extra time on exams for disabilities Forum

[ToTransferOrNot]

Such hyperbole. Give me a break. Yes, I have no idea what living with ADD is like, notwithstanding the fact that I have it. Yes, I have no idea that I would score better were I to take advantage of the fact that I can get an extra 1.5 hours on my exams if I decide I want to go through the appropriate hoops, notwithstanding the fact thatr law school exams are a race to the finish, and I always have more things to say (that would result in more points) that I can't type solely because of time constraints.

How about slow typers? Should they be given an extra amount of time, too? There is hyperbole to be had on both sides of the argument. However, you really shouldn't accuse people of being absurd when they are pointing out a fairly minor point--in my case, that an extra hour and a half is way, way too much time for some people, and probably not enough time for others.

I have no problem with accomodations being made. The problem I have is that accomodations are not actually "measured out" accurately.

Get over your martyrdom complexes, seriously.

[LawLucy]

Yes take people with disabilities out of the grading curve.

Of course this all make sense since we know for certain that every person with a disability who gets extra time scores better than a person without a disability, because obviously any person without a disability would naturally score higher with more time, so most people with disabilities must be just the same (well other than thier disablity, which of course, we are not considering since that doe snot actually hurt US, just THEM) and giving anyone a leg up (even if with a disability they are in some cases missing two legs) is patently unfair to those without any disability. The only problem with this is that it now removes the thing law students love to do more than anything else, speculate on all the reasons outside their control for why they personally did not end up at the top of the class, because it obviously has to be due to someone else getting unfair advantage. but luckily we have one tried and true scapegoat left that has never let us down, we can blame the Jews.

is any of this Sufficient/Necessary? I am detecting a Flaw in the Reasoning
Will you give me extra time to figure it out?

[seespotrun]

Yes take people with disabilities out of the grading curve.

This is a wonderful idea! Lets single out the disabled students who score higher than us so they don't affect MY grades. But wait, what if the disabled students score lower than ME, and my grade would have been better if they had been included in the curve, that's not fair to ME. How about this then, if the disabled people score higher than ME then they don't get counted in the curve, but if they score lower than ME then they do. See that works for everyone!

We still have a problem though, law school grading anonymity. So without telling the professor who the disabled students are we can just stamp "RETARD" on the tops of their exams so he can grade them separately from all the normal people.

Or maybe we should have a different curve, one for normal people and one for disabled people. They could have their own rank too, "I graduated 2/10 in the disabled students section of my school! Separate but equal, that's worked well in the past.

Of course there is one thing missing, since disabled people like URMS don't "deserve" to be in law school, we need to be able to pick them out easily. People in wheelchairs no problem, you can point him and know he's disabled, just like you can be sure in yourself that every minority in your school your school does not deserve to be there but for their URM status. So, of course, to be able to single out the disabled people more than just separating their grades (unless of course that hurts you, then its not fair to the "normals") we should require any disabled student to wear a yellow star, wait that's been done, how about a blue guy in a wheelchair sown on to all their clothes.

Of course this all make sense since we know for certain that every person with a disability who gets extra time scores better than a person without a disability, because obviously any person without a disability would naturally score higher with more time, so most people with disabilities must be just the same (well other than thier disablity, which of course, we are not considering since that doe snot actually hurt US, just THEM) and giving anyone a leg up (even if with a disability they are in some cases missing two legs) is patently unfair to those without any disability. The only problem with this is that it now removes the thing law students love to do more than anything else, speculate on all the reasons outside their control for why they personally did not end up at the top of the class, because it obviously has to be due to someone else getting unfair advantage. but luckily we have one tried and true scapegoat left that has never let us down, we can blame the Jews.

