Top Law Schools

Arbiter213 wrote:It's like saying someone who isn't as naturally strong should be given steroids and an extra half inning to make up for it.

No it's not. It's like saying someone who may be as strong as anyone else but has 20 lb weights on each arm and leg should be given steroids and an extra half inning to make up for it. Your analogy implies that people with disabilities aren't as smart as people without.

superbloom wrote:

Arbiter213 wrote:It's like saying someone who isn't as naturally strong should be given steroids and an extra half inning to make up for it.

No it's not. It's like saying someone who may be as strong as anyone else but has 20 lb weights on each arm and leg should be given steroids and an extra half inning to make up for it. Your analogy implies that people with disabilities aren't as smart as people without.

I love analogies. You just keep adding new pieces, until you switch it from a baseball player to a student, to a law student, and they aren't weights, it is ADHD, and it isn't extra innings, it is an extra hour on the exam. Then, you can just talk about the substantive issue instead of dancing around it.

But, I love the process of getting there.

So, what you are saying really should be that someone who is just as strong, but has 20 lb weights on each arm that they can't take off ever, and you want them to be given steroids and an extra inning during tryouts even though they won't get them during the real game because the rules won't allow it.

I just want to push back on this claim (that everyone is making) that people "don't get extra time" in the "real world" when they are held back by a disability. This is not nearly as cut-and-dry as y'all make it out to be, and is strictly speaking false. Nominally, the law requires that employers have to make "reasonable accomodations" for the disabilities of their employees and can't refuse to hire someone on the basis of a disability unless it's a BFOQ. Obviously this standard doesn't always get observed in practice, but employers--especially law firms--usually try to observe it as best they can because the relative cost of accomodating a disabled employee is a lot lower than the cost of getting sued by that disabled employee. The argument that "law schools shouldn't make reasonable accomodations because employers in the real world don't have to" is just patently false, at least assuming that people observe the law.

If you think the ADA is just unfair, then fine. But it's the law and both schools and employers have to follow it.

ben4847 wrote:

robin600 wrote:My point is unless you've done both you don't really know if it's justified or not.

Who's talking about justification? I truly believe that they do better when they have extra time, and thus "need" extra time.
Also, people who just don't think as fast "need" extra time.

And I'm perfectly fine with my law school having two tracks. A timed track and an untimed track. I'd just like employers to know who is on which track.

Pretty sure I remember from robin's posts during her cycle that she has a pretty severe disability that really warrants extra time and that's not just about needing more time to think.

crEEp wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Most of my EE exams let you have a cheat sheet with all the equations needed for the course. It was still hard as fuck. I think 6 out of 8 of my 1L exams were fairly racy or extremely racy. And 1 was an elective that 2/3Ls could take.

I think your point about everyone coming up with the same answer is correct, but that's my point. Why draw mostly arbitrary distinctions only on time. You are just penalizing people who think at a slightly slower speed.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any time limit, but 8 hour exams with a tight word limit seem a lot more fair to me. Even though I'd likely do a worse in them.

Most of my EE exams were the same way; it didn't matter if the professor gave you three hours or three days to take the exam. The material, by its very nature, would split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes.

In law school, the ENTIRE class has an LSAT score within the same 2-3 point range, so they need to introduce extra constraints that split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes. These constraints, in my view, actively encourage people to read into the grades and understand them to be indicators of one's intelligence. That's simply not the case.

I understand you are passionate about this topic, but, come on... be realistic. This statement is simply not true on any level. Of the 15 schools in the T14, only 3 have 25/75 that are within 3 points. Berkeley has an 8 point gap between 25/75, and if I recall correctly, I remember reading that Yale admitted someone with a 159 last cycle, and I'm sure they have several 180's.

ScrabbleChamp wrote:

crEEp wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Most of my EE exams let you have a cheat sheet with all the equations needed for the course. It was still hard as fuck. I think 6 out of 8 of my 1L exams were fairly racy or extremely racy. And 1 was an elective that 2/3Ls could take.

I think your point about everyone coming up with the same answer is correct, but that's my point. Why draw mostly arbitrary distinctions only on time. You are just penalizing people who think at a slightly slower speed.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any time limit, but 8 hour exams with a tight word limit seem a lot more fair to me. Even though I'd likely do a worse in them.

Most of my EE exams were the same way; it didn't matter if the professor gave you three hours or three days to take the exam. The material, by its very nature, would split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes.

