Um, maybe because they do. It's called the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ever hear of it?



No, not really. My argument against LSAC is that accommodations must be given in order to counteract a disability and ADA accommodations are not given to give the person an advantage but rather to take away or at least diminish an unfair disadvantage. That's a big difference on the DRBA website is says that the ADA says that "For a test-taker with sensory, manual or speech impairments, the test provider must ensure that the examination is selected and administered 'so as to best ensure that' the examination results accurately reflect the individual's aptititude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the [disability]." Well, by telling law schools that your test results should be interpreted differently than other test-takers, they are, in effect, making sure that your disability is reflected. What results could possibly reflect a disability more than ones that come with a letter saying to interpret them as lesser than other scores because the person got accommodations to diminish the effect of his or her disability. It's blatantly illegal it seems and the LSAC pinheads think they can get away with it. I would love to change that.



You can mock me all you want but the facts are on my side. So go ahead and have fun.

Ya know, I walked into philosophy thinking just that, but what your talking about is bullshit philosophy. At my school philosophy is the most difficult non-chemistry major. If youve been through a set of philosophy classes that you think were all easy as shit then your dealing with some bullshit philosophy grading. Philosophy graded as if it were a simple writing class and then grade inflation added. Im sure your a smart person, but take a real philosophy class.

I"m not mocking you, but I didn't have time to finish the RC either. So giving you 45 minutes and me 35 minutes is just silly.

By the way Philosopher King, are you going to complain in a few years that you don't have enough time to complete the bar adequately?

I just don't understand the point of watering things down like this.

I want you to address my argument. I proved my premises because everything I said is true. Whether that warrants my conclusion is where we could debate. I believe my argument is valid and sound.

With what you say you're just making this too easy for me. You "didn't try a second in college"? Well why should we think you will be any different, all of a sudden, in law school? Because you claim that you're magically focused all of a sudden? That's a claim that you have no undergraduate record to prove. But law schools should hold that claim above my GPA? Yeah, that sounds right. I agree vaguely with the GPA being effort and LSAT being intelligence but not necessarily. My GPA shows effort and intelligence. I'm not a genius I don't think but I am intelligent, much more so than the average person and average college student. The LSAT shows I'm bad at artificial standardized tests that demand that test-takers determine the order in which five students with weird names are going to study based on silly rules and other such downright dumb "logic games." Besides what good is a lazy genius?

[quote="Philosopher King"][/quote]

not to be a total douchebag ._.' but from the sounds of your recommendations, you seem bent on making the LSAT a morally correct test...

unfortunately (as i'm sure we've all been drilled a million times through LSAT PTs on it) morally correct =/= legally correct, and the LSAT is very much a legally-related test... ^_^; they might be wrong, but they're under no legal obligation to change...?

Who knows? My low GPA at my school might be more impressive than your high GPA at your school. Depends on the schools.

As for your argument, you've shot it down yourself. You admitted that the LSAT is a good indication for normal people but want schools to make concessions for a very finite number of people like yourself. Any system should serve the majority. The LSAT is their best indication of how a 1L will do in their course work.

As for me being lazy in my undergrad, I'd say a pretty huge chunk of people who excel in life are those lazy geniuses that find motivation in something at some point. Think of it as drafting potential.

Besides... your point is murky based on the fact you tout your college b/c the incoming freshman GPA was like 3.5. I don't think my undergrad is THAT great but I"m pretty sure I saw in the paper recently that their average undergraduate freshman GPA was like 3.75.

[quote="IGotMy170"][/quote]

i'm actually curious since you mentioned it so many times, but what is your GPA? (i hope i'm not being rude, but i figured your high LSAT score more than makes up for it)

Actually, my arguments focus on three main areas: moral, practical, and legal issues. The LSAT is legally incorrect because LSAC openly admits that they do things in a manner that violates the ADA. It is morally incorrect and impractical for the reasons I have said so far. I have made extensive arguments on this matter.

2.94.

It was 3.5 after my sophomore year and then I had some shit happen regarding a girl. Everyone goes through it though so I'm not even going to complain. I stopped going to class for a couple of semesters though and managed to pass just showing up on test days.

Your argument is foolish in all honesty. You want the extra time but you don't want the law school to know about it.

You'd love nothing more to sit down, get 50 minutes per section and then your score just be matriculated with the rest with no asterisk. That just sounds too crazy for words.

=( that's sad. no girl is worth your GPA.
oh well, you'll still be fine for a lot of the T25 schools =)


(i wish we got 50 minutes on each section... can you imagine how high the scores would be?)

