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