Do accommodated LSAT scores count towards law school ranks? Forum

[star fox]

Just take the test without accommodation to see how you do.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Just take the test without accommodation to see how you do.

This really does seem to be TCR.

You claim to be super smart, so try it un-accomodated first. If you don't do well, you can get the approval for accommodation your second time around.

Not sure how comfortable you are talking about your disability, but if you'd like to say what it is it would be a lot easier to assess what the ceiling of your ability could be on the exam un-accomodated.

[jreeve12]

Well, first of all, I don't think that my needing accommodations on the LSAT is in any way a reflection on my abilities, intelligence, or potential as has been repeatedly suggest here. I believe that my IQ score, or even just my verbal reasoning sub-score alone, should be taken as evidence that that is simply not the case. If you think differently, fine. Don't care.

That said, I DO have a thoroughly documented learning disability that manifests itself in the processing of visual information (ie, texts). While I certainly COULD get through a Logical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension section in 35 minutes, this mild processing disorder makes me prone to miss important modifying or quantity words like "most", "some," or "many" that WILL impact my pre-phrasing of the correct answer choice BEFORE I EVEN GO through and eliminate A, B, C, etc. as contenders. This is particularly troublesome on Inference/Resolve the Paradox questions where I often won't even have argumentative "cue" words to guide me. In any event, the LSAT requires the test taker to read for PRECISE, defined understanding. If you fail to do that, THEY MAKE YOU PAY. I'm not saying that they are bad guys for doing that, quite the contrary. I even welcome it. I am MORE than capable of meeting their challenge. I excel at this type of critical reasoning. I simply need more time to level the playing field between myself and other applicants due to the effect that my mild cognitive disorder has on a major life function (the visual processing of texts). This might be even more true on Logic Games, where the mis-processing of a rule due to forcing someone with a learning disability to take the test in standard time can lead to MULTIPLE missed questions before the proctor bats an eye. Thus, taking the LSAT under normal conditions would lead law schools to unfairly and illegally judge me on the basis of my disability, not my ability. The ADA gives me certain rights in this regard, and flagging my score with the implication that it might not be the same as someone else's goes against AT LEAST the spirit, if not the letter, of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Now, to be fair, I'll even admit that certain elements of my accommodations ARE unfair and might bias my test score. I won't have an experimental section, for example, and I do think that that is both unfair to you guys and does not really serve to level the playing field for me. I believe LSAC needs to set some clear and fair rules to determine EXACTLY what is needed to give persons with learning disabilities a fair shot on the LSAT (and no more), treat those scores as equal (they are by definition), and just let it be. Until about 10 years ago, that's how both the LSAC and ABA did things. I am confident that it will soon change back with the weight of the Justice Department now behind us. When that happens, I hope LSAC will do more than simply stop flagging accommodated scores and also do things like adding back an experimental section to make sure that no one is given an unfair advantage. That is my position. I believe that it is both moderate and reasonable.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Well, first of all, I don't think that my needing accommodations on the LSAT is in any way a reflection on my abilities, intelligence, or potential as has been repeatedly suggest here. I believe that my IQ score, or even just my verbal reasoning sub-score alone, should be taken as evidence that that is simply not the case. If you think differently, fine. Don't care.

