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

[09042014]

Disabilities don't work like a sliding scale relative to the rest of the population. Christ this thread is a huge ignorant jerkoff.

I'm not correcting for their disability. I'm correcting for them effectively not being timed on the lsat which fucks it up. I'd probably give them even more time.

Assuming they are decent cross section of intelligence when accommodated, it should be a pretty fair match up.

[Dr. Dre]

Disabilities don't work like a sliding scale relative to the rest of the population. Christ this thread is a huge ignorant jerkoff.

not ignorant. just pointing out to something that is reasonable yet unpractical.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Still not seeing a problem with simply reporting it or noting it on file, independent of all these other issues.

[Dr. Dre]

Still not seeing a problem with simply reporting it or noting it on file, independent of all these other issues.

+1

if law schools discriminate take it up on them...why the LSAC. don't kill the messenger.

[Arcticlynx]

This is tough, and I can totally see if from both sides… It think people with disabilities should get accommodation and not be discriminated against when LSAT scores are reported. But there is no question that extra time and other accommodations impart a fairly significant advantage, even for those who qualify as disabled. I mean the LSAT is supposed to be an objective test and there is no way to delineate and say one person is 20% disabled and another is 45% and give time accordingly. I mean disability is a relative measurement, and if we start an absolute measurement then were are all partially disabled even if it’s 1% or 0.1%, because there is probably someone who is genetically gifted to think and read faster than us. We don’t live in a black in white world, and it not like we are going to give one person a 5 second head start in the 400m race because they have asthma, and would we start them at the same time as someone who is anemic, before? after? How can we make an objective call about how much accommodation to afford one person over another… The fact is that the LSAT is an indirect completion, so if one person is given extra accommodation to help them succeed than that accommodation is given at the expense of someone else; for one person to win, someone else has to lose. If we could all get a 180 and go to HYS, than accommodation wouldn’t be an issue but that’s not how the rules of this game work.

Does being disabled give an admissions boost like URM??? Maybe it should? That would turn a flagged test into a net positive, and allow admissions to take account of disabilities in a more organic manner. My solution would be to reduce the weight of the LSAT entirely and base admission more strongly on other factors like recommendations, experience, scholarship…

[Dr. Dre]

Does being disabled give an admissions boost like URM??? Maybe it should? That would turn a flagged test into a net positive, and allow admissions to take account of disabilities in a more organic manner. My solution would be to reduce the weight of the LSAT entirely and base admission more strongly on other factors like recommendations, experience, scholarship…

(1) boost for disabled person? MAYEB

(2) reduce weight of LSAT? NEVER

[Dr. Dre]

factors like recommendations, experience, scholarship…

law school is not like any other graduate program. it is not a scholarship/fellowship competition either.

the LSAT ought to stay.

[jselson]

factors like recommendations, experience, scholarship…

law school is not like any other graduate program. it is not a scholarship/fellowship competition either.

the LSAT ought to stay.

Right. Is there any other graduate program where class rank has such a huge influence on outcome? You go for a PhD and get it, that's all that matters. You go for an MD, and you get to practice. You go for an MBA, and it's all networking and work experience. Law School is structured so differently, and the LSAT is already pretty predictive (far better than other graduate-level entrance exams), that it'd be ridic to get rid of it or even reduce its influence much. It's the only measure that schools have where everyone is under the exact same conditions, and it's similar to how law school is graded - a single, high-stakes test where there are definitive right and wrong answers. if you're doing a PhD, it's writing and research that's most important for the job, and that's what schools mostly look for in candidates. For an MBA, creativity and a good track-record. With the law, if you can't spot the correct way to apply laws/precedents/regulations/norms/etc., you might lose your client tons of cash or ruin his/her life. So spotting issues quickly and accurately is really important.

[Dr. Dre]

it'd be ridic to get rid of it or even reduce its influence much.

+1

[Tanicius]

factors like recommendations, experience, scholarship…

law school is not like any other graduate program. it is not a scholarship/fellowship competition either.

the LSAT ought to stay.

