Implications of a misconduct warning? Forum

[yubs]

Hey all,

During the test today, I received a misconduct warning for filling in answers in Section I during testing for Section II. I wasn't dismissed from the testing center or anything, and was only given the level 1 warning (out of 3 possible levels.) However, my proctor couldn't really tell me what this might mean for my score, and having subsequently consulted the LSAC website, I can't really tell either. Does anyone have any idea what might happen in this situation?

For what's it's worth, I'm guilty, yes, but it was one of those situations where I had the answer in my head but couldn't bubble it in time, and instead of being overly defiant towards the proctor and bubbling it in while she was telling us to put our pencils down for the third time, I decided to do my bubbling during the second section... fail.

If anyone knows anything, I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks

[Mr. Matlock]

[APimpNamedSlickback]

this is not good. i dont think law schools are falling over themselves trying to admit people who cheat on lsats. i'd be a whole hell of alot more worried about what law schools are going to think about this than anything having to do with your score. good luck man.

[evilxs]

Major kudos for manning up that it is you. I get tired of reading about people's "friends" who accidentally cross bubbled...

Sincerely.... Good luck man and hey please let us know how it goes. Always been curious.

[sarlis]

was it a verbal warning?

[yubs]

No, written.

[katieg]

Did you have to sign anything?

[Mr. Matlock]

Ugh.... the truth is, I don't think anyone here knows. This situation comes up after every LSAT administration and invariably someone posts here asking the same question as you. (Not nearly as forthright, I will grant you that) They usually end up having some kind of hearing...... and then we never hear from them again.

The general consensus is, it's a deal killer, at least as far as this year goes. If you want to try again in a year or two, it would be a gamble, but who's to say? If you get a good enough score, perhaps someone would take a chance on you. Of course then there's the Character and Fitness evaluation for the Bar... and who knows what they would do/think?

[Duralex]

You might want to take it again, just to have a score on file w/o any strings attached to it. That's just off the top of my head, I have no idea how these things are handled.

Re the accidental cross bubble thing: While scrambling though the LG section for the second time today I almost bubbled the wrong section while transcribing a block of answers. When I realized what I was about to do there was a very brief moment of panic while I checked to make sure my previous reponses were OK. Then I wasted about 10 seconds wondering what would happen/what I would have to do if I had. Worrying about the outcomes of mistakes you didn't make--there's an unlikely time waster. And in the end I ran out of time to guess properly. Hah!

RE Gloom and Doom -- The general consensus around here is also that if you aren't T20 and Biglaw-bound you are insignificant. While it probably is bad for this year, I don't think it's as bad as the above. People really make too much of the bar's morality police. A minor infraction like this isn't going to keep you from getting a license while people with DUI convictions can manage it.

[OperaSoprano]

You might want to take it again, just to have a score on file w/o any strings attached to it. That's just off the top of my head, I have no idea how these things are handled.

Re the accidental cross bubble thing: While scrambling though the LG section for the second time today I almost bubbled the wrong section while transcribing a block of answers. When I realized what I was about to do there was a very brief moment of panic while I checked to make sure my previous reponses were OK. Then I wasted about 10 seconds wondering what would happen/what I would have to do if I had. Worrying about the outcomes of mistakes you didn't make--there's an unlikely time waster. And in the end I ran out of time to guess properly. Hah!

RE Gloom and Doom -- The general consensus around here is also that if you aren't T20 and Biglaw-bound you are insignificant. While it probably is bad for this year, I don't think it's as bad as the above. People really make too much of the bar's morality police. A minor infraction like this isn't going to keep you from getting a license while people with DUI convictions can manage it.

Probably this. It was a boneheaded thing to do, but you aren't a felon.

This is just based upon an adcomm's response to one of my friends, who was incredibly contrite after doing something she should not have done (not on the LSAT, but under somewhat analogous circumstances). I don't know what the bar will do, but it seems unlikely that your fate is sealed forever. Putting some time between your application and the infraction might be key, however.

[katieg]

I agree with the above. It's not like you actually turned to another section and started working on it. You were bubbling in the last couple answers on another section.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

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

[D. H2Oman]

I'm amazed when people do things like this that they aren't more careful. Seems like it should have been pretty easy to get away with this. (At least if the center where I took the LSAT is representative.) Anyways, this obviously isn't good, but I don't think it's a career killer. Have you consider the idea of straight up cancelling the score, retaking, and including an addenda with your apps owning up to your mistake. I think most schools will appreciate the honesty.