That said, I DO have a thoroughly documented learning disability that manifests itself in the processing of visual information (ie, texts). While I certainly COULD get through a Logical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension section in 35 minutes, this mild processing disorder makes me prone to miss important modifying or quantity words like "most", "some," or "many" that WILL impact my pre-phrasing of the correct answer choice BEFORE I EVEN GO through and eliminate A, B, C, etc. as contenders. This is particularly troublesome on Inference/Resolve the Paradox questions where I often won't even have argumentative "cue" words to guide me. In any event, the LSAT requires the test taker to read for PRECISE, defined understanding. If you fail to do that, THEY MAKE YOU PAY. I'm not saying that they are bad guys for doing that, quite the contrary. I even welcome it. I am MORE than capable of meeting their challenge. I excel at this type of critical reasoning. I simply need more time to level the playing field between myself and other applicants due to the effect that my mild cognitive disorder has on a major life function (the visual processing of texts). This might be even more true on Logic Games, where the mis-processing of a rule due to forcing someone with a learning disability to take the test in standard time can lead to MULTIPLE missed questions before the proctor bats an eye. Thus, taking the LSAT under normal conditions would lead law schools to unfairly and illegally judge me on the basis of my disability, not my ability. The ADA gives me certain rights in this regard, and flagging my score with the implication that it might not be the same as someone else's goes against AT LEAST the spirit, if not the letter, of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Now, to be fair, I'll even admit that certain elements of my accommodations ARE unfair and might bias my test score. I won't have an experimental section, for example, and I do think that that is both unfair to you guys and does not really serve to level the playing field for me. I believe LSAC needs to set some clear and fair rules to determine EXACTLY what is needed to give persons with learning disabilities a fair shot on the LSAT (and no more), treat those scores as equal (they are by definition), and just let it be. Until about 10 years ago, that's how both the LSAC and ABA did things. I am confident that it will soon change back with the weight of the Justice Department now behind us. When that happens, I hope LSAC will do more than simply stop flagging accommodated scores and also do things like adding back an experimental section to make sure that no one is given an unfair advantage. That is my position. I believe that it is both moderate and reasonable.

Very interesting. I'm genuinely curious, what is this condition called?

ETA: I do a lot of work with kids with mental disabilities. So you're saying you either have autism (information processing disorder), ADD/ADHD (technically affects information processed visually), schizophrenia, or mental retardation. I doubt it's the latter two. So you have a form of autism (if you do it's very mild based on your behavior thus far ITT, so maybe Asperger's?) or ADD/ADHD.

Almost 12% of Americans have either autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADD, or ADHD. Depending on how severe your condition is, I truly believe you can get A's in your classes and do well on the LSAT without accommodations. Lord knows, law firms, partners, and clients will give you zero accommodations for your seemingly mild information processing/learning disabilities. Just my two cents given my very limited knowledge of your condition.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Well, first of all, I don't think that my needing accommodations on the LSAT is in any way a reflection on my abilities, intelligence, or potential as has been repeatedly suggest here. I believe that my IQ score, or even just my verbal reasoning sub-score alone, should be taken as evidence that that is simply not the case. If you think differently, fine. Don't care.

That said, I DO have a thoroughly documented learning disability that manifests itself in the processing of visual information (ie, texts). While I certainly COULD get through a Logical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension section in 35 minutes, this mild processing disorder makes me prone to miss important modifying or quantity words like "most", "some," or "many" that WILL impact my pre-phrasing of the correct answer choice BEFORE I EVEN GO through and eliminate A, B, C, etc. as contenders. This is particularly troublesome on Inference/Resolve the Paradox questions where I often won't even have argumentative "cue" words to guide me. In any event, the LSAT requires the test taker to read for PRECISE, defined understanding. If you fail to do that, THEY MAKE YOU PAY. I'm not saying that they are bad guys for doing that, quite the contrary. I even welcome it. I am MORE than capable of meeting their challenge. I excel at this type of critical reasoning. I simply need more time to level the playing field between myself and other applicants due to the effect that my mild cognitive disorder has on a major life function (the visual processing of texts). This might be even more true on Logic Games, where the mis-processing of a rule due to forcing someone with a learning disability to take the test in standard time can lead to MULTIPLE missed questions before the proctor bats an eye. Thus, taking the LSAT under normal conditions would lead law schools to unfairly and illegally judge me on the basis of my disability, not my ability. The ADA gives me certain rights in this regard, and flagging my score with the implication that it might not be the same as someone else's goes against AT LEAST the spirit, if not the letter, of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Now, to be fair, I'll even admit that certain elements of my accommodations ARE unfair and might bias my test score. I won't have an experimental section, for example, and I do think that that is both unfair to you guys and does not really serve to level the playing field for me. I believe LSAC needs to set some clear and fair rules to determine EXACTLY what is needed to give persons with learning disabilities a fair shot on the LSAT (and no more), treat those scores as equal (they are by definition), and just let it be. Until about 10 years ago, that's how both the LSAC and ABA did things. I am confident that it will soon change back with the weight of the Justice Department now behind us. When that happens, I hope LSAC will do more than simply stop flagging accommodated scores and also do things like adding back an experimental section to make sure that no one is given an unfair advantage. That is my position. I believe that it is both moderate and reasonable.

