Top Law Schools

Hey everyone. Came across this interesting news and thought I'd post it on here to see if anyone knows more info about this. According to a new CALIFORNIA education code, it is now illegal for the LSAC to report that you took the test with accommodations. Does anyone have more info on this? See links at the bottom of the page.


On October 18, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted an order allowing the Justice Department to intervene in a lawsuit against LSAC by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Employment and 22 prospective students. With the order, the lawsuit is expanded to a class action on behalf of all prospective law students with disabilities nationwide.

LSAC administrates the LSAT, the standard test required for admission into all American Bar Association-approved law schools.

The lawsuit takes aim at LSAC’s practice of “flagging” prospective law students whom received accommodations when taking the LSAT.

Specifically, when sending information to law schools regarding students’ testing scores, the LSAC includes a cautionary statement: that the results “should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility.” LSAC also does not include a percentile rank for these students scores, furthering distinguishing these students from their peers solely on the basis of their disabilities.

For the DOJ, these practices violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by unfairly stigmatizing students with disabilities and increasing the likelihood that their scores will be viewed as illegitimate.

“As a result, LSAC has denied prospective law students with disabilities a full and equal opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and aptitude and to fairly compete with educational and employment opportunities for which the LSAT is a prerequisite,” the DOJ stated in its complaint.

With the exception of the Medical College Admission Test, the SAT and all other major standardized tests ended this flagging practice a decade ago, according to an article in the National Law Journal. On September 26, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill, set to go into effect January 1, outlawing these flagging practices in the state of California.

The lawsuit alleged accuses LSAC of consistently failing to provide proper testing accommodations, such as screen readers and loosened times and location restrictions. Students denied requests for accommodations are frequently given cursory responses, providing little guidance for them to modify or appeal their requests.

Additionally, LSAC requires students requesting accommodations to provide “excessive documentation,” even when they have a documented history of similar testing accommodations.

“LSAC’s discriminatory policies in the administration of the LSAT adversely impact people with disabilities nationwide. This is a systemic problem with serious consequences that echo throughout such individuals’ academic and employment careers, and it needs to be addressed as such,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, in a news release.

In February 2012, the ABA’s House of Delegates unanimously passed a resolution urging LSAC to modify its procedures for accommodating students with disabilities.

The original lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss by LSAC in September, according to the National Law Journal article.

[/b]

--LinkRemoved-- ... n-lawsuit/
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... r_disabled

Nope.

LSAC filed a lawsuit against this "law" from the California legislature. It's enforcement has been stopped due to a granted injunction by the judge. The same judge says LSAC will probably win it's case and CA legislature will need to think of something else.

--LinkRemoved--

If it does manage to go through, I think we are going to see a huge jump in students claiming "disabilities." As unfortunate as it may be for a small fraction of current test takers, taking the test under accommodated conditions is not the same thing. I think that LSAC should simply require schools to submit accommodated test scores as such. You would then give schools motivation to take high scores from accommodated students in order to keep that median up, while not allowing them to unfairly mix with the general applicant pool.

Additionally, LSAC requires students requesting accommodations to provide “excessive documentation,” even when they have a documented history of similar testing accommodations.

Accommodated testing is a running joke at most high schools and colleges. All you needed at my high school was to have your parent request it for you. And all my college required was a past diagnosis (with a generation of kids that was handed out ADHD scripts like jellybeans).

What a piece of shit Judge. At the end of the day, the ABA, ADA, and overall overwhelming support are in favor of the LSAC changing their policies. Its discriminatory and unjust. Everyone has criticized them for decades and I hope this PR nightmare continues to the highest degree for those scumbags at the LSAC.

Oh great, now everyone in California will be having their mom get them doctor's notes about how they have "ADD" so that they can get extra time on the LSAT and get 170+. It's a tough situation but ultimately I think people with disabilities should just suck it up and do their best. I figure when you're a lawyer the BigLaw Partner isn't going to be giving you extra time on a deadline.

How is LSAC discriminating? LSAC is simply reporting information. If an individual school is discriminating, fine, but the fear here seems to be that a school might use flagging discriminatorily, but how is that LSAC's responsibility?