[DareLG]

When you cheat on the LSAT

--ImageRemoved--

[yubs]

I'm amazed when people do things like this that they aren't more careful. Seems like it should have been pretty easy to get away with this. (At least if the center where I took the LSAT is representative.)

I registered for the test late and all the test centers near me were full, so I had to take it in a smallish town an hour away. Maybe 15 people were in the room, and the proctors were prowling. Still, it was a matter of seconds, and I don't think I was blatant about it. Kudos to them.. I guess.

What was particularly confusing for me is the 'warning' thing, as well as the hierarchy -1st warning, dismissal v. non-dismissal, etc. Do these distinctions matter? (I know no one really knows anything concrete, but I welcome the input.) Also, I was written up for "working beyond time limits" rather than "reading or working in the wrong section." Is this good for me?

[superserial]

I'm amazed when people do things like this that they aren't more careful. Seems like it should have been pretty easy to get away with this. (At least if the center where I took the LSAT is representative.) Anyways, this obviously isn't good, but I don't think it's a career killer. Have you consider the idea of straight up cancelling the score, retaking, and including an addenda with your apps owning up to your mistake. I think most schools will appreciate the honesty.

if you cancel does the misconduct report disappear? that seems unlikely, but I'm not familiar with LSAC's policy on misconduct...

edit: oh, never mind, that's not what you were saying.

[vanwinkle]

I registered for the test late and all the test centers near me were full, so I had to take it in a smallish town an hour away. Maybe 15 people were in the room, and the proctors were prowling. Still, it was a matter of seconds, and I don't think I was blatant about it. Kudos to them.. I guess.

If the proctor-to-student ratio was that close, then this was just your dumb mistake.

What was particularly confusing for me is the 'warning' thing, as well as the hierarchy -1st warning, dismissal v. non-dismissal, etc. Do these distinctions matter? (I know no one really knows anything concrete, but I welcome the input.) Also, I was written up for "working beyond time limits" rather than "reading or working in the wrong section." Is this good for me?

The law is all about ethics. I'm sure if you do spectacularly well on the LSAT there will be T2 schools eager to have your high LSAT score, but the higher you aim the more this is going to matter.

[vanwinkle]

if you cancel does the misconduct report disappear? that seems unlikely, but I'm not familiar with LSAC's policy on misconduct...

This is a good question. OP might cancel if he still has time, and save himself the humiliation of a misconduct report on all his law school apps.

[Duralex]

The law is also about being able to dispassionately analyze a fact pattern and give advice, despite your personal moral disapproval of whatever conduct is at hand.

[clint4law]

I'm amazed when people do things like this that they aren't more careful. Seems like it should have been pretty easy to get away with this. (At least if the center where I took the LSAT is representative.) Anyways, this obviously isn't good, but I don't think it's a career killer. Have you consider the idea of straight up cancelling the score, retaking, and including an addenda with your apps owning up to your mistake. I think most schools will appreciate the honesty.

if you cancel does the misconduct report disappear? that seems unlikely, but I'm not familiar with LSAC's policy on misconduct...

edit: oh, never mind, that's not what you were saying.

nope

http://www.lsac.org/Applying/misconduct ... rities.asp

[vanwinkle]

The law is also about being able to dispassionately analyze a fact pattern and give advice, despite your personal moral disapproval of whatever conduct is at hand.

My expression that OP made a dumb mistake is entirely rational in origin. It's a mistake that a reasonable person would not have made under those circumstances, especially given the high potential costs of getting caught in that particular situation and the high proctor-to-student ratio. OP's behavior was at least negligent, if not reckless. If phrasing it in "more dispassionate" language makes you feel better about it, I can do that. My point is still the same, either way.

Misconduct during a test is going to look the same as any other kind of ethical violation, which is to say it will give adcomms pause. Given that OP does not have a reasonable explanation that he can give in an addendum to explain it without lying (and that I will not advocate lying to adcomms, one ethical mistake is bad enough already) that's going to create a hole in his application that's going to make top schools question if they want him.

Lower-ranked schools will probably not care quite as much, just based on the inherent fact that there's less competition to get into them and (if OP actually does well on the LSAT) it will be hard for them to attract students of similar achievement that don't have noticeable blemishes on their application. In that case they may take a chance on someone in OP's situation in order to get the boost to their LSAT median, since the numbers game is still a numbers game.