TITCR

[fenway]

This isn't entirely true; by looking at the schools that accepted you versus the schools that didn't, you can see how they generally treated your score. If you only get accepted at schools that would normally be safeties, then they marked you down a little. If you get accepted by every school with a mid 160s score, they gave you a boost. In my case, I got into the schools that I should have. It is anecdotal evidence.[/quote]


mickey2shoes: the idea that you can isolate your score so accurately given all the admissions variables seems highly tenuous. also, going back to the point of whether someone should take extra time, how would such post hoc info you suggest exists help a person to decide whether to take extra-time? i guess you can make a stretch argument that you might know the impact after applying, but my point was that there is no (legitimate) information out there that would suggest negative implications for having/taking extra time. again, that is de facto because if any school said otherwise they'd be sued (and lose without contention). everything that people suggest/presume about attached negative implications is based on nothing. it could potentially exist, but no one here would have any direct information cuz an adcom would lose their job if it leaked.

[mikeytwoshoes]

This isn't entirely true; by looking at the schools that accepted you versus the schools that didn't, you can see how they generally treated your score. If you only get accepted at schools that would normally be safeties, then they marked you down a little. If you get accepted by every school with a mid 160s score, they gave you a boost. In my case, I got into the schools that I should have. It is anecdotal evidence.

mickey2shoes: the idea that you can isolate your score so accurately given all the admissions variables seems highly tenuous. also, going back to the point of whether someone should take extra time, how would such post hoc info you suggest exists help a person to decide whether to take extra-time? i guess you can make a stretch argument that you might know the impact after applying, but my point was that there is no (legitimate) information out there that would suggest negative implications for having/taking extra time. again, that is de facto because if any school said otherwise they'd be sued (and lose without contention). everything that people suggest/presume about attached negative implications is based on nothing. it could potentially exist, but no one here would have any direct information cuz an adcom would lose their job if it leaked.[/quote]
I was speaking in rough terms, not precise.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Yes take people with disabilities out of the grading curve.

This is a wonderful idea! Lets single out the disabled students who score higher than us so they don't affect MY grades. But wait, what if the disabled students score lower than ME, and my grade would have been better if they had been included in the curve, that's not fair to ME. How about this then, if the disabled people score higher than ME then they don't get counted in the curve, but if they score lower than ME then they do. See that works for everyone!

We still have a problem though, law school grading anonymity. So without telling the professor who the disabled students are we can just stamp "RETARD" on the tops of their exams so he can grade them separately from all the normal people.

Or maybe we should have a different curve, one for normal people and one for disabled people. They could have their own rank too, "I graduated 2/10 in the disabled students section of my school! Separate but equal, that's worked well in the past.
Post of the week.
Of course there is one thing missing, since disabled people like URMS don't "deserve" to be in law school, we need to be able to pick them out easily. People in wheelchairs no problem, you can point him and know he's disabled, just like you can be sure in yourself that every minority in your school your school does not deserve to be there but for their URM status. So, of course, to be able to single out the disabled people more than just separating their grades (unless of course that hurts you, then its not fair to the "normals") we should require any disabled student to wear a yellow star, wait that's been done, how about a blue guy in a wheelchair sown on to all their clothes.

Of course this all make sense since we know for certain that every person with a disability who gets extra time scores better than a person without a disability, because obviously any person without a disability would naturally score higher with more time, so most people with disabilities must be just the same (well other than thier disablity, which of course, we are not considering since that doe snot actually hurt US, just THEM) and giving anyone a leg up (even if with a disability they are in some cases missing two legs) is patently unfair to those without any disability. The only problem with this is that it now removes the thing law students love to do more than anything else, speculate on all the reasons outside their control for why they personally did not end up at the top of the class, because it obviously has to be due to someone else getting unfair advantage. but luckily we have one tried and true scapegoat left that has never let us down, we can blame the Jews.

[Baylan]

Matthies - your wheelchair example is a really poor one. Being in a wheelchair does not necessarily mean that there would be any disability present that would allow them to gain accommodations.

