Law School Discussion

Cheating on the LSAT

nola8688

  • ****
  • 188
  • THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL !!!
    • View Profile
Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2004, 07:45:17 PM »
I would have specifically avoided such a "flagging". That was the problem with the approach of the guys just sending the answers to hawaii. After receiving the email with the digital photos from my accomplice on the east coast, here's exactly what I would do -

read all the LG games, but NONE of the questions. Just understand the games well enough so that I know the setup and derivations cold. But don't look at any questions. That way, there will not only be the setup I write on my exam but legit "real time" work I perform on each question. The kind of stuff you can't fake.

Similiarly with the reading comp - i would read each of the reading comp passages several times so I was intimately familiar with each but not look at any of the questions. That way, I could spend all the time I usually spend just reading the passage instead marking it up (circling names, etc.) then jump right to the questions.

I wouldn't even look at any of the LR sections my accomplice sent me. I want to stay away from a 180 and I want to have some mistakes show up that I don't have to "manufacture" and that seem artificial. Besides, with the above approach for the LG and RC sections I will have already drastically improved my score by 5-7 points.

That's the downfall of most cheaters - they are greedy. If they see a way to cheat and improve their score they are going to push that cheating method all the way to maximize their gains as much as possible. A 'responsible' cheater, one with enough self control and one not ruled by greed, could follow the above approach (if he has an accomplice on the east coast) to artifically improve his score by 5-7 points with very little risk of getting caught.


Oye Vey, a "responsible cheating lawyer" in the making...

nathanielmark

Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2004, 07:48:47 PM »
why am i beginning to suspect that this sonata character is also "Stabilo Tough" or whatever the guys name was on the other board. 

one flaw i see with dta's plan, which would work great with the camera images, is that not everyone lives in hawaii, and when your score gets sent to schools, they will see where your test was taken.  i think most people would be suspicious about someone taking the LSAT in hawaii who lives in say, New Jersey.

Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2004, 08:11:37 PM »
Sorry if I took that personally.  Well, here's the whole scoring process, as my uncle explained it.

1) 
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

zpops, sorry man but your story doesn't add up. Why would an employee of the LSAT scoring machine company -- who happens to be your uncle -- be divulging information about how the scoring process works. Clearly it would be proprietary information, and the fact that it is appearing on a public discussion board would open him to disciplinary action by his employer.

dta

Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2004, 09:11:49 PM »
Actually xrayspec, you cite evidence indicating that zpops and his uncle aren't very prudent, not necessarily that what he says is untrue. But I was wondering the same thing - does sound like a lot of "inside" knowledge to be divulging. Even so, it doesn't strike me as "proprietary" knowledge. Proprietary knowledge would relate to the actual algorithm used to distinguish hard pencil pressing cheaters from innocently nervous test takers.

nola8688 - i said that's what I would do *IF* i were to cheat. Do you never watch, say, a bank-robbery movie and say to yourself "i would have done things differently. instead of taking time to go to the vault i would instead ...". Judge me on my actions, not on what I innocently hypothesize about. And, if you read my post again you'll note i put "responsible" in quotes to indicate an obvious tongue-in-cheek use of the term.

Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2004, 09:28:17 PM »
Not true, dta. Anything you know about your employer as a result of working there, unless it has been disclosed to the public or designated otherwise, is proprietary information. It's more than imprudent, it's illegal.

I have no way of evaluating whether this information is true.

dta

Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2004, 10:36:14 PM »
xrayspec - at the last software company I worked for there was in Indian man on my development team. He didn't speak/write very good english. Much of our code contained comments of his involving grammar mistakes. That is not information available to the general public and I doubt it would be considered proprietary. Here's another.

I worked on one particular bug on a product at that company that took me a whole week to fix. The bug involved network card device drivers and was related to our flagship product. If I tell that piece of private information to a lady at a bar in order to impress her, i might not be very saavy but I don't think i divulged any proprietary information.

