Top Law Schools

fenway wrote:note: getting extra time on the LSAT is not nearly as easy as it is being portrayed. you cannot just send in a doc's note saying you have ADD and that you take adderall. you have to go through an extensive and specific battery of testing and you must be scored as impaired on the majority of the measures. then they check through your background (i.e SAT) where prior performance can preclude you from getting extra time. the LSAT realizes all the concerns that people have, and they are reflected in the approval process. the people who bullshit their way to extra time are few and far between. knowing one asshole who somehow got lucky makes for a pretty weak generalization arguing widespread abuse/fraud. for the vast majority, the people who receive extra time (*on the LSAT) deserve to have it based on what is stated in the ADA. extra time in undergrad can certainly receive more scrutiny though

+1. Exactly. And more importantly, the law schools get a notation about an accommodated test and students that do get accommodation (very few) do not get a percentile score, among other things.

I have articulated more or less the same thing in the second page of this inane thread. If it was that easy to "game the system" so to speak, then we'd have hordes of students getting extra time. Clearly that is not even the case. Like mikeytwoshoes has stated repeatedly, it is a nightmare to get accommodation even for the most legitimate cases. It took me over a year and a half to convince LSAC that I was genuinely mentally disabled, even though (in addition to spending thousands of $$ on tests, medical opinions, etc) all my life I was in special schools for handicapped children with mental disabilities and I also took the SAT under accommodated conditions. Still LSAC wasn't convinced.

Kudos to mikeytwoshoes for speaking on behalf of the rest of us silent majority (or minority). No one will ever understand what it is like to have a mental disability or what it feels like to stutter or whatever, unless you or your loved one are in the same predicament.

Can we get a mod to lock this thread? It seems like a valid issue has disintegrated into a bigoted hate-fest.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

fenway wrote:also, speculating on how a school will view your "take X's score into consideration" is a waste of your time. Absolutely NO adcom would be f*ing dumb enough to say that it negatively impacted your chances (school would get BLASTED/sued) and otherwise all your information is coming from kids who either like to think it hurts/helps drawing on their own self-interest. there is no legitimate way to tell so don't bother trying to spin yourself in circles to find the answer. if you are able to get through the approval process and feel you have a disability, take extra time. if not both of the two, don't

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.

Why would schools even care? Is it still reportable for USNWR purposes? Then most schools won't give a shit.

Desert Fox wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

fenway wrote:also, speculating on how a school will view your "take X's score into consideration" is a waste of your time. Absolutely NO adcom would be f*ing dumb enough to say that it negatively impacted your chances (school would get BLASTED/sued) and otherwise all your information is coming from kids who either like to think it hurts/helps drawing on their own self-interest. there is no legitimate way to tell so don't bother trying to spin yourself in circles to find the answer. if you are able to get through the approval process and feel you have a disability, take extra time. if not both of the two, don't

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.

Why would schools even care? Is it still reportable for USNWR purposes? Then most schools won't give a shit.

Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

fenway wrote:also, speculating on how a school will view your "take X's score into consideration" is a waste of your time. Absolutely NO adcom would be f*ing dumb enough to say that it negatively impacted your chances (school would get BLASTED/sued) and otherwise all your information is coming from kids who either like to think it hurts/helps drawing on their own self-interest. there is no legitimate way to tell so don't bother trying to spin yourself in circles to find the answer. if you are able to get through the approval process and feel you have a disability, take extra time. if not both of the two, don't

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.

Why would schools even care? Is it still reportable for USNWR purposes? Then most schools won't give a shit.

Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

I think it is ridiculous to put an asterisk next to the score of a disabled person considering LSAC doesn't hand out accommodations easily.

Desert Fox wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: 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.

Why would schools even care? Is it still reportable for USNWR purposes? Then most schools won't give a shit.

Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

I think it is ridiculous to put an asterisk next to the score of a disabled person considering LSAC doesn't hand out accommodations easily.

After seeing the bassackwards way LSAC administers accommodated LSATs, I would not be surprised if the asterisk is the result them having to enter the person's answer choices by hand. They are really dumb about the way they do things. Also, accommodated LSATs have no experimental section.