In law school, the ENTIRE class has an LSAT score within the same 2-3 point range, so they need to introduce extra constraints that split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes. These constraints, in my view, actively encourage people to read into the grades and understand them to be indicators of one's intelligence. That's simply not the case.

I understand you are passionate about this topic, but, come on... be realistic. This statement is simply not true on any level. Of the 15 schools in the T14, only 3 have 25/75 that are within 3 points. Berkeley has an 8 point gap between 25/75, and if I recall correctly, I remember reading that Yale admitted someone with a 159 last cycle, and I'm sure they have several 180's.

Well, this is odd.
Half the threads on the forum insist that LSAT does not show anything.
Now, we are saying that LSAT proves that we are all the same, therefore law school exams don't mean anything.
הבל הבלים הכל הבל, apparently.

ScrabbleChamp wrote:

crEEp wrote:Most of my EE exams were the same way; it didn't matter if the professor gave you three hours or three days to take the exam. The material, by its very nature, would split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes.

In law school, the ENTIRE class has an LSAT score within the same 2-3 point range, so they need to introduce extra constraints that split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes. These constraints, in my view, actively encourage people to read into the grades and understand them to be indicators of one's intelligence. That's simply not the case.

I understand you are passionate about this topic, but, come on... be realistic. This statement is simply not true on any level. Of the 15 schools in the T14, only 3 have 25/75 that are within 3 points. Berkeley has an 8 point gap between 25/75, and if I recall correctly, I remember reading that Yale admitted someone with a 159 last cycle, and I'm sure they have several 180's.

Obviously I exaggerated to the extent that the entire class has a uniform LSAT distribution. However, your reliance on the interquartile range's significance is equally as invalid. Strictly speaking, the interquartile range establishes the point boundaries that encompass 50% of the class. The majority of students will have LSAT scores within this range, but there will of course be some outliers. Therefore, it's incorrect to maintain a position that claims my statement is false on every level.

Whether I'm passionate about a topic is irrelevant to my central argument. The people who benefit from time constraints are incredibly likely to succeed in practice, because they've demonstrated an ability to take orders and follow directions. The people disadvantaged by time constraints and typical exam settings are the more "risky" propositions for firms: indeed, their strengths may generate an exorbitant amount of profit for the firm. Also likely, their strengths may cost the firm equally substantial amounts of money. Lawyers are a risk averse crowd; a reasonably-balanced expected value calculation that accounts for all relevant externalities often isn't enough to break free from risk aversion.

crEEp wrote:Obviously I exaggerated to the extent that the entire class has a uniform LSAT distribution. However, your reliance on the interquartile range's significance is equally as invalid. Strictly speaking, the interquartile range establishes the point boundaries that encompass 50% of the class. The majority of students will have LSAT scores within this range, but there will of course be some outliers. Therefore, it's incorrect to maintain a position that claims my statement is false on every level.

Whether I'm passionate about a topic is irrelevant to my central argument. The people who benefit from time constraints are incredibly likely to succeed in practice, because they've demonstrated an ability to take orders and follow directions. The people disadvantaged by time constraints and typical exam settings are the more "risky" propositions for firms: indeed, their strengths may generate an exorbitant amount of profit for the firm. Also likely, their strengths may cost the firm equally substantial amounts of money. Lawyers are a risk averse crowd; a reasonably-balanced expected value calculation that accounts for all relevant externalities often isn't enough to break free from risk aversion.

Thanks for explaining the 25th/75th percentile concept.

You're awfully hung up on the idea of law school preparing you for practice; this isn't the goal of the top schools, and at any rate they probably couldn't succeed in doing so, except for the most general solo/all around litigator practices.

ben4847 wrote:Well, this is odd.
Half the threads on the forum insist that LSAT does not show anything.
Now, we are saying that LSAT proves that we are all the same, therefore law school exams don't mean anything.
הבל הבלים הכל הבל, apparently.

We're not at all saying that. We're (1) assuming that the LSAT proves we are all the same to (2) justify time-based constraints that beget normally distributed final grades. This approach works fantastically, but I'd bet my entire first year's salary that the approximation error implicit in this model exceeds acceptable standards.

crEEp wrote:

ScrabbleChamp wrote:

crEEp wrote:Most of my EE exams were the same way; it didn't matter if the professor gave you three hours or three days to take the exam. The material, by its very nature, would split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes.