Right. Is there any other graduate program where class rank has such a huge influence on outcome? You go for a PhD and get it, that's all that matters. You go for an MD, and you get to practice. You go for an MBA, and it's all networking and work experience. Law School is structured so differently, and the LSAT is already pretty predictive (far better than other graduate-level entrance exams), that it'd be ridic to get rid of it or even reduce its influence much. It's the only measure that schools have where everyone is under the exact same conditions, and it's similar to how law school is graded - a single, high-stakes test where there are definitive right and wrong answers. if you're doing a PhD, it's writing and research that's most important for the job, and that's what schools mostly look for in candidates. For an MBA, creativity and a good track-record. With the law, if you can't spot the correct way to apply laws/precedents/regulations/norms/etc., you might lose your client tons of cash or ruin his/her life. So spotting issues quickly and accurately is really important.

I don't agree "spotting issues quickly" is in fact necessary pretty much at all. Everyone here seems to be tackling this from a bigfirm perspective. In a big firm, you get spoon fed what the issues are before you even understand the substance. The skills aren't "spotting issues quickly"; they are pushing paper, being sociable, and not procrastinating.

[Samara]

I believe they should never stop reporting which students received extra time to schools. (They should stop reporting people who are legally blind and need the test in braille or really big print or things of that nature, though).

Braille and large-print test takers get extra time, too. I believe all accommodated testers get at least some extra time.

[Tanicius]

I believe they should never stop reporting which students received extra time to schools. (They should stop reporting people who are legally blind and need the test in braille or really big print or things of that nature, though).

Why do those disabilities warrant protection over others?

[stuckinthemiddle]

Honestly, if a disabled person's LSAT doesn't factor into the schools' medians/rankings, then wouldn't it be better? That would mean that the school would base their decisions almost 100% on GPA, and I'm assuming that these people do better on that metric than on the LSAT anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

[Dr. Dre]

I don't agree "spotting issues quickly" is in fact necessary pretty much at all. Everyone here seems to be tackling this from a bigfirm perspective. In a big firm, you get spoon fed what the issues are before you even understand the substance. The skills aren't "spotting issues quickly"; they are pushing paper, being sociable, and not procrastinating.

he never said it was necessary; just that it was important. don't equivocate.

[jselson]

I don't agree "spotting issues quickly" is in fact necessary pretty much at all. Everyone here seems to be tackling this from a bigfirm perspective. In a big firm, you get spoon fed what the issues are before you even understand the substance. The skills aren't "spotting issues quickly"; they are pushing paper, being sociable, and not procrastinating.

he never said it was necessary; just that it was important. don't equivocate.

Difficulty 3 LSAT question just written, lol.

[Dr. Dre]

I don't agree "spotting issues quickly" is in fact necessary pretty much at all. Everyone here seems to be tackling this from a bigfirm perspective. In a big firm, you get spoon fed what the issues are before you even understand the substance. The skills aren't "spotting issues quickly"; they are pushing paper, being sociable, and not procrastinating.

he never said it was necessary; just that it was important. don't equivocate.

Difficulty 3 LSAT question just written, lol.

indeed, my friend

[Tanicius]

I don't agree "spotting issues quickly" is in fact necessary pretty much at all. Everyone here seems to be tackling this from a bigfirm perspective. In a big firm, you get spoon fed what the issues are before you even understand the substance. The skills aren't "spotting issues quickly"; they are pushing paper, being sociable, and not procrastinating.

he never said it was necessary; just that it was important. don't equivocate.

Researching thoroughly and writing cleanly and accurately are both far more "important" than spotting issues quickly. And those two factors are not really tested on the LSAT at all. In fact, analytical writing is a skill that is pretty much ignored on the LSAT and in the admissions package you submit in its entirety to the school.

[Dr. Dre]

(1) Researching thoroughly and writing cleanly and accurately are both far more "important" than spotting issues quickly. And those two factors are not really tested on the LSAT at all. In fact, (2) analytical writing is a skill that is pretty much ignored on the LSAT and in the admissions package you submit in its entirety to the school.

(1)No. writing ability<reasoning ability

(2)do you know why it's ignored in the admissions package? because it's so subjective.

probably the only time you can prove your writing ability is through your PS....but, how many times would one have edited their PS: been read by peers/teachers/advisors and proofread over and over again....LSAT tests exactly what is important. none of the bullcrap you call writing skills, filling paperwork, socializing.

[sfhaze]

Researching thoroughly and writing cleanly and accurately are both far more "important" than spotting issues quickly. And those two factors are not really tested on the LSAT at all. In fact, analytical writing is a skill that is pretty much ignored on the LSAT and in the admissions package you submit in its entirety to the school.

