAT did this, but I'm sure it would be impractical given the number of test centers.

Nagster5 · Post by **Nagster5** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:24 pm

Post removed.

seashell.economy · Post by **seashell.economy** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:53 pm

I was immediately told to take off my beanie upon entering the room. And it was mighty cold in there.

cmac2210 · Post by **cmac2210** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:28 am

I think that hat rule is ridiculous. My test center is Fairbanks Alaska and it's cold in the morning this time of year. Given the opportunity I would have kept my touk on during the test. Also, there were only 4 other testers in my room so it's not like we could hide in the masses and deviously use our hats to some advantage.