CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:07 pm

pmova22 wrote: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!


No it should not work both ways. Also, you should STOP venting because:

(1) LSAC just reports. They don't discriminate. They just state facts. The law schools may discriminate. So the LSAC is not to blame.

(2) You are giving those (like me) with disabilities bad esteem.
Last edited by Dr. Dre on Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:07 pm

TheThriller wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Calling alt - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20400


from 2007?


Fixed the link.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:11 pm

pmova22 wrote:
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.


So, they never actually told you whether law school tests were time-pressured or not? Cool.

And you're right about law school tests being different from the LSAT. I imagine someone who takes a second or two extra to process a word would have a tougher time on law school tests that involve a long fact pattern with a ton of issues to spot and analyze (this is a pretty typical format for a law school test).

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Rahviveh » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:13 pm

How do law school accommodations work? Are they hard to get? If you get them are you on the same curve as everyone else or are you flagged?

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:29 pm

flame

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:59 pm

Dr. Dre wrote:flame


No he's real. He just really wants the internet to agree with his assessment of a certain issue that he's very personally invested in. Not a good look.

User avatar
Ohiobumpkin
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:50 am

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Ohiobumpkin » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:04 pm

Somebody already said this, but I think it is important to remember. It is extremely hard to get 1.5 time on the LSAT. The amount of documentation is truly absurd. Not everybody with a processing speed problem gets accommodations.

As to flagging or not flagging, I am torn. The fact is, taking the LSAT with accommodations does totally skew the reliability of score you receive. So in that sense it is not really all that illogical not to count accommodated test scores with regular test scores.

I think it is interesting how an accommodated test score can actually help somebody become admitted into a higher ranking school than they would otherwise have been able to attend. A person with a 160 accommodated LSAT score and a 4.0GPA would have a much higher chance of getting into Harvard than the same person w/ a 160 regular score. Since accommodated test scores aren't computed with a school's stats, admitting somebody with a bad LSAT score is pure profit to a school (assuming the applicant has a competitive GPA). Basically, accommodated test scores really help reverse-splitters and really hurt traditional splitters with disabilities.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:33 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:flame


No he's real. He just really wants the internet to agree with his assessment of a certain issue that he's very personally invested in. Not a good look.


quite embarrassing for himself. needs to check himself before he wrecks himself

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby wert3813 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:23 am

It's a tough place. At what point is your disability part of who you are and you should be judged accordingly?

College sports don't take disabilities into account when offering scholarships. Neither to boards when looking for CEOs. Neither do voters when deciding who is the best candidate. Etc. Why should law schools not take the best student available?

FWIW these questions are something I have struggled with a great deal because I have a reading disability (legit--documented and diagnosed by trained professionals) and had time and a half in college. I made a 170 and 171. There is no doubt in my mind with 38 minutes I could hit 174-178. Is what it is.

Also to me 7 extra minutes sounds like a ton.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:26 am

wert3813 wrote:It's a tough place. At what point is your disability part of who you are and you should be judged accordingly?

College sports don't take disabilities into account when offering scholarships. Neither to boards when looking for CEOs. Neither do voters when deciding who is the best candidate. Etc. Why should law schools not take the best student available?

FWIW these questions are something I have struggled with a great deal because I have a reading disability (legit--documented and diagnosed by trained professionals) and had time and a half in college. I made a 170 and 171. There is no doubt in my mind with 38 minutes I could hit 174-178. Is what it is.

Also to me 7 extra minutes sounds like a ton.


Yeah but colleges also don't give scholarships to athletes who ask for a 7 yard head start when they run a 40 against someone else. The whole point of flagging is to take the best students available by making sure the playing field is leveled. Reporting the score of someone who takes a 38 minutes the way they would someone who takes 35 is not a leveled field.

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby wert3813 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:29 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
wert3813 wrote:It's a tough place. At what point is your disability part of who you are and you should be judged accordingly?

College sports don't take disabilities into account when offering scholarships. Neither to boards when looking for CEOs. Neither do voters when deciding who is the best candidate. Etc. Why should law schools not take the best student available?