They should maintain a separate LSAT scale for disabled students and normalize scores to regular scores. Because LSAT scores without similar timing just don't mean the same.

You just say that because you don't actually have the disability. For instance, I have a deficiency in my visual perception... So it may take a second or two longer to read a word then it would for most normal people. Now, did that stop me from getting a 3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History? No. Which is why its unfair to punish those with REAL disabilities on the count of some who are trying to cheat the system. I have the upmost confidence in my ability to do well in law school and as a lawyer, but the LSAT time constraint is nothing like a "real-world" scenario where you have to analyze a case. Being a lawyer requires meticulous attention to detail, and a matter of minutes, unlike the LSAT, doesn't make a difference.

So if that's the case, and I have a disability that would impair my ability to do well on the LSAT, on top of the LSAC advising schools that "my score should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility" (ie this guy is half-retarded so watch out when deciding to admit him), why shouldn't I have a FAIR chance at getting into the schools that others who DON'T have my disability do. According to the ADA, and those with a rational brain, its discriminatory, to pin me against people who don't have a disability. How is that UNFAIR?

I love that this only keeps getting worse for the LSAC, and I wish them only the worst because they deserve it.

pmova22 wrote:What a piece of shit Judge. At the end of the day, the ABA, ADA, and overall overwhelming support are in favor of the LSAC changing their policies. Its discriminatory and unjust. Everyone has criticized them for decades and I hope this PR nightmare continues to the highest degree for those scumbags at the LSAC.

Um, no.

I believe they should never stop reporting which students received extra time to schools. (They should stop reporting people who are legally blind and need the test in braille or really big print or things of that nature, though). 95% of the difficulty of the LSAT is the timing. I get that some people are slower processors (although they always have the option to take it under normal conditions and not be flagged), but I have never understood the arbitrary grant of time and a half to basically everyone w a processing disorder. Does everyone with a processing disability just happen to need exactly 15 minutes to complete a task that takes a normal person 10 minutes? I doubt it. Likely many people are getting precious extra minutes, which makes all the difference on the LSAT. Those extra minutes comes with the penalty of being flagged....seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

Plus the flag really is needed to dissuade savvy wealthy kids from taking advantage of this loophole to score well on the LSAT. We've already seen evidence of that with the other standardized tests that have removed the flagging.

ETA: I saw your post right above mine....I also have a disability for which I have never received accommodations, and I still feel that flagging is the correct thing to do.

somewhatwayward wrote:

pmova22 wrote:What a piece of shit Judge. At the end of the day, the ABA, ADA, and overall overwhelming support are in favor of the LSAC changing their policies. Its discriminatory and unjust. Everyone has criticized them for decades and I hope this PR nightmare continues to the highest degree for those scumbags at the LSAC.

Um, no.

I believe they should never stop reporting which students received extra time to schools. (They should stop reporting people who are legally blind and need the test in braille or really big print or things of that nature, though). 95% of the difficulty of the LSAT is the timing. I get that some people are slower processors (although they always have the option to take it under normal conditions and not be flagged), but I have never understood the arbitrary grant of time and a half to basically everyone w a processing disorder. Does everyone with a processing disability just happen to need exactly 15 minutes to complete a task that takes a normal person 10 minutes? I doubt it. Likely many people are getting precious extra minutes, which makes all the difference on the LSAT. Those extra minutes comes with the penalty of being flagged....seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

Plus the flag really is needed to dissuade savvy wealthy kids from taking advantage of this loophole to score well on the LSAT. We've already seen evidence of that with the other standardized tests that have removed the flagging.

ETA: I saw your post right above mine....I also have a disability for which I have never received accommodations, and I still feel that flagging is the correct thing to do.

Curving them all together and giving them a bunch of extra time, then not singling them out accomplishes both privacy and making it a fair fight.

You do realize it's damn near impossible to get time and a half right? I was in Special-Ed from 1st-10th grade. I graduated UCLA last year and upon trying to get accommodations , I was told I needed more testing to be done, even though I had a documented disability my whole life. So that notion of me being one of those rich kids trying to cheat their way into law school is 100% unfounded. I even went and got tested by a psychologist, at the request of the LSAC, after graduating UCLA and the BEST they could give me was 7 min additional time on each section. Which, IMO, does not warrant a "FLAGGING." I'm literally at a disadvantage because of my disability, but I guess it's "Fair" to screw over test-takers who have disabilities because they represent such a small proportion of the testing pool.

