Top Law Schools

pcwcecac wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:

pcwcecac wrote: Sorry bro. I thought you had disabilities. I guess...I dunno what your story would be. But what you wrote above is ok!

I'm mildly autistic but I don't have any disability that stands out if you met me. In some ways my life has been easy (great parents, middle class upbringing, etc.) but in other ways it has been hard. I got bullied as a child, I would get so stressed that I would cry and freak out, I got obsessed with stuff, and other such problems. I'm better know but there's certain things I just can't get away from because I am who I am.

In your other thread, you mentioned that you went to a special ed high school. That, combined with the topic of this thread lead me to make the inference that you had some form of disability. Sorry for being presumptuous.

You've been through a lot. It is not an easy journey from special ed to 155 on the LSAT. My friend, that should be your story.

Study as hard as you can and retake. I have confidence that you can reach 160 or even 165.

EDIT: I also admire the fact that you can take so much beating on these threads and continue to defend your point of view. Such tenacity is probably what transformed you from your high school years to a 4.0 college student. Some of these motherfuckers need to have some perspective.

givemea170 wrote:

pcwcecac wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:

pcwcecac wrote: Sorry bro. I thought you had disabilities. I guess...I dunno what your story would be. But what you wrote above is ok!

I'm mildly autistic but I don't have any disability that stands out if you met me. In some ways my life has been easy (great parents, middle class upbringing, etc.) but in other ways it has been hard. I got bullied as a child, I would get so stressed that I would cry and freak out, I got obsessed with stuff, and other such problems. I'm better know but there's certain things I just can't get away from because I am who I am.

In your other thread, you mentioned that you went to a special ed high school. That, combined with the topic of this thread lead me to make the inference that you had some form of disability. Sorry for being presumptuous.

You've been through a lot. It is not an easy journey from special ed to 155 on the LSAT. My friend, that should be your story.

Study as hard as you can and retake. I have confidence that you can reach 160 or even 165.

EDIT: I also admire the fact that you can take so much beating on these threads and continue to defend your point of view. Such tenacity is probably what transformed you from your high school years to a 4.0 college student. Some of these motherfuckers need to have some perspective.

This particular individual is just complaining for the sake of complaining. If he had a mental disability that caused him to be a genius on the LSAT and struggle with his GPA, he'd be complaining that the GPA is used too much. Book it.

Simplicity wrote:

emkay625 wrote:

Philosopher King wrote: Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

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]."

ADD IS a disability, but it is not a sensory, manual, or speech impairment. Your ability to see/hear (blind and deaf), walk/move (like being in a wheelchair) or speak is not an issue. So by your own evidence/quote, you don't qualify. sorry bud.

I wouldn't go that far. The ADA only covers certain disabilities that impair a major life activity and cannot be easily corrected (AIDS counts as a disability because it inhibits your ability to make children, evidently a major life activity, as decided by the courts......on the other hand, poor eyesight does not qualify as a disability). Does mild autism qualify as a disability under the ADA? I have no idea.

Philosopher King wrote:

Simplicity wrote:

emkay625 wrote:

Philosopher King wrote: Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

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]."

ADD IS a disability, but it is not a sensory, manual, or speech impairment. Your ability to see/hear (blind and deaf), walk/move (like being in a wheelchair) or speak is not an issue. So by your own evidence/quote, you don't qualify. sorry bud.

I wouldn't go that far. The ADA only covers certain disabilities that impair a major life activity and cannot be easily corrected (AIDS counts as a disability because it inhibits your ability to make children, evidently a major life activity, as decided by the courts......on the other hand, poor eyesight does not qualify as a disability). Does mild autism qualify as a disability under the ADA? I have no idea.

Going to law school qualifies as a major life activity and my disability is impairing that by virtue of making me get a bad LSAT score.

Simplicity wrote:

emkay625 wrote:

Philosopher King wrote: Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

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]."

ADD IS a disability, but it is not a sensory, manual, or speech impairment. Your ability to see/hear (blind and deaf), walk/move (like being in a wheelchair) or speak is not an issue. So by your own evidence/quote, you don't qualify. sorry bud.

I wouldn't go that far. The ADA only covers certain disabilities that impair a major life activity and cannot be easily corrected (AIDS counts as a disability because it inhibits your ability to make children, evidently a major life activity, as decided by the courts......on the other hand, poor eyesight does not qualify as a disability). Does mild autism qualify as a disability under the ADA? I have no idea.

emkay625 wrote:

Simplicity wrote:

emkay625 wrote:

Philosopher King wrote: Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

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]."

ADD IS a disability, but it is not a sensory, manual, or speech impairment. Your ability to see/hear (blind and deaf), walk/move (like being in a wheelchair) or speak is not an issue. So by your own evidence/quote, you don't qualify. sorry bud.

I wouldn't go that far. The ADA only covers certain disabilities that impair a major life activity and cannot be easily corrected (AIDS counts as a disability because it inhibits your ability to make children, evidently a major life activity, as decided by the courts......on the other hand, poor eyesight does not qualify as a disability). Does mild autism qualify as a disability under the ADA? I have no idea.

It does - but not that particular provision he posted. It's only for physical disabilities. (which it says in his quote)

You are further pointing out that this kid just shouldn't be in law school to begin with. He thought he had an open and shut case... can you imagine how bad of a lawyer he is going to be?