I have a thoroughly documented disability too. I'm going to take the LSAT like all the normal students and score high anyway. Quit being a pussy.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

I have a thoroughly documented disability too. I'm going to take the LSAT like all the normal students and score high anyway. Quit being a pussy.

TBF, you're only doing it so law schools look at your score equally and put it in the equalized playing field percentile.

[jreeve12]

I have a thoroughly documented disability too. I'm going to take the LSAT like all the normal students and score high anyway. Quit being a pussy.

If that's what you want to do, then good for you. I hope you are able to get the score you want. Good luck.

[dproduct]

The derp is strong in this one.

[crestor]

op is a classic case of (meant to say aspbergers)

[20141023]

.

[nordi]

removed

[CFprez]

I never said that I would ultimately be a SCOTUS clerk, but I DO have a good basis to say that I would be in at least the top 2-5% at whatever program I am accepted into. Will that translate into a clerkship with Jeffrey Sutton? Maybe, maybe not, but I like my odds!

Let's look at it this way. I have an overall IQ of 153 and a verbal reasoning sub-score of 160 (more highly correlated with success in law school than the LSAT). There are only 30,000 people in the entire United States. Assuming an average class size of 600, then if EVERY person with an IQ that high went to Harvard Law since 1962, then Harvard Law could BARELY fill its class with people with those scores. Of course, far from 100% of people with those IQ scores, I'd be SHOCKED if Harvard Law got even 10% of people with those scores. What do you think it's going to be at UVA? 1%? MAYBE? I have actually had a 4.0 for the last 3 semesters of college. I told you that we lived in the age of the genius slacker, and in addition to some poor grades from my undergrad, I made some poor choices from my freshman year that are dragging down my grades. I rushed and became too involved in my fraternity, became too caught up in college life, and paid the consequences. I am REALLY good at leveraging my intellectual talents towards compensating for a very mild cognitive deficit, and I will continue to kick ass at whatever law school I attend. You think I'm just going to slack off after making up my mind to pursue a clerkship wit a feeder-judge? Please. As I've said, my disability actually gives me an advantage: I have to work hard from day 1, and, when I've made the decision to succeed, I don't let up until it's over. I will import that same intensity wherever I go in life. I am no longer some impressionable young freshman chump.

By the way, am I the only one here who recognizes the irony of some entitled "top tier" student labeling truly accomplished lawyers like Jeffrey Sutton (who went to Ohio State and clerked formLewis Powell) and Hugo Black (need I say more?) as "Third Tier Toilet" and then proceeds to label ME as arrogant? Look in the mirror, "pals."

Look OP, I am in somewhat the same boat as you, although maybe not "quite" as smart. I am taking the LSAT this June, and although I am still in undergrad, my GPA will probably be around 3.1-3.2.

The point of me posting is to say that several years ago I was doing really bad in my classes. I had an engineering major, I went to the counseling center at my school, and learned I had anxiety (particularly with my major) , but my IQ was at 142.

My PT is around the 170 range as well and I just started studying.

I just want to point out that a high iQ is not predicative of success in a broad field of life. Ever read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell? One of the smartest people in the United States works as a bouncer at a club.