And I don't see how simply being "removed" from the curve would necessarily be bad for a disabled student. However they score in relation to the curve would be the grade that they received - it simply would not affect other student's grades. Hell, you could probably get away without even having an asterisk on it, like the LSAC does with the LSAT. Wouldn't that be an optimal solution? A solution where students without disabilities have no fears of being pushed down the curve by over-accommodation, and disabled students are still graded on the same curve as their peers?

The issue, of course that you bring up, is with schools that do class rank. I can't think of a good solution off the top of my head, but I'm sure that someone out there can.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Such hyperbole. Give me a break. Yes, I have no idea what living with ADD is like, notwithstanding the fact that I have it. Yes, I have no idea that I would score better were I to take advantage of the fact that I can get an extra 1.5 hours on my exams if I decide I want to go through the appropriate hoops, notwithstanding the fact thatr law school exams are a race to the finish, and I always have more things to say (that would result in more points) that I can't type solely because of time constraints.

How about slow typers? Should they be given an extra amount of time, too? There is hyperbole to be had on both sides of the argument. However, you really shouldn't accuse people of being absurd when they are pointing out a fairly minor point--in my case, that an extra hour and a half is way, way too much time for some people, and probably not enough time for others.

I have no problem with accomodations being made. The problem I have is that accomodations are not actually "measured out" accurately.

Get over your martyrdom complexes, seriously.

For the last time, slow typers have no underlying physical impairment. Too warrant extra time, you need the confluence of physical impairment and societal recognition of impairment. Until society recognizes slow typers as having a physical impairment, NO SOUP FOR YOU!

[Baylan]

Such hyperbole. Give me a break. Yes, I have no idea what living with ADD is like, notwithstanding the fact that I have it. Yes, I have no idea that I would score better were I to take advantage of the fact that I can get an extra 1.5 hours on my exams if I decide I want to go through the appropriate hoops, notwithstanding the fact thatr law school exams are a race to the finish, and I always have more things to say (that would result in more points) that I can't type solely because of time constraints.

How about slow typers? Should they be given an extra amount of time, too? There is hyperbole to be had on both sides of the argument. However, you really shouldn't accuse people of being absurd when they are pointing out a fairly minor point--in my case, that an extra hour and a half is way, way too much time for some people, and probably not enough time for others.

I have no problem with accomodations being made. The problem I have is that accomodations are not actually "measured out" accurately.

Get over your martyrdom complexes, seriously.

For the last time, slow typers have no underlying physical impairment. Too warrant extra time, you need the confluence of physical impairment and societal recognition of impairment. Until society recognizes slow typers as having a physical impairment, NO SOUP FOR YOU!

I believe ToTransferOrNot is at least implicitly trying to making one of a few different points (and correct me if I'm wrong).

1. Being a slow typer is some sort of mental or physical impairment that is under-diagnosed and should hit societal recognition - they are placed at some sort of a disadvantage. Or possibly

2. The over-diagnosis of Americans, in general, with disabilities and a rush to "level the playing field" means that some are receiving an unfair advantage - and we should look for a more equitable way of leveling the playing field. Or finally

3. You are born with certain inherent advantages and disadvantages in life (some with more in one direction than others). Live with them with the same standards as everyone else. Not everyone was born to be a dancer, or a firefighter, or a surgeon, or even a lawyer.

Personally, my money is on number 2 given what he said above.

[honestabe84]

hahahaha... i think it's going off topic... people have legit disabilities... Many people on this thread claim that they are doing it"to game the system" when as a poster above said taht there are many ways that people game the system: personal connections, medicaiton, cheating, etc.

Indeed. Funny how so many people think those that trying to "game the system" are:

* URMs
* ESLs
* Internationals/Immigrants/Student Visas
* Asylum seekers
* The non-trads
* The physically or mentally disabled

In reality those that are "gaming the system" to their advantage, don't even have go to enormous extents to prove their "specialty" (in a process that is quite heavily arbitrary to begin with) that include:

* Legacy admits
* Sons and daughters of prominent alumnis
* Children of the wealthy and affluent (politicians, executives, etc)
* Large donors to the school's endowment fund
* LORs from distinguished alumnis or celebrity
* People who serve in the armed forces or national guard (as reservists) only for a few months just to get that extracurricular military experience on an application

So you criticize someone's argument as stupid and unfounded, and then make one that's even worse? Awesome.

