This seems at odds with your earlier post unless every sentence of that post was dripping with hyperbole.

1) The test should be constant for everyone. Making accommodations for someone who is blind by offering a test in braille is putting them on a level playing field. Giving them extra time is not.

2) In the real world, for some jobs, it is possible to make up the extra time. Not in all jobs.
For jobs where it is not possible (e.g. M&A closings) the disadvantaged person will need to learn to work faster.
In jobs where it is possible (e.g. research) it doesn't matter as much.

3) The effect probably is marginal. If out of a class of 400 one person gets extra time and outscores me, and I am below the cutoff, then it's probably my own abilities.
If out of a class of 200 twenty people get extra time and I'm 1 percentile point below the cutoff, I'd be pissed as hell.

The above is consistent with your points and my earlier statements

If Dingbat is right and people who take extra time are life fucked, they will do us all a favor by flaming out and improving the lateral market conditions. If he is reaching around in the dark for rationalizations to explain away his bias against people with limitations, they'll be fine in the real world. Doesn't matter at all unless you made the mistake of going to a shit school where median = pwnd.

I have no bias, I want everyone to be treated equally

So let's tear down all the wheelchair on ramps and let the disabled overcome it on their hands and knees.

If someone can't get in the door, that's not equal treatment

I'm not saying that the mentally disabled should be disregarded, I just think that there are certain jobs they might be less suited for

If someone cannot complete their exam, THAT is not equal treatment either.

I got accommodated testing on exams this semester. The decision was made by the administration, my healthcare provider, and me, all with an eye toward a fair outcome. No one was disadvantaged by my extra time. It was absolutely a field leveler. Thank God, these decisions are made by people with more insight and sense than you. The general law school's perception about what is abuse and what is "fair" accommodations doesn't and shouldn't matter.

As I already said, if you're right, I will look forward to a loosened lateral market.

It's this type of attitude that shows your bias against people with mental or learning disabilities. Just because you cannot see the physical manifestation of a mental disability, or anything requiring accommodations for that matter, does not mean it is any less real or debilitating than an obvious physical one or any less deserving of accommodations on an exam.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this thread started to talk about people who are ABUSING the system and claiming they have a disability when they don't?

There were about 3 posts on that actual topic and now there have been 3 pages on whether or not people who ACTUALLY HAVE the disability should receive extra time on their exams. What does the latter have anything to do with the OP's question?

The problem is, unless someone told you they're abusing the system, it's pure conjecture.

What, if I may ask, is the reason you were granted extra time?

Note: I am willing to accept that under certain circumstances extra time may be reasonable, I think the hurdle should be very high. Quite frankly, I don't think ADHD is sufficient enough. Being bipolar might warrant a retake, if one is having an episode, rather than extra time (when not having an episode)

Again, I have nothing against people with special needs, I just think that most of the accommodation is unnecessary

I have no problem with people with disabilities have extra time, even if people may abuse the system. Probably because I take exams fast and for me, "too much time" tends to be a detriment. (I suppose maybe not on race horse issue spotters, but I had exactly zero of those this semester, and honestly still don't care).

They're just worried about the disableds' ability to perform in the workplace. It's all very altruistic.

I have a genuine "disability" (if you call it such) that would qualify me for extra time. I just don't feel I should be givenus special advantage just because I process things differently.

You may not ask, because it's not for you to "accept" that my circumstances were reasonable or not. School administrators do a case-by-case evaluation. You assume that your "disability" would qualify you; have you ever talked to the administration about it? Are you sure that you would actually be granted extra time? I know people in my section were being treated for ADHD and did not have time extensions.

This was the only time I'd ever needed to ask the school for an accommodation, and I now have a lot of confidence that at least Northwestern is handling accommodations in a reasonable and fair way.

No insult intended. I understand that such matters are private.
The reason I am confident I would get a time extension is not ADHD, although I also have ADD.
Again, I'm willing to accept that there may be circumstances/conditions that may warrant special accommodation, but in general I'm against the concept and think that generally the answer should be no.
I'm not familiar with that wide a range of mental disabilities, but all the ones with which I'm familiar enough to have an educated opinion don't, in my opinion, warrant extra time (although other types of accommodation may be applicable)

Guys, people with learning disabilities getting extra time doesn't hurt you that much. As for the "atruism," if it bothers you so much that people get these accommodations in school and won't out in the world, then look on the bright side. It's an adversarial system and you'll make get to prosper while in practice.

This thread is proof that the curve deprives people of their humanity.

IMO this entire problem is created because professors make law exams harder by artificially lowering the time allotted. Law school should be pass / fail anyway. MBA bros are styling all over us bros.

This is very true. I want to be graded on my merits, not on everyone else's merits

When someone is hiring you based on those grades, it's effectively curved no matter what. Strict Pass/ Fail is the only option.

Which would necessitate many more students to fail than under the current letter grade system. Intriguing idea though.

No it doesn't.

Or have grades, no curve, but have no disclosure policy like Wharton does, and HBS used to have.

haha, why does this seem to happen ALL THE TIME on here!