WUSTL c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum

[DoveBodyWash]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

Then why can't Goldman Sachs ask have you ever been arrested or detained? They are a private institution too.

Because that's irrelevant to Goldman Sachs, all they care about is whether you can work 20-hour days

Okay but seriously, i think it's different for employers. Especially because there are indeed C&F requirements for every state's Bar, so the information is more relevant for law schools.

ETA: The important thing is that you're going to a good school with a lot of scholly

[jdmonkey]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

I believe their rights only extend to things relevant to your performance in law school and passing the bar. Again under your logic they could ask you how many people have you slept with. Which again would be absurd.

[wannabelawstudent]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

Then why can't Goldman Sachs ask have you ever been arrested or detained? They are a private institution too.

As an up and coming legal scholar (soon to be 1L at a T20 law school). I would say that a law school has the right to do due diligence to ensure their applicants can pass the States c&f requirement. We are not citizens applying for employment but snowflakes looking to become trained as lawyers. Ensuring that every student can sit for the bar is something every school should be mandated to do.

[TheThriller]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

Then why can't Goldman Sachs ask have you ever been arrested or detained? They are a private institution too.

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

I believe their rights only extend to things relevant to your performance in law school and passing the bar. Again under your logic they could ask you how many people have you slept with. Which again would be absurd.

It's not my logic, its how the world works dude. In essence they could ask you that question. BYU could ask you that question for example.

You are also missing the fact that GS is a for profit enterprise while Emory is a 501c3 (non-profit). This basic financial classification has a lot to do with gov't support and the qualifiction for subsidies (bailout aside).

[TheThriller]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

Then why can't Goldman Sachs ask have you ever been arrested or detained? They are a private institution too.

As an up and coming legal scholar (soon to be 1L at a T20 law school). I would say that a law school has the right to do due diligence to ensure their applicants can pass the States c&f requirement. We are not citizens applying for employment but snowflakes looking to become trained as lawyers. Ensuring that every student can sit for the bar is something every school should be mandated to do.

A true battle of the gunners right here

[jdmonkey]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

Then why can't Goldman Sachs ask have you ever been arrested or detained? They are a private institution too.

As an up and coming legal scholar (soon to be 1L at a T20 law school). I would say that a law school has the right to do due diligence to ensure their applicants can pass the States c&f requirement. We are not citizens applying for employment but snowflakes looking to become trained as lawyers. Ensuring that every student can sit for the bar is something every school should be mandated to do.

I guess we should just agree to disagree. Taking into account the security guard from the Atlanta terrorist attack and the Newtown gunman's brother, I just don't see how detentions/arrests are relevant to C&F. Convictions yes of course even if expunged.

[DoveBodyWash]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

Then why can't Goldman Sachs ask have you ever been arrested or detained? They are a private institution too.

As an up and coming legal scholar (soon to be 1L at a T20 law school). I would say that a law school has the right to do due diligence to ensure their applicants can pass the States c&f requirement. We are not citizens applying for employment but snowflakes looking to become trained as lawyers. Ensuring that every student can sit for the bar is something every school should be mandated to do.

I guess we should just agree to disagree. Taking into account the security guard from the Atlanta terrorist attack and the Newtown gunman's brother, I just don't see how detentions/arrests are relevant to C&F. Convictions yes of course even if expunged.

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave

[wannabelawstudent]

I mean the thing is all they have to do is write an addendum. No one is saying they cant practice law or they wont get into law school. Speculating on their outcome is just speculation.

I will cherish continuing this and many other debates and defeating you in class.

[MKC]

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave

If you are charged with a crime, but found not guilty, shouldn't that be the end of it? What the hell is the point of innocent until proven guilty if you still have to deal with it after the courts have settled the matter? No one should ever have to answer for accusations/charges that have been cleared by a court.

[jdmonkey]

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave

If you are charged with a crime, but found not guilty, shouldn't that be the end of it? What the hell is the point of innocent until proven guilty if you still have to deal with it after the courts have settled the matter? No one should ever have to answer for accusations/charges that have been cleared by a court.

Amen brother!!!!!!!!

[dougfunny]

As a private institution they have a right to ask you whatever they want

Then why can't Goldman Sachs ask have you ever been arrested or detained? They are a private institution too.

