LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time Forum

[theadvancededit]

I do not have a problem with people getting accommodations. What I AM worried about is that this will lead to other people who don't really deserve them trying to get them.

+1

[eandy]

as someone with a good bit of experience with this sort of stuff it looks like the student has issues with writing/ motor skills. almost all of the accommodations seem to match in that way--handwriting is likely large and difficult to read. probably has difficulty bubbling which explains the special sheet. all of that would seriously justify double time.

The article referred to it as a "learning disability." Would something like you said fit into that category? I honestly have no idea.

yes

[tedler]

.

[snestor20]

I'm just going to skip all of the arguing and ask if this person's billable hours will then be cut in half if the individual were to practice in the private sector.. since it seems that everything should take twice as much time to accomplish.. lol!

[z0rk]

I studied to become a special education teacher and I want to share some info regarding the legality of accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities.

It is federal law that all students must have the option to receive free appropriate public education ("FAPE") that is taught to them in the least restrictive environment ("LRE"). The FAPE and LRE principles are a guideline for assessing the needs of students and offering accommodations for those students when they are given individual education plans ("IEP") or 504 plans. These plans legally bind schools into providing the services agreed upon between the instructors, parents, and student. Specific accommodations outlined in IEPs and 504s cannot be compromised by a public school without the express consent of the student's parents (if they are a minor) or the student them self (if they are of legal age).

I've worked with kids who have ADD/ADHD (the two are actually categorized as one specific learning disability in the DSM-V) and it is not unusual for them to need extended time. ADD/ADHD often manifests with accompanying specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia, emotional disturbance disability, oppositional defiance. These are all co-factors that are taken into account when offering accomodations.

FAPE and LRE do not advocate (nor legally permit) accommodations that make the level of challenge and the work at hand inherently easier than it is for students without such accommodations. It's likely that this student had dyslexia, as evidenced by the double time to take the exam and the use of a computer to help with clear handwriting. These accommodations are meant to allow this student to perform at the same level as those who take the exam with regular time.

To those who state that we should drop asterisks and stop giving such accommodation because "that's life", you really are missing the point. You are looking at this as if YOU were given the extra time, and that this extra time is offering some inherent advantage. This is not the case, nor the cause for honoring such plans.

The LSAT is not a friendly test to students with specific learning disabilities. In the case of this student it is fortunate to see that the LSAC was willing to make concessions that meet his needs. The test is meant to measure you ability to reason and use logic under challenging timed conditions. Having difficulty understanding material at a rapid pace due to dyslexia is a disadvantage that would skew results to show that ones reasoning abilities are not to par. There are plenty of opportunities for students to succeed in the "real world" as attorneys working around their own specific needs -- including ADD and Dyslexia. Here is another example to examine: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/15/137179261 ... in-testing . I would venture to say that those who believe it's "cruel" to misguide and lead people to "waste years of their life" would find a blind students complaint about logic games being inherently unfair as reasonable. They cannot diagram, and their performance on an LG section is not a reflection of their true intellect. The same goes for a student with a specific LD like ADHD and Dyslexia -- only, in my experience, people tend to be a little more prejudicial because the learning disability is something that is harder to relate to on a personal level.

[3v3ryth1ng]

Your point was that you think "these people" are "wasting" their time and money. My counterargument is my life, you douchebag.

I'm sorry, did you expect "your life" to be immediately apparent to me? Assuming you're a person with a serious learning disability who is currently successful in law, you're the exception, not the rule, and "your life" doesn't present a compelling counterargument.

My point is that the advantages presented by LSAC/law schools (extra time, etc.) largely end when you enter the professional world. What are "these people" (I don't see this as an inherently terrible term, sorry) supposed to do when the playing field is no longer being leveled for them?

Well, see fist of all, I am by nature an extremely fierce advocate for "these people." I'll admit that term is slightly more offensive to me because it's actually been used against me, but the part you're missing is that you're talking about a lot of people who are, in fact, NOT deluding themselves by aspiring to become lawyers (or anything else for that matter). I'm not an exception a any rule, because there is no rule that people with learning disabilities must fail. There is a great chance you're talking about people you know. I don't expect you to know my past, but you better expect a PC nut like me is going to set you straight when you start talking about "these people."

Your point was that "these people" are "wasting" their time by going through law school. What I think you need to explain is why you think someone who needs an accommodation for a test will necessarily fail in a professional setting. My life is a perfect counterexample because it's strongly analogous to the situation we're discussing. I described the scenario in an earlier post. Now why don't YOU respond to my counterargument instead of trying to illicitly soften the position you've stated earlier? I'd be much happier if you just admitted that you were wrong.

[3v3ryth1ng]

I'm just going to skip all of the arguing and ask if this person's billable hours will then be cut in half if the individual were to practice in the private sector.. since it seems that everything should take twice as much time to accomplish.. lol!

That's funny, because that's exactly what we're arguing about!

[tedler]

.

