LSAT rule

[Thernlund]

If you follow the thread, it's not off topic.

No no no. I followed the thread and see where it going and all. But as to the case of firearms, I fail to see how being armed has anything to do with cheating. Sure they don't trust you because the incentive to cheat is high. But how does that translate to having a gun? They are two different kinds of trust. And besides, my having a gun does not (or should not, at least) require anyone's trust, eh?


-T.

 

[Cyclimus]

My wife took the LSAT yesterday. I asked her if they had a metal detector or patted her down or anything - the answer was no. If you can carry concealed and not be noticed doing so - (Concealed means concealed) - and it is legal on campus, then I don't think the LSAC people can stop you since they have no legal ground to do so (not their property).

 

[jakemccoy]

No no no. I followed the thread and see where it going and all. But as to the case of firearms, I fail to see how being armed has anything to do with cheating. Sure they don't trust you because the incentive to cheat is high. But how does that translate to having a gun? They are two different kinds of trust. And besides, my having a gun does not (or should not, at least) require anyone's trust, eh?

Here's one way to look at it. The broad, simple rules just happen to cover firearms. So be it. The administrators in the testing room are probably minimum wage, maybe even volunteers. Broad, simple rules are the way to go. If I were the chief administrator over the entire nation, I'd also administer broad, simple rules.

My wife took the LSAT yesterday. I asked her if they had a metal detector or patted her down or anything - the answer was no. If you can carry concealed and not be noticed doing so - (Concealed means concealed) - and it is legal on campus, then I don't think the LSAC people can stop you since they have no legal ground to do so (not their property).

I agree. However, that's a choice the individual has to make and not advice I'd dish out.

 

[wolf13]

then I don't think the LSAC people can stop you since they have no legal ground to do so (not their property).

Its not so much about you being legally allowed to do it, as it is not being able to take the test. Chances are if you are taking the test you worked hard in college, and want to be a lawyer. It then becomes a choice of following the rules of the test, and not carrying, or doing what is legal but against the rules. If you break the rules your score doesn't count, and you may never take it again. Basically you can't be a lawyer.

 

[soccergod04]

I'm pretty sure you won't be able to carry into the courtroom either after you become a lawyer, so get used to it.

 

[akodo]

because these are competitive tests, I could imagine some scenario where one person uses a weapon to intimidate another. It then becomes he said/she said.

This is of course as unlikely as somene getting a slight edge from having two 12 oz bottles of water rather than a single 20 oz bottle of water, but it probably has happened.

What they should be required to do is have some sort of secure storage, an armed guard and liability insurance in case something happened where your weapon may have made a difference.

 

[Sicari]

Jake is right on point.

If you want good grades in law school, you'll generally have to act "politically correct". Then you'll need to let the Florida bar give you a psychological rectal exam, then the really fun part: the Florida Bar exam (insitutional hazing at it's finest). In the end, if you really want to be a lawyer, it's well worth it.

Good luck, don't sweat a thing... 90% of lawyers don't go to fancy schools,
so it may not be too important depending on what you want do... unfortunately most law students don't really know what they are after and buy into all sorts of B.S.

Work hard- maintain perspective.

 

[Flyboy]

What's really amusing is that the printed rules (on your admission ticket) don't mention anything about "weapons" or "firearms;" that restriction is mentioned in the initial briefing, after you've already been admitted.

It almost sounds like they're changing the conditions of the contract after it has been formed and partially executed, doesn't it?

(And I took mine yesterday too.)

 

[Flyboy]

I'm pretty sure you won't be able to carry into the courtroom either after you become a lawyer, so get used to it.

Not all lawyers are barristers. Some are solicitors.

For that matter, some jurisdictions allow carry, and others at least allow you to carry to the security checkpoint, at which point the court will secure your firearm for you until you leave. Pennsylvania comes to mind, although I may be mistaken.

 

[Flyboy]

The administrators in the testing room are probably minimum wage...

In my testing room, one proctor worked for university food services, the other for another minimum-wage department that escapes me. Anybody who wanted to cheat, and had half a modicum of creativity, could have done so easily--the proctors didn't even circulate after the first section.

 

[Cosmoline]

Technically I believe all US lawyers are both barristers and solicitors, but I understand your meaning.

In court I cannot carry a weapon, but there are armed security guards and most of all a heavily armed judge. As the highly partisan agent of a litigant I can understand why my rights are restricted. It's like going into a boxing ring with a rifle. I'd never shoot the guy with it, but it's still not considered fair play.

Anyway just wait till your bar exam. Ours was a three day affair like all the worst parts of law school crammed into one marathon session. It was I sincerely hope the last time I will ever use a blue book to write answers longhand.

 

[IME]

It might have something to do with the "freak-out" factor. Your 'weapon' might be a distraction to someone else taking the exam.

Bingo. We have a winner. Your fellow testers' nerves will be frayed enough w/o having an "oh my!!!" moment if they happen to see your gun.