American_in_China wrote:And maybe I would understand if you were poor, or had absent parents, and never had access to resources to overcome your problems, I would be sympathetic. But you did, and you haven't. Where you are now is on you.

philosopher king wrote:
They can have all the lawyers on their side that they want. I have the law on my side so my message to them is: bring it on. Give me a day in court with them and I'll have them babbling nonsensically trying to refute me.

hyakku wrote:Lmao, I find PK funny, but some of you keep trying to get at him for not having the propensity to be a competent lawyer, yet most of you either don't know the difference between ADD, aspergers and autism, or your research skills are so poor that you couldn't look like eight posts before yours to see that he doesn't claim (at least not in this thread) to have ADD, ADHD, Aspergers or Cthulu in him.

Also, why do any of you care so much if he brings a lawsuit against them? I'm not saying it's the smartest thing, but if everyone admits the test is inherently flawed and there are no strides being made to improve the process, why bitch that someone wants to try to (regardless of how asinine his attempts are)?

Philosopher King wrote:

American_in_China wrote:And maybe I would understand if you were poor, or had absent parents, and never had access to resources to overcome your problems, I would be sympathetic. But you did, and you haven't. Where you are now is on you.

Oh I overcame my problems to get to where I am now. But I can't overcome LSAC's problems--that's for them to do. To say I didn't overcome my problems just shows how ignorant you truly are. I am already a star alum from my high school because the vast majority of students don't even go to college from there. And my mother actually hindered rather than helped me at one crucial point and, if I didn't convince her of something just in time then I would not be where I am today. It's too long and complicated to explain briefly but just take my word for it.

American_in_China wrote: Oh man! Your parents disagreed with you once?! What a travesty. Congrats on being a star alum from a bad high school. God knows no other TLS poster has ever done that. No one farrrr more disadvantaged than you has ever made past the dreaded LSAC.

For all your arguments, you're just another special snowflake that thinks because he did badly, the system is unfair. Well, it isn't perfect. But we ALL go through it- people with aspergers, people with ADD, people with ADHD, people with Dyslexia. And it gives us all the same chance to succeed. You just did badly.

Philosopher King wrote:

American_in_China wrote: Oh man! Your parents disagreed with you once?! What a travesty. Congrats on being a star alum from a bad high school. God knows no other TLS poster has ever done that. No one farrrr more disadvantaged than you has ever made past the dreaded LSAC.

For all your arguments, you're just another special snowflake that thinks because he did badly, the system is unfair. Well, it isn't perfect. But we ALL go through it- people with aspergers, people with ADD, people with ADHD, people with Dyslexia. And it gives us all the same chance to succeed. You just did badly.

Dude it wasn't just as disagreement. It almost ruined my life. I don't think me doing badly equals system unfair. If I fail at something I will take full responsibility. I take full responsibility for bombing the LSAT but what I can't be held responsible for is the fact that it matter so much more than it should. I can't be held responsible for the fact that LSAC violates the law. I don't feel entitled to anything and the one time I got a B on a paper in college I didn't feel like I deserved an A (or A-) just because that's what I got on every other paper I wrote in college (I got an 85% on a movie class paper and the prof. basically said it would have been an A if it was an English paper). I'm not like that and when something is my fault I take responsibility for it. But most of the reason a 155 LSAT is screwing me over isn't my fault.

snehpets wrote: ARGH. I dunno why I can't stop responding to this. It IS your fault. That is how law school works. The LSAT is extremely important, but that doesn't mean it's also "unfair." Who are you to say, as a 0L, how much the LSAT should matter? That's just how it works. Society is full of systems like that. Do you go around telling people it's not your fault you can't buy a Ferrari because they unfairly charge many thousands of dollars for them? You can go to some shitty law school with your 155, the LSAC isn't keeping you from BECOMING a lawyer.

Philosopher King wrote:

snehpets wrote: ARGH. I dunno why I can't stop responding to this. It IS your fault. That is how law school works. The LSAT is extremely important, but that doesn't mean it's also "unfair." Who are you to say, as a 0L, how much the LSAT should matter? That's just how it works. Society is full of systems like that. Do you go around telling people it's not your fault you can't buy a Ferrari because they unfairly charge many thousands of dollars for them? You can go to some shitty law school with your 155, the LSAC isn't keeping you from BECOMING a lawyer.

I don't want a Ferrari and would never buy one no matter how rich I was. If I won the lottery today I would buy a Chevrolet Tahoe. And no I don't think it is unfair that I can't have a Tahoe. Look, there are a lot of unfair systems but the LSAT is hard to be, that's for sure. But if it makes you feel any better than I can take full responsibility for not only my score (which I really do) but also LSAC's law violations, the fact that the LSAT has less to do with predicting my law school success then my undergrad record, and all of the other problems with the LSAT. Yep I'm to blame right? Me and nobody else. It's all my fault folks--sorry.

lawschoolgrapedme wrote:To the OP.

I have no qualm with your ADA and its intertwinement with the LSAC argument; however, I am interested in why you think that the * should not be included. By making the * stating that special accomodations are given, this does not in and of itself discredit your score. Rather, it is just providing full disclosure of the details surrounding a given test.

ben4847 wrote:PK: I think you ought to consider that the adcomms response to your complaining will probably be pretty similar to our response. So just leave the whole thing out. Retake with your stupid accommodations, take law school exams with your stupid accommodations, and try to make the cut during the summer and as an attorney.

However, if your undergrad grades were also with accommodations, and that is how you have your good GPA, you might not want to alert the adcomms to that fact (if your undergrad doesn't report it).