LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[Mullens]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/20/law ... y-lawsuit/

Of note: "LSAC will no longer flag test takers who receive extended time."

Game-changer?

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/20/law ... y-lawsuit/

Of note: "LSAC will no longer flag test takers who receive extended time."

Game-changer?

Depends how restrictive they are about accommodations. So far they've been extremely restrictive. 6,000 over five years is a drop in the bucket.

If future lawsuits force them to give more accommodations, that may change. The LSAT is a much more time sensitive test than the SAT. Many SAT questions can't be answered even with infinite time, if you lack the knowledge. Whereas almost everyone reports +10 points or more on the LSAT if they take extra time.

I'm most familiar with the SAT, where I've heard many stories of rich students gaming the system by bribing psychologists for a diagnosis.

That said, the current accommodations process is apparently very onerous, and that's hard on those with legitimate disabilities. I don't know what the correct solution is.

[ScottRiqui]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/20/law ... y-lawsuit/

Of note: "LSAC will no longer flag test takers who receive extended time."

Game-changer?

Depends how restrictive they are about accommodations. So far they've been extremely restrictive. 6,000 over five years is a drop in the bucket.

That's ~6,000 who were party to the lawsuit for supposedly being *denied* special accommodations. Do we have any idea how many testers do receive special accommodations each cycle?

[papercut]

I wonder how this will affect bar passage rates.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/20/law ... y-lawsuit/

Of note: "LSAC will no longer flag test takers who receive extended time."

Game-changer?

Depends how restrictive they are about accommodations. So far they've been extremely restrictive. 6,000 over five years is a drop in the bucket.

That's ~6,000 who were party to the lawsuit for supposedly being *denied* special accommodations. Do we have any idea how many testers do receive special accommodations each cycle?

Oops, good catch. I think we actually both failed at reading comprehension. The article seems to be saying that 6,000 is the number who SOUGHT accommodations. So that's both those who were accepted and those who were denied. The article isn't very clear, but I think that's what they're saying.

Those who were accepted still had a grievance: schools were being informed they received extra time. (And thus schools knew they had a disability)

So: not many receive accommodation currently. Something less than 6,000.

[cotiger]

They can kiss that high predictive validity goodbye.

This is such bullshit. But sadly not surprising.

[ScottRiqui]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/20/law ... y-lawsuit/

Of note: "LSAC will no longer flag test takers who receive extended time."

Game-changer?

Depends how restrictive they are about accommodations. So far they've been extremely restrictive. 6,000 over five years is a drop in the bucket.

That's ~6,000 who were party to the lawsuit for supposedly being *denied* special accommodations. Do we have any idea how many testers do receive special accommodations each cycle?

Oops, good catch. I think we actually both failed at reading comprehension. The article seems to be saying that 6,000 is the number who SOUGHT accommodations. So that's both those who were accepted and those who were denied. The article isn't very clear, but I think that's what they're saying.

Those who were accepted still had a grievance: schools were being informed they received extra time. (And thus schools knew they had a disability)

So: not many receive accommodation currently. Something less than 6,000.

You're right - after reading the article again, I'm not sure how many of the ~6,000 people were actually denied, and how many were suing because of the "asterisk" next to their scores.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Crikey. Look at this:

-----------

"Under its settlement with the government today, LSAT moves past Powell, lowering its standards for offering students up to double the time for the test. Now they will be granted the extra time if they got that accommodation on any other post-graduate test. "

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

-----------
Official source says LSAT agrees to:

* streamline its evaluation of requests for testing accommodations by automatically granting most testing accommodations that a candidate can show s/he has previously received for a standardized exam related to post-secondary admissions (such as the SAT, ACT or GED, among others); and

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/May/14-crt-536.html

------------

This is big news. If it's as described, this could be the death of the LSAT as a fair test. I've heard SAT accommodation practices are very shoddy. Students of mine from private schools have said rich parents will bribe or lean on psychologists for a diagnosis.

This isn't such a big deal on the SAT, as extra time is not much advantage if you don't know math, grammar and vocabulary. But on the LSAT extra time is a HUGE advantage.

So huge that if this is really as stated, then I expect large numbers of people to follow this path:

Find a lenient or bribe friendly psychologist for diagnosis --> Sign up for the SAT (again) and request accomodations and 50% extra time --> Get the automatic accomodation on the LSAT

Probably costs less than a prep course. Does anyone know if SAT accommodations bribery is common? I'm not American, so this aspect of things is only second hand for me.

[papercut]

They can kiss that high predictive validity goodbye.

This is such bullshit. But sadly not surprising.

[NYSprague]

Didn't they settle because they violated federal law in the ADA? I mean, they have to comply with the law so I don't know why anyone would be upset.
I recall posts on here where people who had long standing disabilities were denied accommodations.

Maybe if they had been more reasonable, this would have been avoided.

[papercut]

Didn't they settle because they violated federal law in the ADA? I mean, they have to comply with the law so I don't know why anyone would be upset.

I don't think flagging is that clear cut in the law.

[njdevils2626]

They can kiss that high predictive validity goodbye.

This is such bullshit. But sadly not surprising.

[NYSprague]

Didn't they settle because they violated federal law in the ADA? I mean, they have to comply with the law so I don't know why anyone would be upset.

I don't think flagging is that clear cut in the law.

I don't know the law. I assumed it was privacy. That people need to self-identify as disabled to the schools.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Didn't they settle because they violated federal law in the ADA? I mean, they have to comply with the law so I don't know why anyone would be upset.
I recall posts on here where people who had long standing disabilities were denied accommodations.

