Desert Fox wrote:
ChiCity22 wrote:IMO If you have a serious learning disability, either overcome it or find another profession that isn't as intellectually intensive.
Its like a kid with a physical disability on a basketball team getting 5 free throws.
I strongly disagree. Law exams are time crunched beyond all reason. In the real world someone could easily make up their disability by extra effort, but on a time crunched exam where writing less than 1K words an hour = below median they can't.
Nobody does law related work at the pace law exams are held.
But I also disagree that ADHD is a seriously learning disability.
The whole thing is that a MAJOR point of the law school exam structure is to test under pressure. Those who take it in the time limit are graded in the context of that time pressure. It simply isn't fair to remove that axis of the equation.
You could presumably figure out an amount of "handicap" to give to each student to account for the extra time they need. However, there's no normalization of this quantity to achieve a fair result. The line is arbitrarily moved some amount, which defeats the professor's carefully (one would hope) constructed environment.
In golf or bowling, you develop a handicap based on past performance, and it fluctuates. In Law School, you're giving a handicap based on mere speculation. Also, at the highest level of golf or bowling, you don't get to have a handicap.
My analogy is as follows: You are disadvantaged at golf because you can hit the ball only 90% as far as normal golfers, due to a muscular disability. This is measurable, and you'll receive a handicap that accounts for this -- maybe it costs you 3 strokes every 18 holes, perhaps calculated by computer models of some sort. Anything else (like you simply suck, poor stroke, bad putting touch) comes into your handicap too, but since it's not disability related, we're not including it here (no extra time for just being "dumb" in law school). That's fine for golf, because we calculated it intelligibly.
This does NOT follow for law school. In law school, we decide that any golfer that has a muscular disability that costs you 3 strokes or more (sorry ADHD, that's 1 stroke and doesn't qualify) will receive a 5 stroke handicap on the exam (an extra 2 hours, for example). the -3 golfers are getting 2 free strokes that they don't deserve. Maybe the 5 is fair for others, but it's far to arbitrary and too susceptible to prejudicing the scratch golfers.
Solution is simple -- accommodated golfers cannot be used to construct the curve. We can figure out what their score is, but it shouldn't be read as anything other than an approximation, as if winning skins with buddies. You golfed an 87 at Pebble Beach? Great -- With your 18 handicap, you shot a 69 in the US Open -- but you're not getting a trophy, or knocking Tiger any further down the money list.
Furthermore, the GPA of students afforded these accommodations should not be used in fashioning class rank. After ranks are determined, they certainly may indicate where they would have fallen. But it's an insult to the structure of the time limited examination that an administrator could arbitrarily control for learning disabilities without overcompensating at times.