+1

[honestabe84]

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful posts, Matthies. I see that only you, MikeyTwoShoes and a few other folks can see things in a logically coherent and rational manner. Like I have said before, nobody can ever fathom let alone understand what it feels like to have a disability unless they have experienced it themselves or have a loved one who is suffering from such a condition.

I find it amusing how people are quick to admonish those seeking an even-playing field.

All this talk about "taking advantage of the system" reminded me of what this criminal defence attorney told me. He was saying that the lay public have the biggest misconception about 'insanity defenses'. People think mounting such defenses are a ticket to commit murder. When in reality, the fact is that insanity defenses are the most difficult to argue, and what's more, only less then 1% of such defenses are even successful - assuming a judge will even allow defense counsel to present such a defense.

Yes, because everyone who agrees with you is evidently intelligent, and everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. I stopped reading after that. I absolutely hate when people try and prop their ideas up like that.

[A'nold]

Matthies' post above was completely credited. You can't take disabled students out of the curve. Hello? I'm sure a professor would be very receptive to a really nicely written exam that would typically qualify for an A or A- and then, whoa, hold on there, this is in the DISABLED students pile........

I'm sure they would give that exam the A it deserves......

[caoyun]

Matthies' post above was completely credited. You can't take disabled students out of the curve. Hello? I'm sure a professor would be very receptive to a really nicely written exam that would typically qualify for an A or A- and then, whoa, hold on there, this is in the DISABLED students pile........

I'm sure they would give that exam the A it deserves......

If there is a mandatory curve, say a percentage allocation of A's, A-'s, etc., then it wouldn't matter if the Professor knew that a particular essay was written by a disabled person because he would still be obligated to give a certain number of A's to those among the disabled exams. What I mean is, if there are 10 disabled person exams, and the curve allocation is 10% A, 20% A-, 30% B+, etc., then there 10% of disabled person essays will get A's, 20% A-'s, 30% B+'s, etc. At least in classes with a curve, I don't think its particularly problematic. The only real problem is that it may still be unfair to either the disabled or non-disabled students. If, for example, the group of disabled students is unusually intelligent compared to the non-disabled students, then limiting the A's possible would be unfair. But then again, if the disabled group is less intelligent, then the opposite is true, and its advantageous. But I'm willing to bet that the allocation of intelligence among the disabled students is the same as it is among the non-disabled group. Otherwise, in classes where there is no curve, then there'd be no need to single out the disabled person exams, because they aren't being graded in comparison to everyone else's.

My problem is, as some other people said, is with over-accommodation. Like many, many Americans, I have ADD. Do I really need an extra 1.5 hours because of it? Heck, do I even need an extra 10 minutes? Probably not. Perhaps the most severe ADD MIGHT require that much extra time, but it seems pretty extreme. Given that law school exams, particularly issue spotters, are just information dumps (see the thread involving the correlation between word count and grades), more time equals more words equals higher grades. Now don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely, 100%, all for giving adequate accommodations to students who genuinely need it (disability has dramatically affected my family, so I know that there are real disabilities and people who really need help)). But really, an extra 1.5 hours for ADD? 99 times out of 100, that's gross over-accommodation.

On another note, people keep talking about how over-accommodation is unfair to the non-disabled students. But over-accommodation is also unfair to the genuinely disabled students who actually need more time. The point is to level the playing field. If someone who probably only need an extra 10 minutes gets an extra 1.5 hours, he or she is probably, assuming that they are as good as the average law student, going to destroy the curve and negatively affect everyone else's grades. That does NOT benefit the genuinely disabled -- it hurts them. I don't know what the ideal system is, but the current system is extremely problematic.