Maybe if they had been more reasonable, this would have been avoided.

I agree that LSAC seemed pretty unreasonable towards the disabled. However, according to this article, they believed they were following an agreement they made with the DOJ.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

The LSAC did not lose in court, or agree that they violated the agreement. Instead, they settled to avoid a costly lawsuit.

[NYSprague]

Didn't they settle because they violated federal law in the ADA? I mean, they have to comply with the law so I don't know why anyone would be upset.
I recall posts on here where people who had long standing disabilities were denied accommodations.

Maybe if they had been more reasonable, this would have been avoided.

I agree that LSAC seemed pretty unreasonable towards the disabled. However, according to this article, they believed they were following an agreement they made with the DOJ.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

The LSAC did not lose in court, or agree that they violated the agreement. Instead, they settled to avoid a costly lawsuit.

I understand what settlement means. I didnt know about the whole consent decree, but it looks like LSAC was wrong. They do have a pretty cushy gig going, so settling makes sense

Does this go into effect starting in June?

[papercut]

Didn't they settle because they violated federal law in the ADA? I mean, they have to comply with the law so I don't know why anyone would be upset.
I recall posts on here where people who had long standing disabilities were denied accommodations.

Maybe if they had been more reasonable, this would have been avoided.

I agree that LSAC seemed pretty unreasonable towards the disabled. However, according to this article, they believed they were following an agreement they made with the DOJ.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

The LSAC did not lose in court, or agree that they violated the agreement. Instead, they settled to avoid a costly lawsuit.

I understand what settlement means. I didnt know about the whole consent decree, but it looks like LSAC was wrong. They do have a pretty cushy gig going, so settling makes sense

Does this go into effect starting in June?

What do you mean LSAC was wrong?

[cotiger]

Will schools eventually be forced to offer extra time with no flagging too?

What's the reasoning for requiring this on entrance exams but not in the schools themselves?

[bombaysippin]

Will schools eventually be forced to offer extra time with no flagging too?

What's the reasoning for requiring this on entrance exams but not in the schools themselves?

So schools can still rob students that don't score at median or above.

[NYSprague]

Didn't they settle because they violated federal law in the ADA? I mean, they have to comply with the law so I don't know why anyone would be upset.
I recall posts on here where people who had long standing disabilities were denied accommodations.

Maybe if they had been more reasonable, this would have been avoided.

I agree that LSAC seemed pretty unreasonable towards the disabled. However, according to this article, they believed they were following an agreement they made with the DOJ.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

The LSAC did not lose in court, or agree that they violated the agreement. Instead, they settled to avoid a costly lawsuit.

I understand what settlement means. I didnt know about the whole consent decree, but it looks like LSAC was wrong. They do have a pretty cushy gig going, so settling makes sense

Does this go into effect starting in June?

What do you mean LSAC was wrong?

I mean they were wrong in being so harsh in granting extended time for people who really needed it. I know they are worried about a costly lawsuit, but they may also have been uninterested in explaining their decision making as to when accommodations were granted. giving up flagging doesn't impact them at all.

I'm sorry I worked all night and am not really focused on this. Maybe I will look at it again if I have something to add.

[papercut]

giving up flagging doesn't impact them at all.

I disagree. With accommodation and no flagging the LSAT loses predictive validity.

[cotiger]

giving up flagging doesn't impact them at all.

I disagree. With accommodation and no flagging the LSAT loses predictive validity.

Flagging's the biggie. That's what restricts the people who take extra time to those who really need it.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

giving up flagging doesn't impact them at all.

I disagree. With accommodation and no flagging the LSAT loses predictive validity.

giving up flagging doesn't impact them at all.

I disagree. With accommodation and no flagging the LSAT loses predictive validity.

This is my worry. I have had several SAT students who didn't even bother seeking extra time (ADHD and other similar diagnoses). It wasn't a big issue for them. Extra time on the SAT is useful, but not essential. Those students would definitely seek extra time on the LSAT if it were easy to get.

Whereas on the LSAT it can make almost anyone break 170. There will be thousands of people seeking accommodation for relatively minor issues, given the states to acquiring it. I also expect there will be people weaselling their way into false diagnoses.

I'm very, very surprised the LSAC agreed to automatically follow the standards set by other tests.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Though this article indicates there may not be that much to worry about. The college board has apparently gotten more stringent with accommodations requests after they were forced to remove flagging on SAT scores.

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2006/04 ... t-and-act/

They found that the population granted accommodations clustered around extreme lows and extreme highs. The LSAC is likewise very, very good at standardizing tests. If they detect anomalies, I expect they'll work with DOJ to make the system sensible. After all, we do want people with legitimate disabilities to get accommodations.

[ScottRiqui]

In and of itself, I'm not sure how I feel about getting rid of flagging. In the case of an accommodated/flagged score, what was the "right" way for schools to consider it for admissions purposes? Give it less weight than an unflagged score? Give it the same weight as an unflagged score? Ignore it completely?

If the "right" thing was to assume that the accommodations given were appropriate to the disability, then why were scores ever flagged in the first place?

[papercut]

In and of itself, I'm not sure how I feel about getting rid of flagging. In the case of an accommodated/flagged score, what was the "right" way for schools to consider it for admissions purposes? Give it less weight than an unflagged score? Give it the same weight as an unflagged score? Ignore it completely?

If the "right" thing was to assume that the accommodations given were appropriate to the disability, then why were scores ever flagged in the first place?

I don't think we know enough about cognitive performance to say that double the time or whatever is appropriate to disability X.

This is why it's important to keep the testing conditions the same.