Seriously, while the LSAT was an "adventure," wait until you take the bar exam. I was licensed in Florida in 88 back when they didn't have reciprocity with anyone. This meant when I moved to Virginia in 92, I had to take the Virginia bar exam to practice here. While both tests will turn your guts into mush, the sense of satisfaction you get at passing is something that is rarely duplicated in life.

<><Peace


BTW my recollection of the LSAT was that it was a combination of an aptitude test and an IQ test.

 

[Blackbeard]

California lawyers think that guns can be made "smart". Maybe they think you'll cheat by bringing a gun that's smarter than you!

 

[.cheese.]

jakemccoy - your point about the LSAT is correct. I was thinking you were referring to it as being a comprehensive college exam of sorts. It can in some circumstances be a substitute for a poor GPA. I think you have to at least get a 165 or above for that to apply though. A 2.5 plus a 160 probably still won't cut it IMO. Then again, what do I know? I'm no administrator.

As for carry into courtrooms, whoever mentioned it, at least here in Florida, it's legal if you get the approval of the judge who will be hearing the case.

My wife took the LSAT yesterday. I asked her if they had a metal detector or patted her down or anything - the answer was no. If you can carry concealed and not be noticed doing so - (Concealed means concealed) - and it is legal on campus, then I don't think the LSAC people can stop you since they have no legal ground to do so (not their property).

Stop you? Doubtful. Disqualify you and possibly bar you from taking the exam ever therefore disqualifying you from ever attending law school - easily possible.

I brought this up because it just seems that everywhere, people are trying to sneak in "no carry" rules if they can. It's one thing for a property owner to try it, but it's even more ridiculous if an entity which is holding an event on property which is not a prohibited area is trying it.

 

[jakemccoy]

I brought this up because it just seems that everywhere, people are trying to sneak in "no carry" rules if they can. It's one thing for a property owner to try it, but it's even more ridiculous if an entity which is holding an event on property which is not a prohibited area is trying it.

I understand your concern.

My responses here were directed to you as if I was talking to my nephew. I'd tell him to concentrate on the ultimate goal, which is passing the bar. If he then held the same convictions after passing the bar, he'd be in a better position to do something about it. That may sound like a wimp out. However, I think he'd understand sometime after his first year in law school. He'd definitely understand after he passed the bar.

By the way, in my courthouses, non-guards have to disarm. There was at least one case where a defendant successfully obtained a bailiff's handgun (but not while I was there). Law enforcement is just not taking any chances with non-guards carrying in courthouses. There are other issues related to people freaking out in the emotionally charged environment. So be it. It’s just not a battle that lights my fire because I understand the issues with non-guards carrying in courthouses. It goes without saying that I have to disarm if I visit a correctional facility.

 

[Girodin]

Not exactly. It's more of an IQ test and reading comprehension exam than anything else. Cheating would be moronic since you can't really study for it, you can only prepare for it. The person next to you is just as likely to get the question right or wrong as you are.

No the LSAT is huge for getting admitted. It is typicaly wieghed more heavily than your GPA in fact. I would prefer to have a higher LSAT and a lower GPA than visa versa.

I know a guy who had a dismall GPA low 2. something and scored a 180 yes a 180 (a perfect score) and thus went to the law school he wanted. That one test did more to get him into lawschool than his entire undergrad career. He ha 0.0 GPA semesters.

Cheating on the LSAT has taken many forms other than just copying the person next to you. The varoious security measures continue to be updated. I heard interesting stuff form those involved with LSAC.

 

[.cheese.]

My responses here were directed to you as if I was talking to my nephew. I'd tell him to concentrate on the ultimate goal, which is passing the bar. If he then held the same convictions after passing the bar, he'd be in a better position to do something about it. That may sound like a wimp out. However, I think he'd understand sometime after his first year in law school. He'd definitely understand after he passed the bar.

Oh absolutely, I understand and agree. It's just like you said, roll with it until I get a letter from the bar saying "Congrats." I plan to, it still annoys me though.

No the LSAT is huge for getting admitted. It is typicaly wieghed more heavily than your GPA in fact. I would prefer to have a higher LSAT and a lower GPA than visa versa.

Yeah, like I said in another post, just like the example you cited, a ridiculously high LSAT would substitute for a poor GPA. A 180 obviously would do it. Probably anything over 165 would do it for most schools, with the exception being the top 20 schools at which you'd have to pull over 170 I'm guessing with a low GPA (just a guess).

I went the other way, I had a good GPA and was scoring easily within the top 15th percentile, and often in the top 10th percentile for all practice tests, except a bad night's sleep caused me to score in the 53rd percentile on my first time taking the real deal. I'm praying that my poor night's sleep didn't do the same this time too.

Anyways, I still hold that prohibiting carry of any kind and calling it a fairness measure holds no merit.