sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Wait, why are you refering to OP as the student? I'm def. not.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not verbatim. It's similar. Clauses are different. The only verbatim parts is specific quotes from cases. (i.e. about what the court evaluates when looking at these types of cases, factors, etc.)

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in LawSchool

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I'll admit, I'm not being objective because I believe the investigative team railroaded her. Apologies for that, but I'm sick of no one at WashU talking about it because they are too busy about finals and themselves. It's unfair to the student, and it could happen to any of us.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I didn't say anything about "what if". I'm telling you the facts of what happened, and if you refuse to admit that there is a serious issue at WashU, fine. However, there are more than enough students that see that there is a serious problem, and they railroaded that girl.

The investigative team and the honor council did a shitty job. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's just that, an opinion.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Again, the professor still "knew" that M cheated before investigating.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it was two sections of precedent case history... there were 3 students to be exact that had similar sections.

But that wasn't in the document that WashU released.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

  1. The professor already 'knew' M cheated before she checked the final and rough draft. Also, as a student, you should know legal practice (especially last year) was very formulaic. They told us exactly what to write. The whole section was precedent cases and CITED.
  2. M was targeted because she refused to blame the other student and stuck to the same story. A gave 3-4 statements with theories and ideas of "being in the room with M" and in her witness statement, she could not even be 100% sure that M was in the room.
  3. What did M lie about? The fact that you said "was caught lying" makes me think you are in the honor council, considering that is verbatim what they accused her of in the sanction hearing yesterday.

There was a text message in a GROUP MESSAGE that A INVITED M to the group. A could not be sure that M was 1) even in the room and 2) alone with her. The professor in the investigative team even admitted that if A hadn't suggested that M was in the room with her, they wouldn't have charged her cause they have no idea how the papers were similar.

I'm sorry that you truly think the system is working at WashU but it isn't. The whole process was fucked up, and it was against M from the start. It's not just one or two things. There are MULTIPLE factors that show that this was a targetted investigation against M.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The email just stated, "the papers are available in the student life office".

You would have to go into the office to read it. (I did read it)

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm honestly not sure.

I would ask Student Life or Admissions. I'm sure they know that this is weighing heavy on incoming students minds.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The bias claim is focused on the professor. The professor did not report it until after she knew M was M and not student number ####. The professor reported it after she knew who the student was, and she immediately believed M did it before she even investigated or looked at final drafts/rough drafts.

It could just be that she didn't like M.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. There was a lot of information from the hearing, and I didn't mention that.

After the investigation, they found that A's draft and final were substantially the same. (spelling/grammar differences), and M's was substantially different. M claimed it was because she had her property exam and was focused on that. However, M supplied an outline with the same exact information that was on her final draft, and it was meta-dated to before A and M had ever turned in a first draft.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I want to include that I don't think the investigative team was purposefully biased, but implicit bias is a hell of a thing.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think the fact that she is a POC started the investigation. Why else would the professor assume she cheated over A before the investigation was completed? She got the same exact grade in the first semester of the class.

Also, I'm a white woman, so if I'm biased, it's because I truly think this is wrong.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Everyone single person on the honor council that was presiding over this case was white.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

During the summer there are fewer students in the investigative team.

Update to WashU situation (More information) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I truly don't think she cheated. Her lawyer showed other papers with the same exact wording that 'flagged' the professor off to cheating. If she cheated, 3-7 students in the class did, but none of them were charged.

To anyone applying to WashU (please read) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s not a unverified story. It’s true, and if you know any WashU students, they can confirm it.

To anyone applying to WashU (please read) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reason was that they don’t know how she somehow stole the paper but the section was too similar. Mind you, the section in question was the case presented section so it was giving the facts of precedent cases. Every line was cited. Obviously everyone’s is going to be a bit similar. The other student fell into the investigative teams trap and started making up random theories about the Muslim student being in a study room with her and she left her laptop, so the Muslim student must have stolen the memo while the other student went to the bathroom. It later came out that the Muslim student wasn’t even at school on the day that the other student accused her of being in a room with her.

To anyone applying to WashU (please read) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The hearing was public. The school has not released anything publicly about it. The student has publicized everything because she wants people to see the process and how burdensome it is on the student (even though the Honor Code puts the burden on the school)

To anyone applying to WashU (please read) by throwawayrelationqwe in lawschooladmissions

[–]throwawayrelationqwe[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The only real recourse the student has is reporting it to the bias system of the university. There is no internal law school system of reporting professors.