[Matthies]

Matthies - your wheelchair example is a really poor one. Being in a wheelchair does not necessarily mean that there would be any disability present that would allow them to gain accommodations.

.

I meant there easy to spot. Plus they are slower so can't get away as fast when the normal people stone them for being diffrent.

[Matthies]

Matthies' post above was completely credited. You can't take disabled students out of the curve. Hello? I'm sure a professor would be very receptive to a really nicely written exam that would typically qualify for an A or A- and then, whoa, hold on there, this is in the DISABLED students pile........

I'm sure they would give that exam the A it deserves......

If there is a mandatory curve, say a percentage allocation of A's, A-'s, etc., then it wouldn't matter if the Professor knew that a particular essay was written by a disabled person because he would still be obligated to give a certain number of A's to those among the disabled exams. What I mean is, if there are 10 disabled person exams, and the curve allocation is 10% A, 20% A-, 30% B+, etc., then there 10% of disabled person essays will get A's, 20% A-'s, 30% B+'s, etc. At least in classes with a curve, I don't think its particularly problematic. The only real problem is that it may still be unfair to either the disabled or non-disabled students. If, for example, the group of disabled students is unusually intelligent compared to the non-disabled students, then limiting the A's possible would be unfair. But then again, if the disabled group is less intelligent, then the opposite is true, and its advantageous. But I'm willing to bet that the allocation of intelligence among the disabled students is the same as it is among the non-disabled group. Otherwise, in classes where there is no curve, then there'd be no need to single out the disabled person exams, because they aren't being graded in comparison to everyone else's.

Wait, what? So if the disabled studnets are too smart, and get all the A's, then we should take some A's away from those smarty pants and give them to normal people becuase well, they aren't diabled and need extra A's to level the playing field?

[caoyun]

Matthies' post above was completely credited. You can't take disabled students out of the curve. Hello? I'm sure a professor would be very receptive to a really nicely written exam that would typically qualify for an A or A- and then, whoa, hold on there, this is in the DISABLED students pile........

I'm sure they would give that exam the A it deserves......

If there is a mandatory curve, say a percentage allocation of A's, A-'s, etc., then it wouldn't matter if the Professor knew that a particular essay was written by a disabled person because he would still be obligated to give a certain number of A's to those among the disabled exams. What I mean is, if there are 10 disabled person exams, and the curve allocation is 10% A, 20% A-, 30% B+, etc., then there 10% of disabled person essays will get A's, 20% A-'s, 30% B+'s, etc. At least in classes with a curve, I don't think its particularly problematic. The only real problem is that it may still be unfair to either the disabled or non-disabled students. If, for example, the group of disabled students is unusually intelligent compared to the non-disabled students, then limiting the A's possible would be unfair. But then again, if the disabled group is less intelligent, then the opposite is true, and its advantageous. But I'm willing to bet that the allocation of intelligence among the disabled students is the same as it is among the non-disabled group. Otherwise, in classes where there is no curve, then there'd be no need to single out the disabled person exams, because they aren't being graded in comparison to everyone else's.

Wait, what? So if the disabled studnets are too smart, and get all the A's, then we should take some A's away from those smarty pants and give them to normal people becuase well, they aren't diabled and need extra A's to level the playing field?

I was allowing for a possible problem with a separate curve. But isn't the theory that disabled students are just as capable as non-disabled students? That is, the only difference between the disabled and non-disabled students is the disability, not intelligence? If that's true, then the quality of answers should be distributed roughly the same among the disabled students as it is among the non-disabled students. As I said, a separate curve could also be beneficial to the disabled students, as they may receive more A's than they deserve as a result. But it shouldn't, in theory, matter. And do note, also, that I only think a separate curve is necessary so long as there are gross over-accommodations for such conditions as ADD. If the extra 1.5 hours is limited to people who actually need an extra 1.5 hours, the separate curve is unnecessary.

