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 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:54 am

Tanicius wrote:It enables the institution to know that an applicant has a disability and hold it against them. The institution may decide, without reason, that the LSAT score noted is not the applicant's deserved score. The applicant is pressed into a catch-22: they risk rejection for a test score that does not reflect their actual abilities because they did not request a reasonable accommodation by LSAC, or they risk rejection for a label as a disabled person, which they may not wish to disclose to the institution they are applying to.


you are assuming too much

oh and catch-22, really? so high school

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

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

Postby Tanicius » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:59 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
Tanicius wrote:It enables the institution to know that an applicant has a disability and hold it against them. The institution may decide, without reason, that the LSAT score noted is not the applicant's deserved score. The applicant is pressed into a catch-22: they risk rejection for a test score that does not reflect their actual abilities because they did not request a reasonable accommodation by LSAC, or they risk rejection for a label as a disabled person, which they may not wish to disclose to the institution they are applying to.


you are assuming too much

oh and catch-22, really? so high school


Catch-22 is a term used in employment and civil rights law to describe certain types of discrimination. And simply because not all institutions discriminate does not mean LSAC should help enable the possibility for it.
Last edited by Tanicius on Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:03 am, edited 2 times 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 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:59 am

Tanicius wrote:It enables the institution to know that an applicant has a disability and hold it against them. The institution may decide, without reason, that the LSAT score noted is not the applicant's deserved score. The applicant is pressed into a catch-22: they risk rejection for a test score that does not reflect their actual abilities because they did not request a reasonable accommodation by LSAC, or they risk rejection for a label as a disabled person, which they may not wish to disclose to the institution they are applying to. It is not exactly the same but it is similar to the rationale for why employers are prohibited from asking an applicant to disclose their familial status or intention to have a pregnancy.


A disability that requires special accommodations on a timed exam, much like the strictly timed exams in law school, should be disclosed in the application. Not seeing the problem of disclosure about something that will undoubtedly affect an attendee's ability to succeed in law school without special accommodations.

If the schools are being discriminatory, they should fix that. But a disability that requires extra time on exams is absolutely something that should factor into an admissions decision, as many factors should.

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

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

Postby Tanicius » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:01 am

A disability that requires special accommodations on a timed exam, much like the strictly timed exams in law school, should be disclosed in the application. Not seeing the problem of disclosure about something that will undoubtedly affect an attendee's ability to succeed in law school without special accommodations.


Schools often do provide accommodations for various types of disabilities. That doesn't mean they won't discriminate against a candidate if they have an opportunity to do so during the admissions process. The system you're advocating for would be akin to requiring colleges to check a box on their students' transcript when they were admitted under affirmative action rather than on 100% merit. The same concerns about a socioeconomically disadvantaged racial minority performing as well as privileged white students applies just the same to a disabled person competing against non-disabled students. It is not a compelling rationale, and quite frankly it is no one else's business.

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 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:18 am

Tanicius wrote:Schools often do provide accommodations for various types of disabilities. That doesn't mean they won't discriminate against a candidate if they have an opportunity to do so during the admissions process.


This puts you in an double-bind. Either A) providing extra-time accommodations are common and law schools do not consider this to be an impediment to being a good law student or lawyer and thus it should be no problem to have it reported or B) it does have an effect on performance and thus should be one of many factors considered when looking at an applicant's file, and thus it should still be reported.

Tanicius wrote:The system you're advocating for would be akin to requiring colleges to check a box on their students' transcript when they were admitted under affirmative action rather than on 100% merit. The same concerns about a socioeconomically disadvantaged racial minority performing as well as privileged white students applies just the same to a disabled person competing against non-disabled students. It is not a compelling rationale, and quite frankly it is no one else's business.


You mean the current system? That one where people check their ethnicity in an environment where the URM boost is well-known and well-documented?

It is their business and it shouldn't change anything. If the schools are discriminating then they are at fault. The LSAC, however, is not at fault by stating matters of fact.

One more thing: how exactly do you square this issue of almost universally giving extra-time as an accommodation relative to test-takers with no extra time. For example, an estimated 20% or more of the Milennial generation and beyond is posited to have ADD, ADHD, or some form of Autism. Should 1/5th of test-takers be provided extra time on the LSAT?

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:25 am

This thread seems to have taken a constructive turn today.

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 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:46 am

i wonder what happened to OP

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

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

Postby Tanicius » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:48 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Tanicius wrote:Schools often do provide accommodations for various types of disabilities. That doesn't mean they won't discriminate against a candidate if they have an opportunity to do so during the admissions process.


This puts you in an double-bind. Either A) providing extra-time accommodations are common and law schools do not consider this to be an impediment to being a good law student or lawyer and thus it should be no problem to have it reported or B) it does have an effect on performance and thus should be one of many factors considered when looking at an applicant's file, and thus it should still be reported.