I just want to point out that things like social skills, and emotional temperament have a lot more to do with success than just raw IQ. Even in an environment like law school, you cannot absolutely say you will be in the top 5% of your class. Those people in a top 14 who are scoring in the 97%-99.9% on the LSAT will be similarly gifted. IF law school was just taking IQ tests all day, then yes you might be a the top (even then an individual has iq testing variations from day to day).

If you are going to ask for advice you need to appreciate other people's perspectives. Not everyone here is hell bent on attacking you. By the way for what is it worth, I am not taking any success for granted. If I get into UVA or another t14, then I would be grateful to be in the top 5% of my class. There is no way I am taking that for granted.

[jreeve12]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted? Far from it. Intelligence, particularly verbal reasoning, gives you a HUGE advantage towards kicking some major ass in law school by giving you an intuitive sense of the level of detailed analysis required of 1Ls, but you still have to work hard and (more importantly) work smart. I have every intention of hitting the ground sprinting from day one. If you do the same, I'm sure you'll be in the top 5% of the class as well as long as you learn the VERY specific way to write a successful law school examination. It's an art that is, indeed, tangentially related to IQ, but only tangentially (as Jeremy Paul and Richard Michael Fischl put it)

Aspberger's Syndrome has been removed from the DSM, guys. Just because I don't take kindly to random a-holes over the internet and feel less restrained to talk about the true extent of my abilities in a forum like this does NOT mean I have a social disorder.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Aspberger's Syndrome has been removed from the DSM, guys. Just because I don't take kindly to random a-holes over the internet and feel less restrained to talk about the true extent of my abilities in a forum like this does NOT mean I have a social disorder.

Wasn't trying to be mean, just trying to assess what your potential in class and on the LSAT could be if you didn't perceive yourself to be so tied down by the disability. Mostly trying to be encouraging really.

[jreeve12]

I appreciate it. But I wasn't really referring to you so much as others on this forum (ie, Regulus)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted?

Actually, you know, it kinda does.

[North]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted? Far from it. Intelligence, particularly verbal reasoning, gives you a HUGE advantage towards kicking some major ass in law school by giving you an intuitive sense of the level of detailed analysis required of 1Ls, but you still have to work hard and (more importantly) work smart. I have every intention of hitting the ground sprinting from day one. If you do the same, I'm sure you'll be in the top 5% of the class as well as long as you learn the VERY specific way to write a successful law school examination. It's an art that is, indeed, tangentially related to IQ, but only tangentially (as Jeremy Paul and Richard Michael Fischl put it)

Aspberger's Syndrome has been removed from the DSM, guys. Just because I don't take kindly to random a-holes over the internet and feel less restrained to talk about the true extent of my abilities in a forum like this does NOT mean I have a social disorder.

MODESTY, HOW DOES IT WORK?

[jreeve12]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted?

Actually, you know, it kinda does.

Fine. As long as I hit the ground running from day one, I'll be in the top 2-5% (at least). Happy now?

[jreeve12]

If I didn't think I would be, I probably wouldn't even consider going to law school right now with the economy the way it is.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Dude stop trying to fight people. Do whatever you feel is right and get off this site.

/thread_3rdtimesacharm?

[jreeve12]

Dude stop trying to fight people. Do whatever you feel is right and get off this site.

/thread_3rdtimesacharm?

+1

[A. Nony Mouse]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted?

Actually, you know, it kinda does.

Fine. As long as I hit the ground running from day one, I'll be in the top 2-5% (at least). Happy now?

No, not really, because everyone else in your class thinks the same thing, and 95-97% of them will be wrong. It's not that you shouldn't want to be there; everyone wants to be there. It's not even that you can't be there. It's the assuming you will that sounds bad. (I have no opinion on whether you will get there or not; you've got as good/bad a chance as anyone.)

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

the perfect troll doesn't realize he's a troll

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Holy Jesus Mary and Joseph, I ended the effing thread.
STOP FEEDING.

[A. Nony Mouse]

sorry.