[3v3ryth1ng]

Well, see fist of all, I am by nature an extremely fierce advocate for "these people." I'll admit that term is slightly more offensive to me because it's actually been used against me, but the part you're missing is that you're talking about a lot of people who are, in fact, NOT deluding themselves by aspiring to become lawyers (or anything else for that matter). I'm not an exception a any rule, because there is no rule that people with learning disabilities must fail. There is a great chance you're talking about people you know. I don't expect you to know my past, but you better expect a PC nut like me is going to set you straight when you start talking about "these people."

Your point was that "these people" are "wasting" their time by going through law school. What I think you need to explain is why you think someone who needs an accommodation for a test will necessarily fail in a professional setting. My life is a perfect counterexample because it's strongly analogous to the situation we're discussing. I described the scenario in an earlier post. Now why don't YOU respond to my counterargument instead of trying to illicitly soften the position you've stated earlier? I'd be much happier if you just admitted that you were wrong.

My use of “these people” pretty clearly referred to people with serious learning disabilities who are attempting to go to law school. I have no idea how this is offensive. It’s simply another way to refer to people with serious learning disabilities who are attempting to go to law school so I don’t have to say “people with serious learning disabilities who are attempting to go to law school” every time I want to refer to them. Would PWSLDWAATGTLS appease you?

Your life doesn’t serve as a sufficient counterexample because it’s one case. I have a good friend who scored a 174 cold on a diagnostic; he’s still just an extreme exception.

As far as I can tell, I wasn’t softening my position at all in the previous post, but I do feel that I need to now. There are definitely certain disabilities which would hamper you on the LSAT but not necessarily as a lawyer (blindness, as mentioned in the giant block of text above, and possibly that of the person in the article). However, accommodating someone with severe ADD or the like is foolish; something like not being able to focus on dense material would in fact cripple you if you ever became a lawyer, and holding these people's hand only to let go upon their entry into the professional world would be useless.

Your previous position: "...asterisks don't work once you get out into the real world. It seems cruel and misguided to allow these people to waste years of their lives (and lots of cash) on law school, only to realize they [b]won't[/b] make it in the field."

That's quite an assumption. Maybe you don't understand that you've relegated a fairly large group of intelligent/capable people to failure on their career path. If that's not offensive to you, I'm going to assume that you have the mistaken belief that learning disability = unintelligent/incapable, or perhaps you're actually as elitist as you sound. That would be offensive to me even if your broadly-worded statement didn't happen to include myself.

Your 2nd (softened) position: "The advantages presented by LSAC/law schools (extra time, etc.) largely end when you enter the professional world."

Of course these "advantages" end (largely). But guess what: academic performance DOES NOT correlate as strongly with "real world" success as closely as you apparently think it does, and learning disabilities (even severe learning disabilities) certainly don't preclude success as an attorney, as you implied in your previous position.

Let me clear something up- simply because one has a learning disability such as ADHD doesn't mean they cannot focus. Indeed, he/she may be smarter and more articulate than you, although their learning disability hampers their ability to exercise his/her full potential. An accommodation is NOT an advantage; not legally, and not in reality either. I, for example, recall setting aside whole days to accomplish tasks that took my peers 1/2 as long. My analysis was great, my grades were great (most of the time), and I was every bit as intelligent as my peers. Most of the time, my work was regarded as the highest quality in the class. Who had the advantage? I worked significantly harder to accomplish the same things as my peers, but I DID it. It just so happens that I don't medicate. Boy, if I did, I probably would have wrecked the curve. Ironically, tons of non-ADHD people in my undergrad were popping Adderall to achieve their modest results.

Now there is an "old-school" school of thought that holds conditions such as ADHD don't really exist, and that they basically amount to a lack of intelligence. They hold, as you do, that accommodating such conditions, and thereby allowing students to achieve at higher levels, amounts to giving them an advantage. This is the position of the uninformed or elitist. The newer, now broadly-accepted, paradigm recognizes learning disabilities as distinct from a lack of intelligence.

There are so many examples of great learning-disabled people in history. Maybe you should hop on Wikipedia and research them before you suggest that a learning disability, even severe disabilities, necessitate "hand-holding" in the real world. That's where I've done best actually.

BTW, if you make an absolute statement like "these people are wasting their time because they will not succeed," all I need is one counterexample to negate your argument. I hope to god I see you in court one day, because you're going to make me a lot of money.

[ionoiforgot]

1. Who knows if this person wants to actually practice law, as much as just study it for reasons of being an academic. If the person just wants to become an academic so he can perhaps further the legal advocacy of the disabled, more power to this person.

2. I'm pretty sure this case/situation is an exception by far. Having documented cases of epic accommodations will be hard for anyone to pull off/duplicate.

3. Props to this person's attorney.

[Mauve Dinosaur]

Wonder if he's gonna get double time to prepare his depositions and shit when he's a lawyer...