In law school, the ENTIRE class has an LSAT score within the same 2-3 point range, so they need to introduce extra constraints that split the class into easily discernible groups for grading purposes. These constraints, in my view, actively encourage people to read into the grades and understand them to be indicators of one's intelligence. That's simply not the case.

I understand you are passionate about this topic, but, come on... be realistic. This statement is simply not true on any level. Of the 15 schools in the T14, only 3 have 25/75 that are within 3 points. Berkeley has an 8 point gap between 25/75, and if I recall correctly, I remember reading that Yale admitted someone with a 159 last cycle, and I'm sure they have several 180's.

Obviously I exaggerated to the extent that the entire class has a uniform LSAT distribution. However, your reliance on the interquartile range's significance is equally as invalid. Strictly speaking, the interquartile range establishes the point boundaries that encompass 50% of the class. The majority of students will have LSAT scores within this range, but there will of course be some outliers. Therefore, it's incorrect to maintain a position that claims my statement is false on every level.

Whether I'm passionate about a topic is irrelevant to my central argument. The people who benefit from time constraints are incredibly likely to succeed in practice, because they've demonstrated an ability to take orders and follow directions. The people disadvantaged by time constraints and typical exam settings are the more "risky" propositions for firms: indeed, their strengths may generate an exorbitant amount of profit for the firm. Also likely, their strengths may cost the firm equally substantial amounts of money. Lawyers are a risk averse crowd; a reasonably-balanced expected value calculation that accounts for all relevant externalities often isn't enough to break free from risk aversion.

Wow... as a math major, I'll assume you are not and that you may not completely understand what ENTIRE and OUTLIER mean. I have proven, quite easily and clearly, that 12 of the T14 schools prove your statement incorrect that the ENTIRE (see: 100%) class is within 2-3 LSAT points. Further, of the 3 schools that do have 25/75 separated by 3 points, I can unequivocally guarantee that each of those schools has an OUTLIER (see: a data point widely separated from the main cluster), which would then mean that your statement cannot be true. Your acceptance of the fact there are outliers proves your statement about LSAT distribution to be false. So, no, it is not incorrect to maintain a position that claims your statement to be false on every level (with regard to T14, though I suspect it would be true for every law school that requires the LSAT).

As for the rest of your argument, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you stating you believe those with ADD/ADHD are more risky propositions for employers? If so, how does this matter? An employer isn't going to know whether or not a prospective employee has ADD/ADHD unless the prospective employee brings it up, which I would assume doesn't happen often. As such, any additional risk is not known at the time of the offer and wouldn't have any bearing on whether an offer is made, therefore negating any impact risk-aversion may have in the hiring process. I also don't follow how a demonstrated ability to take orders and follow directions leads to the conclusion that someone will be incredibly likely to succeed. I was in the Marine Corps and I guarantee you that very few of my fellow Devil Dogs would be able to succeed in practice, and yet they are all very good at taking orders and follwoing directions.

sundance95 wrote:You're awfully hung up on the idea of law school preparing you for practice; this isn't the goal of the top schools, and at any rate they probably couldn't succeed in doing so, except for the most general solo/all around litigator practices.

What's the goal of the top schools, then? Don't tell me it's to "teach the law;" that's a very special flavor of bullshit. Maybe you're more cynical than me and think that the goal is to graduate a class highly likely to donate. I suppose that's fair, but the people most likely to donate probably aren't the ones who go straight into academia... Maybe the goal is a high bar passage rate, which defers the question to each state bar's examination requirements. However, I think that we can all agree that the goal of any school is to increase their reputation & ranking, which itself is a combination of all the previous goals. As such, preparing students for practice would appear as one of the top priorities for schools, right??

ScrabbleChamp wrote:

crEEp wrote:Obviously I exaggerated to the extent that the entire class has a uniform LSAT distribution. However, your reliance on the interquartile range's significance is equally as invalid. Strictly speaking, the interquartile range establishes the point boundaries that encompass 50% of the class. The majority of students will have LSAT scores within this range, but there will of course be some outliers. Therefore, it's incorrect to maintain a position that claims my statement is false on every level.

Whether I'm passionate about a topic is irrelevant to my central argument. The people who benefit from time constraints are incredibly likely to succeed in practice, because they've demonstrated an ability to take orders and follow directions. The people disadvantaged by time constraints and typical exam settings are the more "risky" propositions for firms: indeed, their strengths may generate an exorbitant amount of profit for the firm. Also likely, their strengths may cost the firm equally substantial amounts of money. Lawyers are a risk averse crowd; a reasonably-balanced expected value calculation that accounts for all relevant externalities often isn't enough to break free from risk aversion.

