Tiago Splitter wrote:Schools get to know that you received an accommodation just like they get to know your race and where you went to undergrad. Doesn't mean they are obligated to make a decision based on any of those factors.
Right, but let's separate out undergrad for a second. Just because it's not a biology-deriving or physical characteristic specific to person, which both race and disability are. A school can indeed get to know your race, but that's the reason there's affirmative action, so that does not count against folks. A school getting to know that you have a disability of some sort in no way is an asset to the applicant. They made race an asset to make things more equal, in an effort prevent it being a reason to reject someone. Sounds absurd that they should have had to have done that (put that in place) today, but that's how it had to be to prevent the disgusting discrimination African Americans had had thrown at them. Same thing with disability. Not the fault of the person that has it, but counts against them anyway and nothing in place to make it not. LSAC discriminates by disclosing this information as if it were relevant to score. How can it be when the accommodation was used in the test to render it irrelevant.
They made race an asset? Who the fuck are "they"? Martin Luther King Jr.? Lyndon Johnson? Malcolm X?
Schools choose to use affirmative action. It isn't forced on them by the federal government, nor should it be.
You likely won't get the same accommodations in law school exams as you receive on the LSAT, which is why it's important for the schools to know what they are dealing with.
At the end of the day, law school is a poor gamble for a significant number of matriculants, so in a roundabout way this "separate but equal" policy might just be doing you a favor. Good luck!