[EMZE]

As someone who would easily qualify for accommodated testing conditions, I am pretty sure I am better served submitting a diversity statement to schools and letting them make their own judgement. For the x points I'd score higher, I have to believe the school would appreciate more knowing I can get a 16x-17x like anyone else that does not 2 TBI's

[caminante]

Someone very close to me has severe ADHD. There is definitely a spectrum with this disability. If it were my friend, I would definitely want her to have extra time- it would simply put her on a level playing field. I don't think that even doubling it would give her an unfair advantage. Then again, I think it may be setting her up for failure in Law School.

It's a tricky subject, for sure.

[z0rk]

Wonder if he's gonna get double time to prepare his depositions and shit when he's a lawyer...

These types of comments smack of snide condescension. Its unnecessary, and frankly a bit ignorant.

Not every attorney practices litigation, in fact litigation makes up just a portion of the legal practices one can choose. If he were to become a litigator he has the same chances at success that anyone else would have.

I am willing to bet everyone here knows someone with ADD/ADHD who is leading a successful life - some of whom are not even diagnosed yet, and may not even be diagnosed until they are middle aged adults. My father worked as an air traffic controller, a stock brocker, and a computer programmer. He's 63, and he was diagnosed with ADD in his late 40s. Those are all jobs that are timely, require focus, concentration, and advanced knowledge. He struggled in undergrad and high school because the learning environment did not differentiate instruction to his needs. Yet, he succeeded. Imagine the level of success when accomodations are made at the learning level before a student reaches the practical level. They will be better prepared to handle the difficult tasks of preparing timely for a filing, hearing, or deposition.

[tedler]

.

[z0rk]

Inability to focus (if this isn’t compatible with attention deficit, it’s news to me) has nothing to do with intelligence or ability to articulate, and I never said otherwise. Obviously the snide comments like “will they charge half for billable hours” and “will they get extra time for their depositions” are not sufficient arguments on their own, but they do require answers at some point. How does the need for twice the amount of time play out when you enter a profession that requires 80+ hour weeks?

Emphasis added to original quote.

Honestly, your statement doesn't completely absolve you of the same egregiousness exhibited by snide remarks about billables and depositions.

You cannot equate the same mechanisms necessary in preparation and execution of a successful LSAT score to the mechanisms necessary in preparation and success of someone who bills by the hour or takes depositions. In real life an attorney isn't bound by completing various tasks in 35 minute increments. They can take breaks, they can get up earlier and stay later, you can utilize computers, spreadsheets, planners, organizational tools, private/customized workspaces, etc., to help one succeed. These are not adaptive measures that are available when you take the LSAT, and thus a student with a specific learning disability must be given the accommodations so that they tested same reasonable standard.

Perhaps the naysayers in this forum should be given the LSAT with only 25 minutes per section and the words written in a jumbled manner. You take that exam while I take the standard exam. We can compare scores and talk about how you won't cut it in the real world. Does that sound fair? as if we were tested on the same playing field? Absolutely not. There is NOTHING standard about that arrangement.

I work in litigation as a paralegal. I've seen attorneys draw down bills for many different reasons, including excess time spent on tasks. Its a regular occurrence, its a part of the profession. Clients and good firms care about the quality of work put out. Yes, there are sweatshops in big law that want you to work very high numbers but those aren't the only places a successful law student will go. You are ruling out law for students with learning disabilities based on a very narrow perception.

[23402385985]

Is it wrong that I hope he bombs?

Double time is bullshit.

[tedler]

.

[paul34]

Is it wrong that I hope he bombs?

Yes, if he legitimately requires the double time. He seems to have gone to a lot to effort to show that he does.

[lakers3peat]

stop crying u noobs.

[Bildungsroman]

Is it wrong that I hope he bombs?

Double time is bullshit.

I, too, hope a total stranger with a disability fails after getting accommodations that I don't fully understand the reason for. Rest assured that you're not an idiot.

[lakers3peat]

I know a small number of people diagnosed with ADHD, as do most people these days, and one or two of them are very smart. I never suggested that ADHD makes you stupid, nor did I suggest that it made it impossible to succeed. It simply makes success unlikely in a field like law, where dense reading under time constraints tends to be the name of the game. There are a million (please don’t take this literally) other professions out there for which their condition serves as a minor hindrance at most.

you sir are an idiot.

[23402385985]

Is it wrong that I hope he bombs?

Double time is bullshit.

I, too, hope a total stranger with a disability fails after getting accommodations that I don't fully understand the reason for. Rest assured that you're not an idiot.

I'm just an asshole.

[tedler]

.

[SplitLife]

Wonder if he's gonna get double time to prepare his depositions and shit when he's a lawyer...

Wonder if he even wants to be a lawyer...last I checked, not everyone who graduated from law school ended up working in the legal profession...

It seems like everyone on this thread who is unhappy with double time being granted to this guy is upset for various reasons, all that seem to have the same fundamental root causes: 1.) they don't understand the nature of learning disabilities and their varying spectrums, and 2.) they all seem to assume that law schools don't accomodate those with LDs and that those with LDs going to law school have to be aiming for a legal job after law school and it must be a legal job that is extremely competitive.

Figure it out...