Can anyone out there give a rational explanation how it's fair for a person with a real, documented disability, to either A) Be flagged for what's their right according to the ADA or B)Waive their right to level the playing field and suffer the consequences by agreeing to take the test in a DISADVANTAGEOUS scenario. What a fucking joke...

The only people who don't agree are those who couldn't get the accommodations themselves. That's bullshit. In college, I could have had notes provided for me and had extra time on tests but I waived it because I didn't need it. Though, I never complained about those who did get it...because they actually needed it. Society, at least academic society, is really going to shit.

BTW, just so everyone knows, unless this injunction gets dismissed I plan to waive my extra time. To me, its not worth the 7 minutes to be labeled as an idiot when the LSAC sends out your scores.

pmova22 wrote:You just say that because you don't actually have the disability. For instance, I have a deficiency in my visual perception... So it may take a second or two longer to read a word then it would for most normal people. Now, did that stop me from getting a 3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History? No. Which is why its unfair to punish those with REAL disabilities on the count of some who are trying to cheat the system. I have the upmost confidence in my ability to do well in law school and as a lawyer, but the LSAT time constraint is nothing like a "real-world" scenario where you have to analyze a case. Being a lawyer requires meticulous attention to detail, and a matter of minutes, unlike the LSAT, doesn't make a difference.

So if that's the case, and I have a disability that would impair my ability to do well on the LSAT, on top of the LSAC advising schools that "my score should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility" (ie this guy is half-retarded so watch out when deciding to admit him), why shouldn't I have a FAIR chance at getting into the schools that others who DON'T have my disability do. According to the ADA, and those with a rational brain, its discriminatory, to pin me against people who don't have a disability. How is that UNFAIR?

I love that this only keeps getting worse for the LSAC, and I wish them only the worst because they deserve it.

Just a heads up: It's fairly typical for law school tests to be even more time-pressured than the LSAT.

Desert Fox wrote:They should maintain a separate LSAT scale for disabled students and normalize scores to regular scores. Because LSAT scores without similar timing just don't mean the same.

Ditto for law school exams, I would think.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

pmova22 wrote:You just say that because you don't actually have the disability. For instance, I have a deficiency in my visual perception... So it may take a second or two longer to read a word then it would for most normal people. Now, did that stop me from getting a 3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History? No. Which is why its unfair to punish those with REAL disabilities on the count of some who are trying to cheat the system. I have the upmost confidence in my ability to do well in law school and as a lawyer, but the LSAT time constraint is nothing like a "real-world" scenario where you have to analyze a case. Being a lawyer requires meticulous attention to detail, and a matter of minutes, unlike the LSAT, doesn't make a difference.

So if that's the case, and I have a disability that would impair my ability to do well on the LSAT, on top of the LSAC advising schools that "my score should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility" (ie this guy is half-retarded so watch out when deciding to admit him), why shouldn't I have a FAIR chance at getting into the schools that others who DON'T have my disability do. According to the ADA, and those with a rational brain, its discriminatory, to pin me against people who don't have a disability. How is that UNFAIR?

I love that this only keeps getting worse for the LSAC, and I wish them only the worst because they deserve it.

Just a heads up: It's fairly typical for law school tests to be even more time-pressured than the LSAT.

Um, no. That's not the case at all. I have many friends who are in law school, and if you know your shit and did your readings the tests are fairly straightforward. The slackers are the ones who run out of time... just like in college. Moreover, those who have disability can get extra time on their exams in law schools, (not to say that I would, because I doubt I'd need it) but funny how law schools don't put an asterisk next to your GPA, or report that you had accommodations to potential employers.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

pmova22 wrote:You just say that because you don't actually have the disability. For instance, I have a deficiency in my visual perception... So it may take a second or two longer to read a word then it would for most normal people. Now, did that stop me from getting a 3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History? No. Which is why its unfair to punish those with REAL disabilities on the count of some who are trying to cheat the system. I have the upmost confidence in my ability to do well in law school and as a lawyer, but the LSAT time constraint is nothing like a "real-world" scenario where you have to analyze a case. Being a lawyer requires meticulous attention to detail, and a matter of minutes, unlike the LSAT, doesn't make a difference.