FWIW these questions are something I have struggled with a great deal because I have a reading disability (legit--documented and diagnosed by trained professionals) and had time and a half in college. I made a 170 and 171. There is no doubt in my mind with 38 minutes I could hit 174-178. Is what it is.

Also to me 7 extra minutes sounds like a ton.


Yeah but colleges also don't give scholarships to athletes who ask for a 7 yard head start when they run a 40 against someone else. The whole point of flagging is to take the best students available by making sure the playing field is leveled. Reporting the score of someone who takes a 38 minutes the way they would someone who takes 35 is not a leveled field.


Wut? That was my point dude. Colleges don't factor in your disability when deciding how good of an athlete you are. You are or you aren't.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:42 am

Durrrp. Yeah, agreed.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:07 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:

The whole point of flagging is to take the best students available by making sure the playing field is leveled.


this.

OP, i suggest you channel that anger you have and put it to best use: the LSAT. That's what I did. Life sucks, don't make excuses.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:08 am

You guys are basically arguing for discrimination against the disabled. That is the whole point of accommodations, to level the playing field because it isn't.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:11 am

Desert Fox wrote:You guys are basically arguing for discrimination against the disabled. That is the whole point of accommodations, to level the playing field because it isn't.


nope. not discrimination. (this is from an autistic person).

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:12 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:You guys are basically arguing for discrimination against the disabled. That is the whole point of accommodations, to level the playing field because it isn't.


nope. not discrimination. (this is from an autistic person).


That's like saying, "hey bro, it's not discrimination if jimmy can't fucking wheel up the stairs, it's part of the job man."

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:14 am

how exactly is LSAC discriminating?

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:14 am

Desert Fox wrote:You guys are basically arguing for discrimination against the disabled. That is the whole point of accommodations, to level the playing field because it isn't.


Law schools have a right to know if someone needed time and a half (or whatever) to get the same score someone with a much stricter time limit did.

I actually do not think law schools should penalize someone with a good score because they got legitimate accommodations but I do think it should be noted on file.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:15 am

^ +1

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:21 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:You guys are basically arguing for discrimination against the disabled. That is the whole point of accommodations, to level the playing field because it isn't.


Law schools have a right to know if someone needed time and a half (or whatever) to get the same score someone with a much stricter time limit did.

I actually do not think law schools should penalize someone with a good score because they got legitimate accommodations but I do think it should be noted on file.


They should just be curved together. LSAT isn't useful other than in relation to everyone else.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:29 am

what difference does it make that they be curved together? at least make a different group for those scores.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:34 am

Dr. Dre wrote:what difference does it make that they be curved together? at least make a different group for those scores.


Because then they can correct for the time difference. If the average disability LSAT in 160, they can knock points off and give them a 151 without having to separately report.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:35 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:what difference does it make that they be curved together? at least make a different group for those scores.


Because then they can correct for the time difference. If the average disability LSAT in 160, they can knock points off and give them a 151 without having to separately report.


how will they know how many points they ought to cut?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:38 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:what difference does it make that they be curved together? at least make a different group for those scores.


Because then they can correct for the time difference. If the average disability LSAT in 160, they can knock points off and give them a 151 without having to separately report.


how will they know how many points they ought to cut?


They'd just normalize it to how the general public did on that test. So if they were the top 10% of disability takers, they'd get the same score as the top10% of regular scorers.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?!

Postby Tanicius » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:11 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:what difference does it make that they be curved together? at least make a different group for those scores.


Because then they can correct for the time difference. If the average disability LSAT in 160, they can knock points off and give them a 151 without having to separately report.


how will they know how many points they ought to cut?


They'd just normalize it to how the general public did on that test. So if they were the top 10% of disability takers, they'd get the same score as the top10% of regular scorers.


Disabilities don't work like a sliding scale relative to the rest of the population. Christ this thread is a huge ignorant jerkoff.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Thomas Hagan, ESQ., Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests