CALIFORNIA BANS LSAC FROM REPORTING ACCOMMODATED TESTING?!?! Forum

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Is retard alting allowed now as a kind of accommodation meta trolling?

[Dr. Dre]

. Would be tough to do though in law school exams due to relatively small disability sample size per class or exam; not so much for the LSAT.

no.

[Dr. Dre]

So I take it you (Dre) won't or haven't used/disclosed your URM status (per profile) in any way whatsoever in college or law school applications? If no, hats off to you, at least you're consistent. If yes, you're a hypocrite. .

ad hominem fallacy

[lsatprepguy]

I'm officially salty. This is the third time I've taken the time to write out a lengthy well thought out argument with someone I was engaged in a debate with on TLS. Third time I've been stood up.

FWIW its worth, I think your post made perfect sense. And I don't have a response other than that I agree with you. Applicant C should be viewed with regard to the test accommodations while Application A should be viewed as a normal time applicant. Who wins between Applicant A and C is up to the admissions office to decide based upon the rest of the application and their thoughts about the documented disability.

[Tanicius]

What you're suggesting is that it is not LSAC's prerogative to help make the law school admissions process as fair as it can (within reason). We seem to just have different ideas of the reasons LSAC is supposed to exist.

+

2.) Not everyone experiences the same degree of problem or requires the same level of accommodation. Not everyone even needs the same type of accommodation. So, when you ask if 1/5th of test-takers should be provided extra time, the question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no.

This really is the crux of the disagreement here. The rest of it - diversity, choice, etc - whatever, okay.

How do you reconcile these statements?

You're an ad-comm and you're looking at 3 applications, all other things equal:

A) 3.7/170
Conditions: normal, 35 minutes, no accommodations.
Representation: Applicant A represents 80% of the population.

B) 3.7/170
Conditions: Blind, Braille and time-and-a-half to account for the extended time it takes to read, internalize, and express thoughts when reading braille.
Representation: Applicant B represents a minute section of the population. Less than 5% of the population have ailments that would require any accommodation other than extra time. When you account for mental disabilities that would prevent someone from needing to take the LSAT let alone go to law school altogether, I'm sure this number significantly decreases.

C) 3.7/170
Conditions: ADHD/ADD/Autistic/Asperger's, anywhere from 5 extra minutes per section to time-and-a-half.
Representation: Applicant C represents a potential 20% of the population.

No, for the third time, he does not. Not everyone diagnosed with those conditions struggles to the same degree, and as a matter of practice not everyone need be given the same timing accommodations.

LSAC has stated that the vast majority of it's accommodation requests is related to one of these 4 ailments. LSAC has openly stated that it grants over half of requested accommodations and that most of these accommodations include some form of extra time. Why? Because it's the easiest accommodation to give and the one that most speaks to the symptoms of those ailments that would impact a test takers' ability to do well on the test. This analysis isn't even taking into account the number of savvy douches who could easily go to their family doctor and get a nice little "I have severe ADHD" report if it weren't flagged - but that's neither here nor there.

You need to put forth an argument that explains how it is in any way fair to schools or Applicant A for ad-comms to not see the difference between the single most important thing on the application of A and C.

Then I guess we can talk more about it.

[Edit] I just saw for the first time the bolded part of where you quoting me on LSAC's purpose. I think I see where you're getting hung up. I said that LSAC's goal should be fairness, and you took this to mean a different type of fairness than I did. In an ideal world, I think your definition makes more sense: LSAC should just give accommodations when required by the interest of fairness, but disclose those accommodations, also in the interest of fairness. More or less what you're saying?

I find that concept lacking for a host of reasons affirmative action policy debate covers at length. It would work in a world where people aren't suffering undue stigma for parts of themselves they cannot change, but that world isn't ours. It also fails in light of some of LSAC's other policies. You're still using the same logic that should also require LSAC to automatically disclose race and socioeconomic status, lest that gave the applicant an unfair advantage in getting into the college they got into. It's only fair! ...Except it comes at a cost to society and the members of the disadvantaged group. The fact that accommodations are sometimes going to be unfair for everyone not receiving an accommodation is besides the point. As with racial affirmative action policies, part of the point is to erase social stigma against the group (people with disabilities), help elevate them into positions of power and wealth, and allow those people to turn around and provide a better platform for success for the rest of the group.

You've raised practicality concerns, but not one of those concerns is free from also being raised against policies to do with race and gender. "How do we know that someone with the disability diagnosis actually suffers on the level of their accommodation?" versus "How do we know this Hispanic student actually suffered a significant socioeconomic/educational disadvantage growing up?" We tolerate these discrepancies because we recognize that the greater good, elevating the group out of its situation of disadvantage, is well worth the cost.

[jselson]

[Edit] I just saw for the first time the bolded part of where you quoting me on LSAC's purpose. I think I see where you're getting hung up. I said that LSAC's goal should be fairness, and you took this to mean a different type of fairness than I did. In an ideal world, I think your definition makes more sense: LSAC should just give accommodations when required by the interest of fairness, but disclose those accommodations, also in the interest of fairness. More or less what you're saying?

I find that concept lacking for a host of reasons affirmative action policy debate covers at length. It would work in a world where people aren't suffering undue stigma for parts of themselves they cannot change, but that world isn't ours. It also fails in light of some of LSAC's other policies. You're still using the same logic that should also require LSAC to automatically disclose race and socioeconomic status, lest that gave the applicant an unfair advantage in getting into the college they got into. It's only fair! ...Except it comes at a cost to society and the members of the disadvantaged group. The fact that accommodations are sometimes going to be unfair for everyone not receiving an accommodation is besides the point. As with racial affirmative action policies, part of the point is to erase social stigma against the group (people with disabilities), help elevate them into positions of power and wealth, and allow those people to turn around and provide a better platform for success for the rest of the group.

You've raised practicality concerns, but not one of those concerns is free from also being raised against policies to do with race and gender. "How do we know that someone with the disability diagnosis actually suffers on the level of their accommodation?" versus "How do we know this Hispanic student actually suffered a significant socioeconomic/educational disadvantage growing up?" We tolerate these discrepancies because we recognize that the greater good, elevating the group out of its situation of disadvantage, is well worth the cost.

Your analogy between race/gender preferences and disability accommodations doesn't apply to LSAC since LSAC gives no race/sex-based accommodations/preferences. LSAC controls the LSAT to make sure no particular race/gender/other demographic gets an unfair advantage by testing and studying experimental questions. They've thrown out questions that have been biased against AAs and biased towards AAs. (There's a talk from a Virginia professor who used to head LSAC that's informative about this stuff.) The post facto difference in white/Asian scores vs. URMs has nothing to do with the LSAT itself.

Whether schools discriminate in favor of an underrepresented group is something I don't care much about, although I'm for AA in general. But that has nothing to do with LSAC; if LSAC gave extra time to underrepresented groups, yes, I would want that reported. But they don't, so they don't report it.

[Dr. Dre]

Whether schools discriminate in favor of an underrepresented group is something I don't care much about, although I'm for AA in general. But that has nothing to do with LSAC; if LSAC gave extra time to underrepresented groups, yes, I would want that reported. But they don't, so they don't report it.

[peeonyou]

You'd say the better analogy would be if schools got a ranking boost by having more ADHD lawyers in their law school, but I don't get the instrumental ends.

Having a bunch of kids who are black, native-american, hispanic creates a more interesting environment where yeah most of these kids are entitled and privileged too, but at least they have a unique perspective and different points to share. They also make the legal profession and ultimately the lawyers people get more racially inclusive. Some people would prefer an attorney of the same background to handle their case.

I don't really get the purpose served by what specifically learning disabled students bring to the table, and what instrumental ends it serves. I can see a black person accused of a crime who doesn't trust our historically racist court system wanting to work with a black attorney and being more comfortable opening up to a black lawyer, which ultimately gives them the best defense. I don't see a scenario where the person says I need an attorney who processes information slower than the average person.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

You'd say the better analogy would be if schools got a ranking boost by having more ADHD lawyers in their law school, but I don't get the instrumental ends.

Having a bunch of kids who are black, native-american, hispanic creates a more interesting environment where yeah most of these kids are entitled and privileged too, but at least they have a unique perspective and different points to share. They also make the legal profession and ultimately the lawyers people get more racially inclusive. Some people would prefer an attorney of the same background to handle their case.

I don't really get the purpose served by what specifically learning disabled students bring to the table, and what instrumental ends it serves. I can see a black person accused of a crime who doesn't trust our historically racist court system wanting to work with a black attorney and being more comfortable opening up to a black lawyer, which ultimately gives them the best defense. I don't see a scenario where the person says I need an attorney who processes information slower than the average person.

maybe adhd retards love to see their retard lawyer geeked up on adderall and working fervently on a case for days without requiring food or sleep

[John_rizzy_rawls]

You'd say the better analogy would be if schools got a ranking boost by having more ADHD lawyers in their law school, but I don't get the instrumental ends.

Having a bunch of kids who are black, native-american, hispanic creates a more interesting environment where yeah most of these kids are entitled and privileged too, but at least they have a unique perspective and different points to share. They also make the legal profession and ultimately the lawyers people get more racially inclusive. Some people would prefer an attorney of the same background to handle their case.

I don't really get the purpose served by what specifically learning disabled students bring to the table, and what instrumental ends it serves. I can see a black person accused of a crime who doesn't trust our historically racist court system wanting to work with a black attorney and being more comfortable opening up to a black lawyer, which ultimately gives them the best defense. I don't see a scenario where the person says I need an attorney who processes information slower than the average person.

maybe adhd retards love to see their retard lawyer geeked up on adderall and working fervently on a case for days without requiring food or sleep

lol'd audibly

Besides, doesn't like everyone born after 1985 have ADD or some shit?

This is a stupid debate. Jselson covered my retort to tan's non responsive response already.

[peeonyou]

this convo kind of makes me wish i had adderal, and was more productive. i'm pretty sure i have ADD, but i normally can focus when i'm super stressed.

[Dr. Dre]

this convo kind of makes me wish i had adderal, and was more productive. i'm pretty sure i have ADD, but i normally can focus when i'm super stressed.

excuses, excuses

[peeonyou]

this convo kind of makes me wish i had adderal, and was more productive. i'm pretty sure i have ADD, but i normally can focus when i'm super stressed.

excuses, excuses

heyy i'm like top 10% at a top 10 with only average intelligence. if i had adderal, i think id be valedictorian. top 10% with 40 min of work a day is pretty good.

[Dr. Dre]

top 10% just means you went to class

[peeonyou]

top 10% just means you went to class

lol. you clearly haven't started law school yet.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

top 10% just means you went to class

lol. you clearly haven't started law school yet.

I think he meant UG. If so, he's right.

If not, you're right and that's a retarded 0L sentiment.

[peeonyou]

top 10% just means you went to class

lol. you clearly haven't started law school yet.

I think he meant UG. If so, he's right.

If not, you're right and that's a retarded 0L sentiment.

oh i mean law school. i was bottom half in most college classes, because college gpa has nothing to do with $ unless you plan on grad school.

[Dr. Dre]

yes i meant UG

[peeonyou]

yes i meant UG

i meant ls.