Wow... as a math major, I'll assume you are not and that you may not completely understand what ENTIRE and OUTLIER mean. I have proven, quite easily and clearly, that 12 of the T14 schools prove your statement incorrect that the ENTIRE (see: 100%) class is within 2-3 LSAT points. Further, of the 3 schools that do have 25/75 separated by 3 points, I can unequivocally guarantee that each of those schools has an OUTLIER (see: a data point widely separated from the main cluster), which would then mean that your statement cannot be true. Your acceptance of the fact there are outliers proves your statement about LSAT distribution to be false. So, no, it is not incorrect to maintain a position that claims your statement to be false on every level (with regard to T14, though I suspect it would be true for every law school that requires the LSAT).

As for the rest of your argument, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you stating you believe those with ADD/ADHD are more risky propositions for employers? If so, how does this matter? An employer isn't going to know whether or not a prospective employee has ADD/ADHD unless the prospective employee brings it up, which I would assume doesn't happen often. As such, any additional risk is not known at the time of the offer and wouldn't have any bearing on whether an offer is made, therefore negating any impact risk-aversion may have in the hiring process. I also don't follow how a demonstrated ability to take orders and follow directions leads to the conclusion that someone will be incredibly likely to succeed. I was in the Marine Corps and I guarantee you that very few of my fellow Devil Dogs would be able to succeed in practice, and yet they are all very good at taking orders and follwoing directions.

I know, reading comprehension is SO fucking hard, right??? I'll break it down so that it's easier to digest for the "math majors" in the crowd:

1. I quite clearly stated that using the word "ENTIRE" was an exaggeration.
2. Notwithstanding that exaggeration, it's significant that nearly every law school has an entering class with LSAT scores in close proximity.
3. The fact that there are outliers is relatively insignificant, because most of the class lies within the interquartile range.

When it comes to hiring, there are two scenarios: (1) take a risk-averse approach by hiring those with demonstrated success; or (2) take a risk-seeking approach by hiring those who had limited success taking time-constrained exams. The students belonging to the first category would likely do fine in practice; they can take orders and predictably produce.

The students belonging to the second category would likely constitute "gambles" for the firm. It's true that veiled brilliance may contribute to their inability to perform on exams. However, they could also be lazy, uncommitted, or not cut out for law. What I thought I had made clear was the firm's inability to know the "true" circumstances of the student and how it means that said student could fall into any of those subcategories leading to limited success on time-constrained exams.

crEEp wrote:As such, preparing students for practice would appear as one of the top priorities for schools, right??

Very obvs now that you are an 0L.

Grizz wrote:

crEEp wrote:As such, preparing students for practice would appear as one of the top priorities for schools, right??

Very obvs now that you are an 0L.

I wish. Second-semester 3L.

crEEp wrote:

Grizz wrote:

crEEp wrote:As such, preparing students for practice would appear as one of the top priorities for schools, right??

Very obvs now that you are an 0L.

I wish. Second-semester 3L.

Damn bro I dunno where you went to school but law school doesn't teach you much, and certainly not how to be a lawyer.

crEEp wrote:

sundance95 wrote:You're awfully hung up on the idea of law school preparing you for practice; this isn't the goal of the top schools, and at any rate they probably couldn't succeed in doing so, except for the most general solo/all around litigator practices.

What's the goal of the top schools, then? Don't tell me it's to "teach the law;" that's a very special flavor of bullshit.

All I'm saying is that attempting to teach how to practice would be fruitless at every T14 school since they their graduates work in a wide variety of jurisdictions. That might not be the case at a regional TT.

ben4847 wrote:

superbloom wrote:

Arbiter213 wrote:It's like saying someone who isn't as naturally strong should be given steroids and an extra half inning to make up for it.

No it's not. It's like saying someone who may be as strong as anyone else but has 20 lb weights on each arm and leg should be given steroids and an extra half inning to make up for it. Your analogy implies that people with disabilities aren't as smart as people without.

I love analogies. You just keep adding new pieces, until you switch it from a baseball player to a student, to a law student, and they aren't weights, it is ADHD, and it isn't extra innings, it is an extra hour on the exam. Then, you can just talk about the substantive issue instead of dancing around it.

But, I love the process of getting there.

So, what you are saying really should be that someone who is just as strong, but has 20 lb weights on each arm that they can't take off ever, and you want them to be given steroids and an extra inning during tryouts even though they won't get them during the real game because the rules won't allow it.