So if that's the case, and I have a disability that would impair my ability to do well on the LSAT, on top of the LSAC advising schools that "my score should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility" (ie this guy is half-retarded so watch out when deciding to admit him), why shouldn't I have a FAIR chance at getting into the schools that others who DON'T have my disability do. According to the ADA, and those with a rational brain, its discriminatory, to pin me against people who don't have a disability. How is that UNFAIR?

I love that this only keeps getting worse for the LSAC, and I wish them only the worst because they deserve it.

Just a heads up: It's fairly typical for law school tests to be even more time-pressured than the LSAT.

How about work for an associate at a big firm? I'm a 0L so I don't know shit but I'd imagine it's a lot of work and if you want to ever sleep you'll need to be able to do tasks fairly quickly.

john7234797 wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

pmova22 wrote:You just say that because you don't actually have the disability. For instance, I have a deficiency in my visual perception... So it may take a second or two longer to read a word then it would for most normal people. Now, did that stop me from getting a 3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History? No. Which is why its unfair to punish those with REAL disabilities on the count of some who are trying to cheat the system. I have the upmost confidence in my ability to do well in law school and as a lawyer, but the LSAT time constraint is nothing like a "real-world" scenario where you have to analyze a case. Being a lawyer requires meticulous attention to detail, and a matter of minutes, unlike the LSAT, doesn't make a difference.

So if that's the case, and I have a disability that would impair my ability to do well on the LSAT, on top of the LSAC advising schools that "my score should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility" (ie this guy is half-retarded so watch out when deciding to admit him), why shouldn't I have a FAIR chance at getting into the schools that others who DON'T have my disability do. According to the ADA, and those with a rational brain, its discriminatory, to pin me against people who don't have a disability. How is that UNFAIR?

I love that this only keeps getting worse for the LSAC, and I wish them only the worst because they deserve it.

Just a heads up: It's fairly typical for law school tests to be even more time-pressured than the LSAT.

How about work for an associate at a big firm? I'm a 0L so I don't know shit but I'd imagine it's a lot of work and if you want to ever sleep you'll need to be able to do tasks fairly quickly.

Agreed, but "fairly quickly" and a matter on minutes are on two different spectrums. If it has to come down to the FINAL minutes on a deadline for a brief, you probably did a mediocre job.

OP, exactly what disability do you have? I'm autistic. Took the LSAT as everybody else. Scored a 167. My disability didn't affect my performance. What stopped me from getting 170+ was that I didn't study enough to get that score. That's all.

Like everyone else said. Just suck it up and study like crazy and kill the LSAT.

pmova22 wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

pmova22 wrote:You just say that because you don't actually have the disability. For instance, I have a deficiency in my visual perception... So it may take a second or two longer to read a word then it would for most normal people. Now, did that stop me from getting a 3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History? No. Which is why its unfair to punish those with REAL disabilities on the count of some who are trying to cheat the system. I have the upmost confidence in my ability to do well in law school and as a lawyer, but the LSAT time constraint is nothing like a "real-world" scenario where you have to analyze a case. Being a lawyer requires meticulous attention to detail, and a matter of minutes, unlike the LSAT, doesn't make a difference.

So if that's the case, and I have a disability that would impair my ability to do well on the LSAT, on top of the LSAC advising schools that "my score should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility" (ie this guy is half-retarded so watch out when deciding to admit him), why shouldn't I have a FAIR chance at getting into the schools that others who DON'T have my disability do. According to the ADA, and those with a rational brain, its discriminatory, to pin me against people who don't have a disability. How is that UNFAIR?

I love that this only keeps getting worse for the LSAC, and I wish them only the worst because they deserve it.

Just a heads up: It's fairly typical for law school tests to be even more time-pressured than the LSAT.