If you need a large print LSAT for practice, they will send you 1 and only 1. You can't buy them. The one they send you is a test booklet that has been used in a real LSAT. Because the experimental sections are questions they want to use on future LSATs, the tests they send to students with vision problems can't have experimental questions. Why the couldn't remove the experimental sections is beyond me. The reason they don't have the experimental section appears to have something to do with proctors being lazy.

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

I was only speaking to perceptions of disability. I don't presume to know whether ADHD is legitimate or not. Also, anyone who did well on the LSAT should feel proud. I was just relating what I've heard from other students with disabilities.

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

WtF are you so snippy? Mikeytwoshoes did not claim to be the president of disabled students. There are very few people on this thread willing to talk about what it is like to have a disability. I'm curious too about the mindset of having a mental disability... I have learned a lot on this thread thanks to mikeytwoshoes and matties.

Also: i agree with the above psot a mod should lock this thread.

[b]transferornot[/b] wrote:

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

WtF are you so snippy? Mikeytwoshoes did not claim to be the president of disabled students. There are very few people on this thread willing to talk about what it is like to have a disability. I'm curious too about the mindset of having a mental disability... I have learned a lot on this thread thanks to mikeytwoshoes and matties.

Also: i agree with the above psot a mod should lock this thread.

I insist that this person undergo a username change

Also, why would a mod lock this thread? No one is being disrespectful.

ToTransferOrNot wrote:

[b]transferornot[/b] wrote:

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

WtF are you so snippy? Mikeytwoshoes did not claim to be the president of disabled students. There are very few people on this thread willing to talk about what it is like to have a disability. I'm curious too about the mindset of having a mental disability... I have learned a lot on this thread thanks to mikeytwoshoes and matties.

Also: i agree with the above psot a mod should lock this thread.

I insist that this person undergo a username change

Also, why would a mod lock this thread? No one is being disrespectful.

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.

ToTransferOrNot wrote:

[b]transferornot[/b] wrote:

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

WtF are you so snippy? Mikeytwoshoes did not claim to be the president of disabled students. There are very few people on this thread willing to talk about what it is like to have a disability. I'm curious too about the mindset of having a mental disability... I have learned a lot on this thread thanks to mikeytwoshoes and matties.

Also: i agree with the above psot a mod should lock this thread.

I insist that this person undergo a username change

Also, why would a mod lock this thread? No one is being disrespectful.

It's going in circles with the same arguments coming up again and again. I would welcome another thread on the topic of disability rights in general. However we almost need to forget about disability in regard to law school exams. It's too emotional.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

I was only speaking to perceptions of disability. I don't presume to know whether ADHD is legitimate or not. Also, anyone who did well on the LSAT should feel proud. I was just relating what I've heard from other students with disabilities.

Well I want to nominate you. Mikeytwoshoes for pres!

It's going in circles with the same arguments coming up again and again. I would welcome another thread on the topic of disability rights in general. However we almost need to forget about disability in regard to law school exams. It's too emotional.

Yep, not much else to be said here. It was nice hearing all sides of the issue though. While my mind hasn't changed overall, I think I've at least come out of it with a better understanding so this thread probably at least served some kind of useful purpose.

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

seespotrun wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: Many (most?) students with legitimate disabilities feel stigmatized by that asterisk. They don't want to be seen as less capable than other students. They also don't want to be lumped in with the ADD/ADHD crowd. They should feel proud of their achievement.

So are you the president of disabled students? Also, nice way of implying that ADHD is not a legitimate disability, and that students who did well on the LSAT with ADHD should not feel proud of their achievement.

I was only speaking to perceptions of disability. I don't presume to know whether ADHD is legitimate or not. Also, anyone who did well on the LSAT should feel proud. I was just relating what I've heard from other students with disabilities.

Well I want to nominate you. Mikeytwoshoes for pres!

I may run for a board position with NALSWD next year. They asked me this year but I'm not ready yet. I need to become a better law student before looking for a leadership position. I also want to do a secondary journal or L. Rev. but when I do, I might refer them to this thread.