As an up and coming legal scholar (soon to be 1L at a T20 law school). I would say that a law school has the right to do due diligence to ensure their applicants can pass the States c&f requirement. We are not citizens applying for employment but snowflakes looking to become trained as lawyers. Ensuring that every student can sit for the bar is something every school should be mandated to do.

I guess we should just agree to disagree. Taking into account the security guard from the Atlanta terrorist attack and the Newtown gunman's brother, I just don't see how detentions/arrests are relevant to C&F. Convictions yes of course even if expunged.

What if you get arrested for possession but enter a plea deal to get released if you rat out your drug dealer friend? No conviction but could still be relevant to the type of person you are.

[jdmonkey]

I mean the thing is all they have to do is write an addendum. No one is saying they cant practice law or they wont get into law school. Speculating on their outcome is just speculation.

I will cherish continuing this and many other debates and defeating you in class.

Yeah I can't wait for law school either. It is going to be awesome!

[MKC]

What if you get arrested for possession but enter a plea deal to get released if you rat out your drug dealer friend? No conviction but could still be relevant to the type of person you are.

I agree. Ratting out your buddy should be grounds for failing C&F.

Seriously though, if the court determined that you shouldn't be punished because you cooperated, why should that come up later? The state promised you a clean record. If you don't get a clean record, why the hell would you cooperate in the first place?

[jdmonkey]

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I guess but then the burden shifts to you the applicant to try and explain why the police screwed up or took the steps they did (I personally think it was smart to detain Lanza's brother until they could clear him). I don't think you should have to be responsible for trying the guess/explain the motives of the police.

[MKC]

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave

The whole point of the fifth amendment is that you don't have to prove you're innocent, the state has to prove that you're guilty. Being as the state bar is a part of the legal system, you would think that they would respect that the burden of proof is on the state. Now, if you've been proven guilty of something, you should have to explain it. The idea that you have to write an addendum any time some asshole accuses you of something is ridiculous though.

[wannabelawstudent]

Even in the hypos you guys are suggesting, this is less than .0001% of the population, and that number drops significantly when you consider people applying to law school. On the flip side, you could have a scenario where they don't ask it, it comes up for c&f for the bar, and then you get denied and stuck with a 160k piece of paper. Law schools should protect the latter group and make sure they can sit for the bar. Imo its useless to speculate if Adam Lanza 's brother can get into Emory now.

[jdmonkey]

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave

The whole point of the fifth amendment is that you don't have to prove you're innocent, the state has to prove that you're guilty. Being as the state bar is a part of the legal system, you would think that they would respect that the burden of proof is on the state. Now, if you've been proven guilty of something, you should have to explain it. The idea that you have to write an addendum any time some asshole accuses you of something is ridiculous though.

Completely agree. The burden should not shift to the applicant.

[wannabelawstudent]

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave

The whole point of the fifth amendment is that you don't have to prove you're innocent, the state has to prove that you're guilty. Being as the state bar is a part of the legal system, you would think that they would respect that the burden of proof is on the state. Now, if you've been proven guilty of something, you should have to explain it. The idea that you have to write an addendum any time some asshole accuses you of something is ridiculous though.

You're not being judged as guilty in a court of law, you're applying for admissions to a law school to become a lawyer. Why does the 5th amendment come into play at a private school.

[jdmonkey]

Even in the hypos you guys are suggesting, this is less than .0001% of the population, and that number drops significantly when you consider people applying to law school. On the flip side, you could have a scenario where they don't ask it, it comes up for c&f for the bar, and then you get denied and stuck with a 160k piece of paper. Law schools should protect the latter group and make sure they can sit for the bar. Imo its useless to speculate if Adam Lanza 's brother can get into Emory now.

I agree with your point about protecting students from themselves, but considering the fact that in some states you can be a convicted felon and practice law, do you really think an arrest without a conviction would hold somebody back from sitting for the bar? I mean because of my personal situation I spoke with C&F in my state and they said that as long as it is disclosed an arrest without a conviction is meaningless in their evaluation of a candidate.