Um, no. That's not the case at all. I have many friends who are in law school, and if you know your shit and did your readings the tests are fairly straightforward. The slackers are the ones who run out of time... just like in college.

LOL at this dumb 0L flame.

More importantly,

pmova22 wrote:3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History

pmova22 wrote:Society, at least academic society, is really going to shit

OH WHAT A SCHOLAR

pmova22 wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote: Just a heads up: It's fairly typical for law school tests to be even more time-pressured than the LSAT.

Um, no. That's not the case at all. I have many friends who are in law school, and if you know your shit and did your readings the tests are fairly straightforward. The slackers are the ones who run out of time... just like in college. Moreover, those who have disability can get extra time on their exams in law schools, (not to say that I would, because I doubt I'd need it) but funny how law schools don't put an asterisk next to your GPA, or report that you had accommodations to potential employers.

I'm betting you are basing your conclusions off a pretty small sample size (or just making shit up). The majority of law school tests I've taken have been very time pressured. (I haven't "finished" most of the law school test I've taken (as in not even close to being done with trying to answer everything I know).) I've been able to well in law school, but it's because I've been able to vomit analysis faster and better than most of the other people taking the test. Most everyone I know consider most law school exams typically very time pressured, at my school and at other schools. Just read through 1L threads about exams.

If you need the extra time on the LSAT, you're going to need extra time on most law school exams.

stratocophic wrote: More importantly,

pmova22 wrote:3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History

pmova22 wrote:Society, at least academic society, is really going to shit

OH WHAT A SCHOLAR

lol

Dr. Dre wrote:OP, exactly what disability do you have? I'm autistic. Took the LSAT as everybody else. Scored a 167. My disability didn't affect my performance. What stopped me from getting 170+ was that I didn't study enough to get that score. That's all.

Like everyone else said. Just suck it up and study like crazy and kill the LSAT.

I hear you bro, and I probably will end up doing that. I'm just venting because the LSAC is literally denying us our right to a fair playing field. As I stated above, I suffer from a deficiency in my visual perception and motor skills. Moreover, I've had documented ADHD since I was 6 years old. Not the bullshit kind where kids see a shrink in college so they can score some addy or vyvanse , mine is documented and legitimate. It's unjust to say "well, we know you have a disability and we acknowledge it but we still have to report that your scores should be considered with great sensitivity. Tell me, do they use an asterisk and send out a letter when people with disabilities take the test WITHOUT accommodations stating that they excelled despite having the disability? It should work both ways!

Calling alt - http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=204001

Fixed the link.

pmova22 wrote:3.8 at UCLA double majoring in Philosophy and History

I had friend who played on UCLA's soccer team. He was a history major, which I found odd, but then he told me that was one of the 'recommended' majors for athletes there, whatever that means.

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Calling alt - http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=20400

from 2007?

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

pmova22 wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote: Just a heads up: It's fairly typical for law school tests to be even more time-pressured than the LSAT.

Um, no. That's not the case at all. I have many friends who are in law school, and if you know your shit and did your readings the tests are fairly straightforward. The slackers are the ones who run out of time... just like in college. Moreover, those who have disability can get extra time on their exams in law schools, (not to say that I would, because I doubt I'd need it) but funny how law schools don't put an asterisk next to your GPA, or report that you had accommodations to potential employers.

I'm betting you are basing your conclusions off a pretty small sample size (or just making shit up). The majority of law school tests I've taken have been very time pressured. (I haven't "finished" most of the law school test I've taken (as in not even close to being done with trying to answer everything I know).) I've been able to well in law school, but it's because I've been able to vomit analysis faster and better than most of the other people taking the test. Most everyone I know consider most law school exams typically very time pressured, at my school and at other schools. Just read through 1L threads about exams.

If you need the extra time on the LSAT, you're going to need extra time on most law school exams.

Obviously, I dont have a sample size of 100-200 people. I know around 15 people in Law school with schools ranging from UCLA to Loyola. They all say the same shit, do all your readings, understand the cases, do your "homework" and you'll be fine. Moreover, one can't compare the LSAT to exams in law school. Logic games and LR are far different from analyzing cases and writing essays about them.