Race too has a predictable component in an applicant's likelihood of success. That does not mean it is a valid reason to require it be reported. Eliminating societal prejudices, increasing diversity, and helping disadvantages classes sometimes warrant forcing institutions to look past those disadvantages in their admissions and employment policies. More importantly, you're stereotyping all disabilities to be in one set category with all of the others.

Tanicius wrote:
The system you're advocating for would be akin to requiring colleges to check a box on their students' transcript when they were admitted under affirmative action rather than on 100% merit. The same concerns about a socioeconomically disadvantaged racial minority performing as well as privileged white students applies just the same to a disabled person competing against non-disabled students. It is not a compelling rationale, and quite frankly it is no one else's business.


You mean the current system? That one where people check their ethnicity in an environment where the URM boost is well-known and well-documented?


That is the personal choice of the applicant, not some policy standard set by someone else. For the record, not all students choose to check that box, and you're ignoring the fact that at one point in time a great many institutions would not have viewed ethnic diversity very favorably. Some institutions still don't view it favorably.

It is their business and it shouldn't change anything. If the schools are discriminating then they are at fault. The LSAC, however, is not at fault by stating matters of fact.


What you're suggesting is that it is not LSAC's prerogative to help make the law school admissions process as fair as it can (within reason). We seem to just have different ideas of the reasons LSAC is supposed to exist.

One more thing: how exactly do you square this issue of almost universally giving extra-time as an accommodation relative to test-takers with no extra time. For example, an estimated 20% or more of the Milennial generation and beyond is posited to have ADD, ADHD, or some form of Autism. Should 1/5th of test-takers be provided extra time on the LSAT?


1.) Nowhere near that number of people actually require accommodations for their disability. Medication, treatment and special training enable many of those people to function similar to those who don't have the disability. You need to prove that you actually need the accommodation.

2.) Not everyone experiences the same degree of problem or requires the same level of accommodation. Not everyone even needs the same type of accommodation. So, when you ask if 1/5th of test-takers should be provided extra time, the question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no.

User avatar
stuckinthemiddle
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:24 am

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

Postby stuckinthemiddle » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:55 am

How is it fair though to give a certain segment of the population extra time and act as if they received just as much time as everybody else? Every second on that test is valuable.

And are you suggesting LSAC lie to law schools by omitting valuable information? Withholding this information sounds unethical to me.
Last edited by stuckinthemiddle on Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lawhopeful10
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:29 pm

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

Postby lawhopeful10 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:01 am

Why should people who physically can't read as fast be given extra time in the first place. If im born slower than most people, that's tough shit I guess I can't be a sprinter or play basketball. If my voice sucks I can't sing. If you aren't able to take tests effectively sorry that sucks but no one is discriminating against you for it, it is just a reality of your physical capabilities. Maybe we should create a new sports league entirely dedicated to blind people too.

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 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:06 am

Tanicius wrote:What you're suggesting is that it is not LSAC's prerogative to help make the law school admissions process as fair as it can (within reason). We seem to just have different ideas of the reasons LSAC is supposed to exist.


+

Tanicius wrote:2.) Not everyone experiences the same degree of problem or requires the same level of accommodation. Not everyone even needs the same type of accommodation. So, when you ask if 1/5th of test-takers should be provided extra time, the question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no.


This really is the crux of the disagreement here. The rest of it - diversity, choice, etc - whatever, okay.

How do you reconcile these statements?

You're an ad-comm and you're looking at 3 applications, all other things equal:

A) 3.7/170
Conditions: normal, 35 minutes, no accommodations.
Representation: Applicant A represents 80% of the population.

B) 3.7/170
Conditions: Blind, Braille and time-and-a-half to account for the extended time it takes to read, internalize, and express thoughts when reading braille.
Representation: Applicant B represents a minute section of the population. Less than 5% of the population have ailments that would require any accommodation other than extra time. When you account for mental disabilities that would prevent someone from needing to take the LSAT let alone go to law school altogether, I'm sure this number significantly decreases.

C) 3.7/170
Conditions: ADHD/ADD/Autistic/Asperger's, anywhere from 5 extra minutes per section to time-and-a-half.
Representation: Applicant C represents a potential 20% of the population. LSAC has stated that the vast majority of it's accommodation requests is related to one of these 4 ailments. LSAC has openly stated that it grants over half of requested accommodations and that most of these accommodations include some form of extra time. Why? Because it's the easiest accommodation to give and the one that most speaks to the symptoms of those ailments that would impact a test takers' ability to do well on the test. This analysis isn't even taking into account the number of savvy douches who could easily go to their family doctor and get a nice little "I have severe ADHD" report if it weren't flagged - but that's neither here nor there.