I didn't say I endorse the analogy. Perhaps if steroids were legal in this analogy world, but I was merely trying to correct the statement.

After creeping on this thread, I feel the need to add my two-cents.

1. I got diagnosed with ADD in college, which I guess flew under the radar until then because I never had to study/ work in HS because I am just smart. I never asked for extra time for anything, because they already give me drugs for the ADD, that was my level playing field. If I needed anything, it would be for different testing areas than others (I can get way more distracted by a tapping pencil/foot/clicking pen than others), but as for extra time that would be BS. Just as I wouldn’t try to work construction if I was wheel-chair bound, I shouldn’t be trying to be a lawyer if I can’t find a way to do what every other one of my peers has to do.

2.As for timed tests, talk to members of any NPHC fraternity. On their reveal day they stand on a stage in front of everybody they know and can whip out everything about their respected fraternity (founding, history, founding fathers, traditions, dates) like it is nothing. Now go back and talk to their alumni who are 40 years removed and they will still know all that information. When you learn something so well that you can recite it in pressure situations, it sticks with you. That, I believe, is the point of timed tests: teaching you how to learn something so well that you can use it even under duress (like reciting case law/ precedent in front of a judge when questioned).

But then again, I am a 0L, so what do I know?

crEEp wrote:

ScrabbleChamp wrote:

crEEp wrote:Obviously I exaggerated to the extent that the entire class has a uniform LSAT distribution. However, your reliance on the interquartile range's significance is equally as invalid. Strictly speaking, the interquartile range establishes the point boundaries that encompass 50% of the class. The majority of students will have LSAT scores within this range, but there will of course be some outliers. Therefore, it's incorrect to maintain a position that claims my statement is false on every level.

Whether I'm passionate about a topic is irrelevant to my central argument. The people who benefit from time constraints are incredibly likely to succeed in practice, because they've demonstrated an ability to take orders and follow directions. The people disadvantaged by time constraints and typical exam settings are the more "risky" propositions for firms: indeed, their strengths may generate an exorbitant amount of profit for the firm. Also likely, their strengths may cost the firm equally substantial amounts of money. Lawyers are a risk averse crowd; a reasonably-balanced expected value calculation that accounts for all relevant externalities often isn't enough to break free from risk aversion.

Wow... as a math major, I'll assume you are not and that you may not completely understand what ENTIRE and OUTLIER mean. I have proven, quite easily and clearly, that 12 of the T14 schools prove your statement incorrect that the ENTIRE (see: 100%) class is within 2-3 LSAT points. Further, of the 3 schools that do have 25/75 separated by 3 points, I can unequivocally guarantee that each of those schools has an OUTLIER (see: a data point widely separated from the main cluster), which would then mean that your statement cannot be true. Your acceptance of the fact there are outliers proves your statement about LSAT distribution to be false. So, no, it is not incorrect to maintain a position that claims your statement to be false on every level (with regard to T14, though I suspect it would be true for every law school that requires the LSAT).

As for the rest of your argument, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you stating you believe those with ADD/ADHD are more risky propositions for employers? If so, how does this matter? An employer isn't going to know whether or not a prospective employee has ADD/ADHD unless the prospective employee brings it up, which I would assume doesn't happen often. As such, any additional risk is not known at the time of the offer and wouldn't have any bearing on whether an offer is made, therefore negating any impact risk-aversion may have in the hiring process. I also don't follow how a demonstrated ability to take orders and follow directions leads to the conclusion that someone will be incredibly likely to succeed. I was in the Marine Corps and I guarantee you that very few of my fellow Devil Dogs would be able to succeed in practice, and yet they are all very good at taking orders and follwoing directions.

I know, reading comprehension is SO fucking hard, right??? I'll break it down so that it's easier to digest for the "math majors" in the crowd:

1. I quite clearly stated that using the word "ENTIRE" was an exaggeration.
2. Notwithstanding that exaggeration, it's significant that nearly every law school has an entering class with LSAT scores in close proximity.
3. The fact that there are outliers is relatively insignificant, because most of the class lies within the interquartile range.

When it comes to hiring, there are two scenarios: (1) take a risk-averse approach by hiring those with demonstrated success; or (2) take a risk-seeking approach by hiring those who had limited success taking time-constrained exams. The students belonging to the first category would likely do fine in practice; they can take orders and predictably produce.

