. Forum

[thepsychedelic]

.

[HenryHankPalmer]

You're fine. When they say discipline, they mean academic writeups for things like plagiarism. Don't sweat noice complaints.

[Platopus]

.

[pancakes3]

being cited for a noise complaint isn't being disciplined for a noise complaint. i don't think OP has to disclose, unless he was formally disciplined.

[UVA2B]

This is probably just parsing of irrelevant infractions, but if you want to avoid any potential bar C&F problems down the road (which is the part that really matters, IIRC), just disclose it with the details you can provide. It probably doesn't need to be disclosed if there is literally no record of the write-ups, but you'll sacrifice nothing in writing up a brief explanation of your infractions and moving on with your day.

[rpupkin]

You're fine. When they say discipline, they mean academic writeups for things like plagiarism. Don't sweat noice complaints.

This is incorrect, they mean everything when they say "any other reason". They care only about the academic misconduct, and a pattern of other misconduct issues, but you definitely should be reporting EVERYTHING from college.

OP: Disclose, 1) because a lack of record doesn't mean it didn't happen and 2) literally no one will care.

I think the bolded is correct, which is why I disagree with your general advice.

The point of C&F is not to disclose every time you've gotten in trouble in your life. The point is to disclose incidents that are plausibly within the call of the question and that could later come back to bite you if you fail to disclose. That a RA had to tell OP to turn down his music is not a C&F issue. Once OP confirmed that his undergrad maintained no written record of the noise complaints, he confirmed that C&F disclosure was unnecessary.

By the way, frivolous C&F disclosure is not completely harmless. In California, at least, loading up your C&F application with meaningless bullshit can slow down the processing of your C&F application. (As California lawyers know, even a completely clean C&F application can take awhile.)

The default advice of "when it doubt, disclose" is good, but you're taking that advice too far. There's no plausible doubt here.

[UVA2B]

You're fine. When they say discipline, they mean academic writeups for things like plagiarism. Don't sweat noice complaints.

This is incorrect, they mean everything when they say "any other reason". They care only about the academic misconduct, and a pattern of other misconduct issues, but you definitely should be reporting EVERYTHING from college.

OP: Disclose, 1) because a lack of record doesn't mean it didn't happen and 2) literally no one will care.

I think the bolded is correct, which is why I disagree with your general advice.

The point of C&F is not to disclose every time you've gotten in trouble in your life. The point is to disclose incidents that are plausibly within the call of the question and that could later come back to bite you if you fail to disclose. That a RA had to tell OP to turn down his music is not a C&F issue. Once OP confirmed that his undergrad maintained no written record of the noise complaints, he confirmed that C&F disclosure was unnecessary.

By the way, frivolous C&F disclosure is not completely harmless. In California, at least, loading up your C&F application with meaningless bullshit can slow down the processing of your C&F application. (As California lawyers know, even a completely clean C&F application can take awhile.)

The default advice of "when it doubt, disclose" is good, but you're taking that advice too far. There's no plausible doubt here.

As always, you're probably more correct than I am, but I'm just curious because I think it's relevant: the office responsible for the infraction might not know whether it's disclosure-worthy for a bar application, so shouldn't that come into play? If an office of student conduct/behavior/whatever says, "don't worry, there is no record of this, you're good" effectively, is there no merit to briefly mentioning it in law school admissions just to establish that record of admission before going before the bar?

I'm willing/accept that I could be way off on this, but it seems to me there is a distinction between what that office tells the OP and what matters for the bar, which I think is what you're getting at in saying to only respond to the question as it is posed by the law school. I guess I'm just wondering if you're saying no law school admissions are asking for this type of incident or just that it's smarter to read the C&F prompt closely to make sure it doesn't have to be disclosed (which it probably won't ask for in this case, to be fair), and respond accordingly?

[Platopus]

.

[rpupkin]

I'm just curious because I think it's relevant: the office responsible for the infraction might not know whether it's disclosure-worthy for a bar application, so shouldn't that come into play? If an office of student conduct/behavior/whatever says, "don't worry, there is no record of this, you're good" effectively, is there no merit to briefly mentioning it in law school admissions just to establish that record of admission before going before the bar?