You need to put forth an argument that explains how it is in any way fair to schools or Applicant A for ad-comms to not see the difference between the single most important thing on the application of A and C.

Then I guess we can talk more about it.

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 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:27 am

stuckinthemiddle wrote:How is it fair though to give a certain segment of the population extra time and act as if they received just as much time as everybody else?


not fair at all.

User avatar
bmore_md
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:52 pm

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

Postby bmore_md » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:22 am

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.


Let's see how your future employer feels about the excuses.

peeonyou
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:58 pm

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

Postby peeonyou » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:41 am

I hate kids who get extra time, but the one kid on page 1 who said it's unfair to flag kids executing their ADA rights.... That's a hard argument to beat. The questions on law school exam time pressures are credited, and the "you just have to know your shit" response is a joke but The ADA argument seems pretty sound unless they limit the scope of who is protected.

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 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:43 am

peeonyou wrote:I hate kids who get extra time,but the one kid on page 1 who said it's unfair to flag kids executing their ADA rights.... That's a hard argument to beat. The questions on law school exam time pressures are credited, and the "you just have to know your shit" response is a joke but The ADA argument seems pretty sound unless they limit the scope of who is protected.

peeonyou
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:58 pm

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

Postby peeonyou » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:47 am

My sister has special accommodations that allow her to have insulin and quick acting carbs. This doesn't really "change the test." Time does. I'm personally against giving people crutches for every element of competition through employment because of learning disabilities. Blindness, etc. are diff bec the test should adapt to enable them to take it, but because people are "slow". Where does it end - if you're slow do you get postponments for briefs, Multiple closing argumets? What if I'm "normal" but slower witted than opposing counsel - should he only get half the time I get with witnesses?

peeonyou
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:58 pm

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

Postby peeonyou » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:48 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
peeonyou wrote:I hate kids who get extra time,but the one kid on page 1 who said it's unfair to flag kids executing their ADA rights.... That's a hard argument to beat. The questions on law school exam time pressures are credited, and the "you just have to know your shit" response is a joke but The ADA argument seems pretty sound unless they limit the scope of who is protected.

It's bad taste to just cross out an argument bec you don't agree with it. Tackle the logic brah.

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 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:55 am

peeonyou wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:
peeonyou wrote:I hate kids who get extra time,but the one kid on page 1 who said it's unfair to flag kids executing their ADA rights.... That's a hard argument to beat. The questions on law school exam time pressures are credited, and the "you just have to know your shit" response is a joke but The ADA argument seems pretty sound unless they limit the scope of who is protected.

It's bad taste to just cross out an argument bec you don't agree with it. Tackle the logic brah.


no logic to tackle

User avatar
Davidbentley
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:49 am

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

Postby Davidbentley » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:01 am

I used to think this Music Video was the worst thing I had ever seen, and then I read this thread.

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 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:03 am

Davidbentley wrote:I used to think this Music Video was the worst thing I had ever seen, and then I read this thread.


you don't know nothing about bad music videos

User avatar
Davidbentley
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:49 am

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

Postby Davidbentley » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:15 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
Davidbentley wrote:I used to think this Music Video was the worst thing I had ever seen, and then I read this thread.


you don't know nothing about bad music videos

Don't know man, at least he's got some ladies. That vid gives off a Crowded House - Something so Strong Vibe.

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

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

Postby jselson » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:26 am

Davidbentley wrote:I used to think this Music Video was the worst thing I had ever seen, and then I read this thread.


This is some next-level, Wesley Willis brilliance.

User avatar
Davidbentley
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:49 am

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

Postby Davidbentley » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:01 am

Ha. I could see that.^

sfhaze
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:04 pm

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

Postby sfhaze » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:24 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
stuckinthemiddle wrote:How is it fair though to give a certain segment of the population extra time and act as if they received just as much time as everybody else?

not fair at all.

So I take it you (Dre) won't or haven't used/disclosed your URM status (per profile) in any way whatsoever in college or law school applications? If no, hats off to you, at least you're consistent. If yes, you're a hypocrite. Both URM boost and disability extra time are designed to level the playing field. They're not perfect by any means but they're a start. Obviously, each accomplishes its end differently, one by disclosure the other by nondisclosure, etc. Each is as 'fair' as the other, even if you personally only claimed one.

Having said that, I agree with Desert Fox above on how to fairly normalize disability testing. Would be tough to do though in law school exams due to relatively small disability sample size per class or exam; not so much for the LSAT.
Last edited by sfhaze on Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:53 am, 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 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:32 am

I'm officially salty. This is the third time I've taken the time to write out a lengthy well thought out argument with someone I was engaged in a debate with on TLS. Third time I've been stood up.
Last edited by John_rizzy_rawls on Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], bcapace, dannyswo, Exabot [Bot], jerrycallo and 7 guests