The students belonging to the second category would likely constitute "gambles" for the firm. It's true that veiled brilliance may contribute to their inability to perform on exams. However, they could also be lazy, uncommitted, or not cut out for law. What I thought I had made clear was the firm's inability to know the "true" circumstances of the student and how it means that said student could fall into any of those subcategories leading to limited success on time-constrained exams.

It is very difficult to take you seriously when it appears you think that 50% equates to ENTIRE. Not withstanding your exaggeration, you are still wrong. To analogize your assertion: You are basically saying that a student that graduates in the top 1% of the class is "in close proximity" to a student that graduates at the very bottom.

Also, are you seriously stating that some employers go into OCI looking for students that performed poorly (i.e. limited success taking time-contrained exams)? If so, what school do you go to and which employers are you referring to? I find it hard to believe that employers would have a specific strategy to look for high-risk candidates. You said it yourself, lawyers are a risk-averse crowd.

ScrabbleChamp wrote:It is very difficult to take you seriously when it appears you think that 50% equates to ENTIRE. Not withstanding your exaggeration, you are still wrong. To analogize your assertion: You are basically saying that a student that graduates in the top 1% of the class is "in close proximity" to a student that graduates at the very bottom.

Also, are you seriously stating that some employers go into OCI looking for students that performed poorly (i.e. limited success taking time-contrained exams)? If so, what school do you go to and which employers are you referring to? I find it hard to believe that employers would have a specific strategy to look for high-risk candidates. You said it yourself, lawyers are a risk-averse crowd.

--ImageRemoved--

crEEp wrote:

ScrabbleChamp wrote:It is very difficult to take you seriously when it appears you think that 50% equates to ENTIRE. Not withstanding your exaggeration, you are still wrong. To analogize your assertion: You are basically saying that a student that graduates in the top 1% of the class is "in close proximity" to a student that graduates at the very bottom.

Also, are you seriously stating that some employers go into OCI looking for students that performed poorly (i.e. limited success taking time-contrained exams)? If so, what school do you go to and which employers are you referring to? I find it hard to believe that employers would have a specific strategy to look for high-risk candidates. You said it yourself, lawyers are a risk-averse crowd.

--ImageRemoved--

I'll take your lack of a response to the above bolded text to mean you have no reasonable answer.

STLMizzou wrote:1. I got diagnosed with ADD in college, which I guess flew under the radar until then because I never had to study/ work in HS because I am just smart. I never asked for extra time for anything, because they already give me drugs for the ADD, that was my level playing field. If I needed anything, it would be for different testing areas than others (I can get way more distracted by a tapping pencil/foot/clicking pen than others), but as for extra time that would be BS. Just as I wouldn’t try to work construction if I was wheel-chair bound, I shouldn’t be trying to be a lawyer if I can’t find a way to do what every other one of my peers has to do.

Was diagnosed ADHD as a small child, and would never ask for extra time on an exam. As you say, that's why I have medication.

That said, I can't rule out that someone might have a more severe degree of it than I do, and so I won't categorically say its ridiculous. I'd wager that a fair percentage of those that get extra time don't really feel that they need it, however.

Also @ STLMizzou: use noise canceling headphones if your school will let you. They are a game-changer for exams.

sundance95 wrote:That said, I can't rule out that someone might have a more severe degree of it than I do, and so I won't categorically say its ridiculous. I'd wager that a fair percentage of those that get extra time don't really feel that they need it, however.

Also @ STLMizzou: use noise canceling headphones if your school will let you. They are a game-changer for exams.

True, but if your ADD/ADHD is so severe that you cannot reasonably control it with medication to be able to do what all of your peers must do, then maybe a career in law isn’t for you. Same would go for somebody with such severe panic attacks that the can not complete tests in the allotted time. It sucks, but the point of ADA is to allow people to work in a career they are qualified for (Example: a person in a wheel chair being able to be a lawyer even if it means the firm must build additional ramps to make the building accessible to him), not to make it so people who are not qualified can have a career they have no business to be in.

And thanks for the advice. I have gotten pretty good at blocking things like that out, and use noise cancellers for studying. I will look into it for tests if it ever become an issue.

^ Agree totally. Can't tell a partner when you're up against a deadline, "but mai AyDeeDees!"

<<<< Thinks we should stop worrying about shit we can't control. Are there some people who abuse the system at some schools on some occasions? I guess. Does it matter in the big scheme of things? Probably not. In any case, you can't change the policy so . . .