This whole thread revolves around personal perspectives and really nothing more.

To the none disabled person the idea of an extra hour on exams seems unfair from their perspective, in that if they had an extra hour they could spot so many more issues and get such higher grades. This perspective of course is based on their experience as a non-disabled person assuming that entire time could be spent answer more issues rather than dealing with the limitations of their disability (becuase they have no frame of reference for that).

The perspective of a mildly disabled person who does well without accommodations is that they don't need accommodation, hence others who do might be gaming the system. Again this prospective comes from their personal abilities taking exams.

The perspective of a person with sever disabilities is that even with extra time on exams they still cant complete show what they need to, to perform up to their full potential. This of course comes from their personal experices.

Then we have the "no firm/client is going to give you extra time" argument. Again, this is coming from someone's perspective of what its like to have a disability they don't.

Then there are perspectives we have not discussed in this thread. I went to school with some very bright folks who got great grades, but they needed 12 hours a day seven days a week to do that. or six months of prep hours every day to get the score they wanted on the LSAT. From my perspective, law school was not that the hard, I never needed that type of time to comprehend the issues, I did need to spit them back out with a keyboard. I guess, if I wanted to, I could, from my perspective say maybe those folks who need to work so hard and so long for their grades "just aren't as smart as me, you, the guy across the hall, whatever." Or clients won't wait for them for the six hours it takes then to research and issue to the point they can understand it well enough to write a memo on it.
Of course if I did that anyone who studied alot for good grades or prepped for the LSAT for a long time would jump up and down shake their fists and call me bad names. Because from their perspective, I'm being a douchbag for in any way insinuating they are not all geniuses.

And that is what has been going on in this thread, people speaking from their perspectives. Problem is each situation is different. Perspectives are like assholes, everyone's got one, and most people are most intimately familiar with just their own. So long as I can stick something up yours its OK, but don't stick anything up mine!

Its as useless for me to explain to someone without dyslexia what its like to have it as it is for me to try to see something from the perspective of someone who does not. I've never not been dyslexic, so I have no idea what that would be like. I mean I can assume, but we all know what assumptions amount to.

The simple lesson in life, after much trial and error on my part is this, I've concluded that my time is best spent worrying about the things I can control in my own life and dealing with the issues I got, then worrying about what others do that I can't control in their lives even when that may seem somehow unfair to me from my perspective.

Don't feel like reading this whole thread but couldn't this problem be avoided simply by removing students who receive more time from the overall curve? Then their extra time does nothing to hurt the remainder of the class.

transferornot wrote: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

bceagles182 wrote:Don't feel like reading this whole thread but couldn't this problem be avoided simply by removing students who receive more time from the overall curve? Then their extra time does nothing to hurt the remainder of the class.

All law school grades are determined by the curve, so no.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

bceagles182 wrote:Don't feel like reading this whole thread but couldn't this problem be avoided simply by removing students who receive more time from the overall curve? Then their extra time does nothing to hurt the remainder of the class.

All law school grades are determined by the curve, so no.

No they aren't. Many schools have uncurved courses. IMO this should be the solution.

Desert Fox wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

bceagles182 wrote:Don't feel like reading this whole thread but couldn't this problem be avoided simply by removing students who receive more time from the overall curve? Then their extra time does nothing to hurt the remainder of the class.

All law school grades are determined by the curve, so no.

No they aren't. Many schools have uncurved courses. IMO this should be the solution.

Outside of HYS, all first year grades are curved. That's what I was speaking of.

extra time is total BS; those students should be shunned

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

bceagles182 wrote:Don't feel like reading this whole thread but couldn't this problem be avoided simply by removing students who receive more time from the overall curve? Then their extra time does nothing to hurt the remainder of the class.

All law school grades are determined by the curve, so no.

No they aren't. Many schools have uncurved courses. IMO this should be the solution.

Outside of HYS, all first year grades are curved. That's what I was speaking of.

ABA rule?

pog wrote:

transferornot wrote: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.

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.

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.