However, for those top-ranked schools that have a strong supply of applicants that have high scores and unblemished records, it's very likely he will not do well at all under these circumstances. They'll simply fill their seats using the thousands of applicants that don't have blatant and unexplainable ethical violations on their record, and either WL or reject him.

OP does have a right of appeal, which might be his only useful recourse at this point. However, I'm not sure what he could say there, especially given that he's already admitted (anonymously) on an internet forum that he actually committed the misconduct. Perhaps he could play the "traffic ticket" game and hope they just don't have the proper evidence to uphold the finding, and be forced to dismiss it.

Otherwise, it says clearly on the main page for LSAT irregularities that there is no intent requirement for misconduct or irregularities, and claiming it was an "honest mistake" is not a defense. Strict liability means that as long as they accept the evidence that he did it, he can do nothing about it, it sticks. I don't think he has any real options here, he's already made the choice that would've affected the outcome in any meaningful way.

Is that dispassionate enough for you?

[OperaSoprano]

The law is also about being able to dispassionately analyze a fact pattern and give advice, despite your personal moral disapproval of whatever conduct is at hand.

My expression that OP made a dumb mistake is entirely rational in origin. It's a mistake that a reasonable person would not have made under those circumstances, especially given the high potential costs of getting caught in that particular situation and the high proctor-to-student ratio. OP's behavior was at least negligent, if not reckless. If phrasing it in "more dispassionate" language makes you feel better about it, I can do that. My point is still the same, either way.

Misconduct during a test is going to look the same as any other kind of ethical violation, which is to say it will give adcomms pause. Given that OP does not have a reasonable explanation that he can give in an addendum to explain it without lying (and that I will not advocate lying to adcomms, one ethical mistake is bad enough already) that's going to create a hole in his application that's going to make top schools question if they want him.

Lower-ranked schools will probably not care quite as much, just based on the inherent fact that there's less competition to get into them and (if OP actually does well on the LSAT) it will be hard for them to attract students of similar achievement that don't have noticeable blemishes on their application. In that case they may take a chance on someone in OP's situation in order to get the boost to their LSAT median, since the numbers game is still a numbers game.

However, for those top-ranked schools that have a strong supply of applicants that have high scores and unblemished records, it's very likely he will not do well at all under these circumstances. They'll simply fill their seats using the thousands of applicants that don't have blatant and unexplainable ethical violations on their record, and either WL or reject him.

OP does have a right of appeal, which might be his only useful recourse at this point. However, I'm not sure what he could say there, especially given that he's already admitted (anonymously) on an internet forum that he actually committed the misconduct. Perhaps he could play the "traffic ticket" game and hope they just don't have the proper evidence to uphold the finding, and be forced to dismiss it.

Otherwise, it says clearly on the main page for LSAT irregularities that there is no intent requirement for misconduct or irregularities, and claiming it was an "honest mistake" is not a defense. Strict liability means that as long as they accept the evidence that he did it, he can do nothing about it, it sticks. I don't think he has any real options here, he's already made the choice that would've affected the outcome in any meaningful way.

Is that dispassionate enough for you?

You know, everyone else at UVA is going to hate you after you ruin their curve.

[MC Southstar]

How the hell do you get caught doing that?

The fact pattern is you were awfully imperceptive and careless if you got caught doing something that you knew was against the rules and was also so easily manageable. I can't really tell you the rules behind it though, I think it would helpful to find someone who had the same warning before and see what happened to them.

[vanwinkle]

You know, everyone else at UVA is going to hate you after you ruin their curve.

Haha, I can only hope at this point. (Yeah, I'll hope they all hate me, if that's what comes with getting all A's!)

[misformafia]

How the hell do you get caught doing that?

The fact pattern is you were awfully imperceptive and careless if you got caught doing something that you knew was against the rules and was also so easily manageable. I can't really tell you the rules behind it though, I think it would helpful to find someone who had the same warning before and see what happened to them.

+1. I know this has happened before. After EVERY test one or two kids post something similar.

At least OP is being up front, but there is simply no excuse or justification - the LSAT tests your ability to answer the questions within the time period, OP cheated and if the answer filled in is correct will get one more point than a person who was ethical. Stuff like this bothers be.