My top two choices are Illinois/Notre Dame so I should be okay there. I'm hoping anyway. Wrote some good essays to make sure. Since there is a curve, I"m guessing that with 50 minutes the curve to get 170 would be like -5. lol

^^; Both morality and practicality are not concerns of the LSAC... I don't see a legal admissions about violating the ADA, but even so... the reality is... who's going to sue, get tied up in years-long debates, and try to win against the council that admits people to law schools?

Perhaps reality is harsher than we expected... but we must still live in it ._.

Any system except for the whole damn country, which is built to protect minority rights from being trampled by the majority? Anyway, I never admitted that the LSAT was a "good" indication for "normal people," I just conceded that I personally have unique circumstances that further enhance my general arguments, which I think are somewhat compelling. The LSAT is just bad. It's like Osama bin Laden. There isn't anything good about it and only a select few pinheads would miss it if it were gone. Sorry, that's a weak analogy fallacy but I think it's funny. I'm actually not entirely anti-LSAT it should just matter less. It's scandalous.

Look, my school has an average GPA of 3.07 I remember reading. Since B is the new C a 3.0 average is, well, average. Some schools have grade inflation but mine doesn't seem to have that very much. In my schools the lowest honors requires a 3.25 GPA and it seems that less than 10% of graduates on the lists I have looked at have any stars next to their names, indicated that few students have above a 3.24 GPA. I frankly think our average GPA is below 3.0 judging from what I see but, who knows there could be an excessive number of people with 3.1-3.2 GPAs.

[quote="IGotMy170"][/quote]

nice =) actually...


do you think we could exchange PS? ^^; I'm not a bad writer, I promise, but I'm paranoid about having spelling/grammar mistakes in mine....

Hey buddy, tell it to Congress. They're the ones that passed the ADA, not me. The law is the law. Why did I just say the law is the law? Of course it is, what else would it be. That's like saying "no means no," of course it freaking does. Oh I'm tired. Good night all.

GPA is meaningless. Way too many variables to really use it much, which is why law schools do NOT use it much.

Honestly, if you cut out the LSAT from counting so much, you're really expecting schools to be able to decide who should get in while comparing completely different schools and people's GPAs?

So who is more impressive? A 4.0 at Vanderbilt or a 3.7 at Harvard? An accounting degree or a Philosophy Degree? Good luck breaking down a ton of unknowns. They have a test that puts everyone on an even footing and it works.

You'd have to show me where in the law that it says that they can't inform schools that this test was taken under special conditions. Show it to me and then we'll speak again.

I'll spell check yours if you want. I've already started submitting mine. Actually had someone at essayedge.com look over it for me.

I'll copy and paste the argument I made earlier.

My argument against LSAC is that accommodations must be given in order to counteract a disability and ADA accommodations are not given to give the person an advantage but rather to take away or at least diminish an unfair disadvantage. That's a big difference. On the DRBA website it says that the ADA says that "For a test-taker with sensory, manual or speech impairments, the test provider must ensure that the examination is selected and administered 'so as to best ensure that' the examination results accurately reflect the individual's aptititude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the [disability]." Well, by telling law schools that your test results should be interpreted differently than other test-takers, they are, in effect, making sure that your disability is reflected. What results could possibly reflect a disability more than ones that come with a letter saying to interpret them as lesser than other scores because the person got accommodations to diminish the effect of his or her disability. It's blatantly illegal it seems and the LSAC pinheads think they can get away with it. I would love to change that.

thank you so much ^_____^ *sending pm now

I see where you're coming from PK. I've agreed with just about everything you've written so far. Yes LSAC's suggestion that law school's regard it, hell, dubiously, though they don't use the word, may or may not be actionable. The key part that is being overlooked is we don't know that law schools draw a major distinction between the 176 and the 176*. They aren't required to report one score different than the others. And in the end that's pretty much what matters.


I wish it were about fairness. Equity. Who would do the most good. Not who just managed to work the stupid test. But it isn't. It's just about rank and the same old rote bullshit. Take the test under special conditions. Get the score you deserve. Go to the school you should be at. And dude, if you having that * means not getting into your school, then, and only THEN you make an issue of it.

Tahahaha well isn't that what someone with a low gpa would say. BTW I have a crappy GPA too, but cmon LSAT=Intelligence?!. Did you take the test cold?? Oh wait noooo you studied for it, you even joined a forum where you would find tips and tricks that would help you get a good score. Truth is Intelligence is important for gpa and an lsat score but DISCIPLINE is probably a stronger factor. Or tell me how many people go into the lsat cold without any prepping and score 164+ BTW maybe you do, in which case say no more you are truly a lsat prodigy.

167 in as of last night. 3.72gpa = retake!

Wish me luck!

Is it just me, or is a 167 the most obnoxious score ever?