[MKC]

I mean tbf...it's not like they just tell you to check a box. Don't they usually give you space to explain the circumstances? I think that would sufficiently prevent against the hypos you gave

The whole point of the fifth amendment is that you don't have to prove you're innocent, the state has to prove that you're guilty. Being as the state bar is a part of the legal system, you would think that they would respect that the burden of proof is on the state. Now, if you've been proven guilty of something, you should have to explain it. The idea that you have to write an addendum any time some asshole accuses you of something is ridiculous though.

You're not being judged as guilty in a court of law, you're applying for admissions to a law school to become a lawyer. Why does the 5th amendment come into play.

I'm saying that the bar C&F examination is part of the legal system, and they should respect the intent of that system. Our system is set up in such a way that the burden of proof is on the state, and the accused has the right to shut the fuck up. C&F, with regard to accusations, turns that on its head. The burden of proof is now on the accused to prove they didn't do anything wrong, even if a court has already acquitted them. I'm not saying that this is a constitutional issue, just that the state bar should respect the process it exists to support.

ETA: The private school can ask whatever it wants, but I suspect the motive is to be sure the applicant can sit for the bar, probably motivated by bar passage statistics for US News. If the state bar didn't look at it, the school would have no motive to ask.

[FKASunny]

If it bothers you so much, don't go to Emory. There were a few schools I didn't apply to because their applications required extra essays or unnecessarily intrusive questions about other schools I had applied to.

Also, you're missing the point. Emory clearly states on their website that their C&F questions are mainly a way to test how truthful and forthcoming you are. It's not that they think you wouldn't pass C&F. The point is that they want to train you in the valuable art of copping to and explaining your past in a truthful and balanced light.

The burden of proof is now on the accused to prove they didn't do anything wrong, even if a court has already acquitted them. I'm not saying that this is a constitutional issue, just that the state bar should respect the process it exists to support.

Of course the burden of proof is on the applicant. You're applying to be certified and vetted by the bar. You're not proving your innocence, you're proving your competence and ability to be a lawyer.

[DoveBodyWash]

If it bothers you so much, don't go to Emory.

[MKC]

If it bothers you so much, don't go to Emory. There were a few schools I didn't apply to because their applications required extra essays or unnecessarily intrusive questions about other schools I had applied to.

Also, you're missing the point. Emory clearly states on their website that their C&F questions are mainly a way to test how truthful and forthcoming you are. It's not that they think you wouldn't pass C&F. The point is that they want to train you in the valuable art of copping to and explaining your past in a truthful and balanced light.

The burden of proof is now on the accused to prove they didn't do anything wrong, even if a court has already acquitted them. I'm not saying that this is a constitutional issue, just that the state bar should respect the process it exists to support.

Of course the burden of proof is on the applicant. You're applying to be certified and vetted by the bar. You're not proving your innocence, you're proving your competence and ability to be a lawyer.

I'm calling bullshit on this. You only have to "prove your competence and ability" if someone has accused you of something. If you have a spotless record, you don't have to prove anything.

[jdmonkey]

If it bothers you so much, don't go to Emory. There were a few schools I didn't apply to because their applications required extra essays or unnecessarily intrusive questions about other schools I had applied to.

Also, you're missing the point. Emory clearly states on their website that their C&F questions are mainly a way to test how truthful and forthcoming you are. It's not that they think you wouldn't pass C&F. The point is that they want to train you in the valuable art of copping to and explaining your past in a truthful and balanced light.

The burden of proof is now on the accused to prove they didn't do anything wrong, even if a court has already acquitted them. I'm not saying that this is a constitutional issue, just that the state bar should respect the process it exists to support.

Of course the burden of proof is on the applicant. You're applying to be certified and vetted by the bar. You're not proving your innocence, you're proving your competence and ability to be a lawyer.

....

[FKASunny]

I'm calling bullshit on this. You only have to "prove your competence and ability" if someone has accused you of something. If you have a spotless record, you don't have to prove anything.

You also have to provide them your entire work history since you were 18 in most states. You also have to report everywhere you've lived. You also have to report financial debts and obligations. Sure, maybe if you're a K-JD who lived with mom and dad and never had a job or a credit card, you'll have an easy time with C&F, but for most people you're going to have to report more info than you might be comfortable with.

It's not about being guilty. It's about being truthful and transparent. The law and lawyers already have a terrible enough reputation. If anything, the state bars should be more selective on who they admit.