[Matthies]

I was allowing for a possible problem with a separate curve. But isn't the theory that disabled students are just as capable as non-disabled students? That is, the only difference between the disabled and non-disabled students is the disability, not intelligence? If that's true, then the quality of answers should be distributed roughly the same among the disabled students as it is among the non-disabled students. As I said, a separate curve could also be beneficial to the disabled students, as they may receive more A's than they deserve as a result. But it shouldn't, in theory, matter. And do note, also, that I only think a separate curve is necessary so long as there are gross over-accommodations for such conditions as ADD. If the extra 1.5 hours is limited to people who actually need an extra 1.5 hours, the separate curve is unnecessary.

I sort of agree with the last part, and I don't think anyone in this thread would argue against you here, if we could someome tell who was or was not. Except who is making these decision on who is gross-over accommodations? Law students? Currently it's the office of disability services, hopefully they possess the skills to know (with in the confines of the law) what types of accommodations are required. Are some people going to slip through, sure, so are some people that cheat in other ways in law school. But what do we do, require more testing for everyone, more money (average test for me is like 2k) force the obvisouly disabled people to prove once again they are disabled so nomral people can be sure no smart retards are getting trhough the system that might make they have to work slighter harder to compeate with the kid with a singinficat menatl disablity?

Part of the point of the ADA and giving accommodations to student with disabilities and not have separate curves, classes, special tests, is to avoid the whole putting the special needs kids in the corner so they can eat paste problem of the past. Separating them, first into their own curve, then maybe later classes, then maybe whole law schools for short bus kids kind of a big step backwards.

Also there is no rule that you have to use all your 1.5x time, when your done you can leave. You can also ask for less time if you wish, just not more. That's up to the individual student. Personally I think you either know the material well enough to get an A or you don't. If you don't even using the extra 1.5 hours for nothing more than writing your exam and nothing to do with your disability is not going to bring a B- students to A+ status. Especially if the exam has word limits.

It also seems that allot of this discussion here is trying to get accommodations for people with disabilities to be fair to those without any disabilities. That's not really the point of accommodations; fairness to people with no disability or giving a leg up to people with nondisablties so they don't have to worry about those pesky special needs kids screwing their grades up with all the great advantages that obviously come with being disabled.

[caoyun]

I was allowing for a possible problem with a separate curve. But isn't the theory that disabled students are just as capable as non-disabled students? That is, the only difference between the disabled and non-disabled students is the disability, not intelligence? If that's true, then the quality of answers should be distributed roughly the same among the disabled students as it is among the non-disabled students. As I said, a separate curve could also be beneficial to the disabled students, as they may receive more A's than they deserve as a result. But it shouldn't, in theory, matter. And do note, also, that I only think a separate curve is necessary so long as there are gross over-accommodations for such conditions as ADD. If the extra 1.5 hours is limited to people who actually need an extra 1.5 hours, the separate curve is unnecessary.

I sort of agree with the last part, and I don't think anyone in this thread would argue against you here, if we could someome tell who was or was not. Except who is making these decision on who is gross-over accommodations? Law students? Currently it's the office of disability services, hopefully they possess the skills to know (with in the confines of the law) what types of accommodations are required. Are some people going to slip through, sure, so are some people that cheat in other ways in law school. But what do we do, require more testing for everyone, more money (average test for me is like 2k) force the obvisouly disabled people to prove once again they are disabled so nomral people can be sure no smart retards are getting trhough the system that might make they have to work slighter harder to compeate with the kid with a singinficat menatl disablity?

Part of the point of the ADA and giving accommodations to student with disabilities and not have separate curves, classes, special tests, is to avoid the whole putting the special needs kids in the corner so they can eat paste problem of the past. Separating them, first into their own curve, then maybe later classes, then maybe whole law schools for short bus kids kind of a big step backwards.