I seriously doubt the truth about law practice will faze these two logicians.

[Tanicius]

(1) Researching thoroughly and writing cleanly and accurately are both far more "important" than spotting issues quickly. And those two factors are not really tested on the LSAT at all. In fact, (2) analytical writing is a skill that is pretty much ignored on the LSAT and in the admissions package you submit in its entirety to the school.

(1)No. writing ability<reasoning ability

"Spotting issues quickly" is not an integral component of either of those.

(2)do you know why it's ignored in the admissions package? because it's so subjective.

Oh Gosh, good point. We certainly don't want to associate the formal science of legal practice with other subjective grad school programs that involve writing and analysis, like History and English and Policy.

probably the only time you can prove your writing ability is through your PS....but, how many times would one have edited their PS: been read by peers/teachers/advisors and proofread over and over again....LSAT tests exactly what is important. none of the bullcrap you call writing skills, filling paperwork, socializing.

bullcrap you call writing skills

bullcrap ... writing skills

LOL, no need to equivocate now. I'll go ahead and say "spotting issues" involves a lot more bullcrap that writing persuasively and succinctly. Do you realize that virtually none of that "issue spotting" and "reasoning" is actually used for the first few years of practice unless you're out there practicing law by yourself? When you write a motion, you're using a template that a million other people have already used. Most of the case law is already summarized; you have to look up the keycites to make sure a new case hasn't changed it, and if it has, congrats - you get to finally do a couple pages of new reasoning. You also talk about subjectivity as if that isn't the biggest part of legal reasoning in the first place. Writing briefs and arguing in front of a judge/jury isn't a science. You can give the assignment to five top notch attorneys, and they'll all analyze it differently. Issue spotting is borderline irrelevant compared these other skills.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

(1) Researching thoroughly and writing cleanly and accurately are both far more "important" than spotting issues quickly. And those two factors are not really tested on the LSAT at all. In fact, (2) analytical writing is a skill that is pretty much ignored on the LSAT and in the admissions package you submit in its entirety to the school.

(1)No. writing ability<reasoning ability

Meh, not really.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Word of advice: 0Ls should not be lecturing on what is more integral to being an attorney.

And once more because people on the other side of the argument still haven't responded to this:

Still not seeing a problem with simply reporting it or noting it on file, independent of all these other issues.

[Tanicius]

Word of advice: 0Ls should not be lecturing on what is more integral to being an attorney.

And once more because people on the other side of the argument still haven't responded to this:

Still not seeing a problem with simply reporting it or noting it on file, independent of all these other issues.

I have a problem with it because part of LSAC's role in regulating law school admissions ought to be keeping the playing field level and not unnecessarily enabling institutions to discriminate.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Word of advice: 0Ls should not be lecturing on what is more integral to being an attorney.

And once more because people on the other side of the argument still haven't responded to this:

Still not seeing a problem with simply reporting it or noting it on file, independent of all these other issues.

I have a problem with it because part of LSAC's role in regulating law school admissions ought to be keeping the playing field level and not unnecessarily enabling institutions to discriminate.

How is the reporting of a statement of fact (X had these accommodations on the LSAT due to Y) enabling institutions to discriminate?

[Tanicius]

Word of advice: 0Ls should not be lecturing on what is more integral to being an attorney.

And once more because people on the other side of the argument still haven't responded to this:

Still not seeing a problem with simply reporting it or noting it on file, independent of all these other issues.

I have a problem with it because part of LSAC's role in regulating law school admissions ought to be keeping the playing field level and not unnecessarily enabling institutions to discriminate.

How is the reporting of a statement of fact (X had these accommodations on the LSAT due to Y) enabling institutions to discriminate?

It enables the institution to know that an applicant has a disability and hold it against them. The institution may decide, without reason, that the LSAT score noted is not the applicant's deserved score. The applicant is pressed into a catch-22: they risk rejection for a test score that does not reflect their actual abilities because they did not request a reasonable accommodation by LSAC, or they risk rejection for a label as a disabled person, which they may not wish to disclose to the institution they are applying to. It is not exactly the same but it is similar to the rationale for why employers are prohibited from asking an applicant to disclose their familial status or intention to have a pregnancy.