Point is, I think your categorization of "anything private" is way too overbearing. I'm just taking a wild guess here, but doesn't proprietary, in the legal sense of "we're gonna sue you if you tell anybody the secret" have to involve somehow at least one of the following:

1. a patent of some kind
2. a copyright of some kind
3. a non-disclosure agreement that would forbid the parties from divulging specif pieces of info outlined in the NDA.

That was my understanding of "proprietary". Thus, if the company zpops' uncle works for does not have a patent or copyright on the very general information zpops divulged and his uncle signed no NDA relating in any way to this very general information, I don't think there's any transgression of anything proprietary.

I'm just shooting from the hip above. I've probably got it wrong somehow. But I am pretty sure you're shooting from the hip as well with your galactic "anything not public" categorization of what is proprietary.

If indeed what you say is true - that anything not publicly known is proprietary, then there would be no need for the existence of NDA agreements. By default, anything discussed in such a meeting is proprietary if not know to the public and thus NDA's would serve no purpose. Your galactic assessment of "proprietary = anything not public" would render NDA's of no use. Yet, they do exist and seem to be useful. I and most of my coworkers signed NDA's promising not to divulge very specific kinds of information at the company I work for. I read the NDA pretty carefully. And I'm pretty sure I can be a silly nitwit at the local pub and try to brag to the pretty lady about that hard week-long bug I fixed.

zpops

  • ****
  • 773
  • Going to NYU in the fall! 3.99/175
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zp0ps
    • View Profile
    • The Digital Rant
    • Email
Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2004, 10:48:13 PM »
In light of xray's argument, I have opted to delete the information I posted, and I request that anyone who quoted my posts please remove the quotes from their own posts.  I showed poor judgement in posting anything which could even possibly be "private information". 

Not that this is an excuse for showing such poor judgement, but I have been under a tremendous amount of personal stress over the past few months (my mother has been hospitalized for the past two months, recently underwent a major and risky operation, and is currently battling stage 4 colon cancer for the fourth time in eight years). 

Thank you for cooperating with me in correcting this foolish error.

nola8688

  • ****
  • 188
  • THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL !!!
    • View Profile
Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2004, 11:23:14 PM »

nola8688 - i said that's what I would do *IF* i were to cheat. Do you never watch, say, a bank-robbery movie and say to yourself "i would have done things differently. instead of taking time to go to the vault i would instead ...". Judge me on my actions, not on what I innocently hypothesize about. And, if you read my post again you'll note i put "responsible" in quotes to indicate an obvious tongue-in-cheek use of the term.

My comment was in jest - a poke in the side if you will. I prey you didn't think I was chastizing you for merely explaining your hypothetical scenario. However, you must admit the irony in a thread devoted to defrauding the device by which people actually become attorney's (a profession that supposedly requires uncompromising ethical behavior).

Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2004, 12:33:06 AM »
dta - "proprietary" only means "owned and controlled". In practice you're correct, the proprietary designation is typically applied to economically valuable information, but to the extent everything you do as an employee is a work for hire, your employer is free to define anything they like as proprietary. There are companies (eg Disney) who exercise their full rights in this regard.

I would suppose the source code comments are considered proprietary if only because they are part of a larger work that is definitely proprietary (the source code) I would also guess information about bugs in the flagship product would be considered proprietary by that employer. Don't you think that information would be valuable to a competitor?

NDAs are not useless but they often rely on terms (eg "trade secrets") that are not well-defined inside the document.

Anyhow. If you have a company that processes test results, you can safely assume that everything having to do with that process is going to be considered proprietary. It would be like the US Mint talking about its 12-step process for manufacturing currency.

dta

Re: Cheating on the LSAT
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2004, 12:33:22 AM »
okey dokey nola. I guess i'm missing the irony though. To me it seems natural that any group would find it highly interesting to discuss the "cheaters" among them - how they operate, what their tactics are, and how frequent their activities are. Guess I'm missing the twist/reversal in meaning/ideas that would constitute irony.

Cops chase robbers. Cops like to write/read crime novels. Irony?  ???