Also there is no rule that you have to use all your 1.5x time, when your done you can leave. You can also ask for less time if you wish, just not more. That's up to the individual student. Personally I think you either know the material well enough to get an A or you don't. If you don't even using the extra 1.5 hours for nothing more than writing your exam and nothing to do with your disability is not going to bring a B- students to A+ status. Especially if the exam has word limits.

It also seems that allot of this discussion here is trying to get accommodations for people with disabilities to be fair to those without any disabilities. That's not really the point of accommodations; fairness to people with no disability or giving a leg up to people with nondisablties so they don't have to worry about those pesky special needs kids screwing their grades up with all the great advantages that obviously come with being disabled.

I know that it isn't necessarily easy to pick out those students who actually need time and those who don't. But from what I understand, at my school, pretty much any doctor's note about any condition (even something as mild as ADD) is sufficient to get the full 1.5 hours. Also, I disagree that an extra 1.5 hours doesn't help turn a lousy grade into a better grade (note, not saying it'd turn an A- student into an A+ student, but maybe a B+ into an A, or something like that). I've never had an in-class exam with a word limit. Most of my professors have admitted that you basically just get points for writing more, so more time equals more writing equals higher grades. Even if there is a word limit, having more time (assuming you don't actually need it) gives you more time to edit and condense so that you can add more substantive material. Having extra time also lets you stop, think, and organize your material better -- and pretty much any law professor will tell you good organization helps immensely. I think its very hard to argue that if you give the average student an extra 1.5 hours, they won't produce a better product. Even if they don't use the full 1.5 hours, it'll help. It's very hard to imagine otherwise.

And I know that the point of accommodations is to be fair to disabled students. The point is to create a level playing field. That is, a level playing field for EVERYONE. Those students who really, genuinely need the extra time get a level playing field. Those that don't get an advantage. I'm all for a level playing field, a legitimately level one. But ADD? Really? 1.5 hours? Because you're easily distracted? That's a stretch, in my book. And one that destroys the level playing field.

[Matthies]

I was allowing for a possible problem with a separate curve. But isn't the theory that disabled students are just as capable as non-disabled students? That is, the only difference between the disabled and non-disabled students is the disability, not intelligence? If that's true, then the quality of answers should be distributed roughly the same among the disabled students as it is among the non-disabled students. As I said, a separate curve could also be beneficial to the disabled students, as they may receive more A's than they deserve as a result. But it shouldn't, in theory, matter. And do note, also, that I only think a separate curve is necessary so long as there are gross over-accommodations for such conditions as ADD. If the extra 1.5 hours is limited to people who actually need an extra 1.5 hours, the separate curve is unnecessary.

I sort of agree with the last part, and I don't think anyone in this thread would argue against you here, if we could someome tell who was or was not. Except who is making these decision on who is gross-over accommodations? Law students? Currently it's the office of disability services, hopefully they possess the skills to know (with in the confines of the law) what types of accommodations are required. Are some people going to slip through, sure, so are some people that cheat in other ways in law school. But what do we do, require more testing for everyone, more money (average test for me is like 2k) force the obvisouly disabled people to prove once again they are disabled so nomral people can be sure no smart retards are getting trhough the system that might make they have to work slighter harder to compeate with the kid with a singinficat menatl disablity?

Part of the point of the ADA and giving accommodations to student with disabilities and not have separate curves, classes, special tests, is to avoid the whole putting the special needs kids in the corner so they can eat paste problem of the past. Separating them, first into their own curve, then maybe later classes, then maybe whole law schools for short bus kids kind of a big step backwards.

Also there is no rule that you have to use all your 1.5x time, when your done you can leave. You can also ask for less time if you wish, just not more. That's up to the individual student. Personally I think you either know the material well enough to get an A or you don't. If you don't even using the extra 1.5 hours for nothing more than writing your exam and nothing to do with your disability is not going to bring a B- students to A+ status. Especially if the exam has word limits.

