accurate measures

i personally think that if you have the time to slave over how you look,

if you have the time to think that you're better than the majority of people who walk halls you do simply because of the brand of clothes and shoes you wear and the places you go to and people you party with and whatever else shallow people think is cool these days,

(never mind that, minus the clothes and the shoes or even with the clothes and the shoes, the face ain't all that anyways),

then you should have enough hours in a day to pick up the book and read enough so you won't have to ask for a bathroom break during an exam and sneak a peek or two or three at said book like a freakin weasel while the rest of the poor schmucks taking the exam have to make do with what they managed to cram into their minds in the days leading up to said exam.

i would love to think of this as an isolated incident. but there have been many exams before this, therefore, a lot more opportunities.

i would like to say that i'm all for spilling the rotten beans. but i bow to greater minds than mine. i refuse to be held hostage by the fear of getting a bad grade due to the anger of a betrayed professor, but the story is not mine to tell. the thought is disturbing and disappointing that law school, in addition to awakening us to the ugly disgusting reality that there is no fairness in this world, is also robbing us of that basic quality of integrity.

we fail or pass on the merits. if not on the professors', then our own.

a lot of people say that good grades aren't really a measure of how great a lawyer a person will be in practice. it is becoming clearer to me, though, that the METHOD of getting those grades are a measure of the TYPE of lawyer or human being a person can be in the future.

a passing grade achieved through unscrupulous means is not an adequate gauge of our capacity as students, much less, as lawyers.

it is, however, a good indication of who among us will be rich on paper, but poor, if not totally bankrupt, in spirit.