To be clear, I don't think an applicant should disclose (or not disclose) something based on the advice of a random college administrator. So we agree on that part. The fact that an undergrad office said "you're good" (or whatever) is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the college does not maintain records of these warnings/write-ups.

An applicant has to use a bit of judgement. The lack of a record here, combined with the trivial nature of the incident, means there's no point in disclosing. (Even if there were a record, disclosure still might not be warranted, but then the OP would have to ask some additional questions--e.g., what does it say in my record, was I disciplined for violating a campus policy, etc.)

Also, as I believe Platopus is getting at, there are circumstances in which you should disclose an incident even if your college does not possess a written record of it. For example, if you were cited for academic dishonesty, and if your college later expunged the record of that citation, you definitely need to disclose the incident regardless.

Again, this really comes down to common sense. And, in this case, there's just no plausible circumstance in which OP's unreported noise complaints could possibly have a bearing on any C&F determination.

[poptart123]

"I received a noise complaint in undergrad at XYZ on such and such date and time. I had some friends over and we were a bit too loud after quiet hours began. I didn't mean to upset anybody, and I made sure to pay close attention to the time after the incident. I am sorry for my actions; I know how frustrating unwanted distractions can be."

There you go. I bet the admissions committee looks at your disclosure, chuckles, and turns the page.

[HenryHankPalmer]

You're fine. When they say discipline, they mean academic writeups for things like plagiarism. Don't sweat noice complaints.

This is incorrect, they mean everything when they say "any other reason". They care only about the academic misconduct, and a pattern of other misconduct issues, but you definitely should be reporting EVERYTHING from college.

OP: Disclose, 1) because a lack of record doesn't mean it didn't happen and 2) literally no one will care. If you can't remember the exact details, provide as much as you can and indicate that you attempted to locate records, but that the college does not keep any for such issues.

By that logic, you should disclose every time you were cited by UPD for parking in guest parking. I was certainly incorrect in saying that they only care about academic disclosures, but I still don't think you need to write an addendum for the time Chad the RA gave you a write-up for playing Turn Down for What too loudly in the dorms.

[cavalier1138]

By that logic, you should disclose every time you were cited by UPD for parking in guest parking. I was certainly incorrect in saying that they only care about academic disclosures, but I still don't think you need to write an addendum for the time Chad the RA gave you a write-up for playing Turn Down for What too loudly in the dorms.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, your subjective interpretation of how severe the incident was is not the only thing you should be considering (it's probably the last thing to consider). If the school kept records of noise infractions, this may be something worth including. Since there are no records of the infraction, I agree that disclosure is pointless. But if Chad the RA cited you for "disorderly conduct," and that was the existing record at your undergrad, then disclosure would be important.

C&F disclosure is about the bar, not about your law school application. The standards for disclosure are different than for most professions.

[LSATWiz.com]

If OP discloses, they'll have to also disclose on the bar and the bar is going to want the documentation, which is going to make this a pain in the butt. Just throwing that out there.

[cavalier1138]

If OP discloses, they'll have to also disclose on the bar and the bar is going to want the documentation, which is going to make this a pain in the butt. Just throwing that out there.

Would the bar really want the documentation if the disclosure specifically said that the incident was never documented?

I'm on the "no need to disclose" side, but it seems like the C&F committee can't be that unreasonable.

[LSATWiz.com]

If OP discloses, they'll have to also disclose on the bar and the bar is going to want the documentation, which is going to make this a pain in the butt. Just throwing that out there.

Would the bar really want the documentation if the disclosure specifically said that the incident was never documented?

I'm on the "no need to disclose" side, but it seems like the C&F committee can't be that unreasonable.

They're going to want an affidavit that you checked, and maybe give you a hard time about it. It's also such a minor thing that even if C&F found out about it, they're reaction isn't going to be that OP concealed it. Once you list any violation, it's their job to investigate the situation thoroughly. This is a violation that wasn't even a violation and is so minor that it wouldn't lead them to assume the worst. With most dorm infractions, the biggest hiccup is getting the documentation.