It also seems that allot of this discussion here is trying to get accommodations for people with disabilities to be fair to those without any disabilities. That's not really the point of accommodations; fairness to people with no disability or giving a leg up to people with nondisablties so they don't have to worry about those pesky special needs kids screwing their grades up with all the great advantages that obviously come with being disabled.

I know that it isn't necessarily easy to pick out those students who actually need time and those who don't. But from what I understand, at my school, pretty much any doctor's note about any condition (even something as mild as ADD) is sufficient to get the full 1.5 hours.

I would check on this with your school, likely easy to do, by going to the schools disability resources webapge and seeing what criteria is needed. I can tell you for first hand experience at my school, nd with every school I have attended or test I have taken the amount of testing required is pretty exhaustive. I don't know about just ADD, but I would be surprised if an MDs letter now (this was the case in the past) would suffice to get accommodations of 1.5x times.

[Matthies]

What about this, put the onus on the non disabled students to compete with the disabled students on a level playing field where everyone was disabled with the same amount of time. It would be pretty easy to do this with examsoft, just program the screen to random blank out for a few mins at different intervals during the test to simulate ADD. Maybe have the exams written backwards, or what you type come out backwards to simulate dyslexia, all tests in brail ect. Then it's a level playing filed, expect, because the disabled students have had to live with this all their lives and adapt throughout school to these conditions, they may be slightly faster, so we could give them less time.

Of course, normal's don't want that, they want the disabled people to carry the burden alone. The problem is life's not fair, law schools not fair, there will always be people who type faster, who get this stuff easier, and people who need accommodations just to compete. There is no perfect system. There never will be a perfect system. There will always be people who game the system, have an advantage over others or cheat. So long as law school ranks people the way it does its lends itself to people trying to get any advantage for themselves at the expense of someone else, while rallying against anyone they perceive as having an advantage over them.

Law school takes normal, rational, nice people and turns them into self centered douchbags. It did me, and it does anyone, simply because it makes you compete against everyone else hoping they do worse than you. All this 'fairness" level playing field stuff is just really a manifestation of that. No one is really arguing that disabled stduents, or URMS, or whatever don't deserve to be in law school, what they are arguing, maybe without knowing it, is that they just don't deserve to have any concived (true or not) advatange over them. And when they don't know what its like to be X, Y or Z they presume that at least some of those people are getting an advanatge (without consider they may also have an advatage over them) and get upset. This is more mamalian then it is some scialigical discussion of the mertis of accomidations, and to ingor that fact leabds to kneejerk posts like "extra time is total BS; those students should be shunned"

[d34d9823]

ITT: We conclude that life is not fair and argue about who should bear the unfairness most heavily.

[Matthies]

ITT: We conclude that life is not fair and argue about who should bear the unfairness most heavily.

Tis the meaning of life

[SamSeaborn2016]

Hi guys. I took a break from the thread since it became a bit of a shouting match.

I think the bottom line is that regardless of the accomodations made for disabled students, the concern non-disabled students is a bit of a non-issue. The likelihood of any school having nearly enough students receiving accomodations to throw off a curve is low. On top of that, it has been explained to me by current law professors that regardless of imposed curves, they have the ability to adjust curves and hand out deserved grades as they see fit (within reason.)

Able-bodied folks have all types of advantages the disabled do not, to freak out about extra time some may receive on exams is a bit myopic. I can understand where everyone is coming from even if I don't agree. Having concern regarding the curve and the effect it has on your future is reasonable. To freak out and shout about how "unfair" the system is and how all those disabled people are going to steal your grades and law review spots is silly.

I also think people are forgetting to take into account that those students with disabilities are having to compensate all semester in order to even make themselves ready for exams. These students have had to spend extra time, energy and often extra expense in order to even stand a chance on those exams. So much is made about the lack of free time law students have. Disabled law students likely have even less.

[YCrevolution]

..

[LawLucy]

ITT: We conclude that life is not fair and argue about who should bear the unfairness most heavily.

Tis the meaning of life

I do believe this is now the shortest thing you have said.

very refreshing