New case affecting law school admissions Forum

[socrates775]

this is a recent case developing out of Detroit that has national implications and a particular relevance to admissions standards and guidelines used by law schools and the american bar association.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles ... =fullstory

[Lawst]

this is a recent case developing out of Detroit that has national implications and a particular relevance to admissions standards and guidelines used by law schools and the american bar association.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles ... =fullstory

That's what they call burying the lead - the news is that someone got rejected from Cooley.

Interesting story, though. I wonder what implications it would have beyond the disabled.

Also? I remember that logic game with the airplane seating. Sad but true. Scarred for life by all the LSAT PTs.

[skers]

While it might be near impossible to work through logic games without drawing pictures, the LSAT doesn't require one to do so. It's just encouraged. I don't think being unable to do something that makes something easier is necessarily discriminatory. The guy who supposedly can remember all of his cell phone contacts (which I'm guessing is just an indication that he doesn't have many contacts) can't remember who eats what for dinner eat day of the weeK/ Plus, anyone who can't get into Cooley shouldn't be allowed to go to law school. One section on the LSAT doesn't cause fucking up that hard.

[GATORTIM]

“Why is it necessary to make a blind person draw pictures to become a lawyer?” said Bernstein.

I don't think he has a strong argument. This statement was made right after the article said that he doesn't store numbers in his phone because he can memorize all of his contacts. The LSAT (which I feel is a ridiculous admissions test) isn't asking test-takers to produce artwork that Thomas Crowne would travel to the ends of the earth to steal. Drawing crude sketches is just a way to help answer questions.

This guy should just get more time on the exam and his disability would be a compelling component of his application. I can't imagine this case having any radical impact on the LSAT, although I wish it would.

[Bill Cosby]

“Why is it necessary to make a blind person draw pictures to become a lawyer?” said Bernstein.

I don't think he has a strong argument. This statement was made right after the article said that he doesn't store numbers in his phone because he can memorize all of his contacts. The LSAT (which I feel is a ridiculous admissions test) isn't asking test-takers to produce artwork that Thomas Crowne would travel to the ends of the earth to steal. Drawing crude sketches is just a way to help answer questions.

This guy should just get more time on the exam and his disability would be a compelling component of his application. I can't imagine this case having any radical impact on the LSAT, although I wish it would.

I don't. It's the only part of the system that ensures some sort of reasonable comparison.

[kwais]

Did anyone notice the "logic games comprises 60 of the 180 points" part?

[Patriot1208]

guy in the article says he just wants a chance to be evaluated despite the LSAT and is suing the ABA and LSAC because for that? LSAC didn't decide to deny him admissions the schools did. LSAC also doesn't pressure the schools to have high medians, their hard on for rankings did that. And if he can't get into cooley then he has bigger problems than not being able to draw a logic game diagram.

[pwyoung]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

[Renzo]

While it might be near impossible to work through logic games without drawing pictures, the LSAT doesn't require one to do so. It's just encouraged. I don't think being unable to do something that makes something easier is necessarily discriminatory.

Agreed. I never diagrammed any games; not in practice and not on the real thing. So, it can be done.

Although, it is bullshit that schools can't enroll him without requiring an LSAT score.

[Patriot1208]

While it might be near impossible to work through logic games without drawing pictures, the LSAT doesn't require one to do so. It's just encouraged. I don't think being unable to do something that makes something easier is necessarily discriminatory.

Agreed. I never diagrammed any games; not in practice and not on the real thing. So, it can be done.

Although, it is bullshit that schools can't enroll him without requiring an LSAT score.

That's pretty impressive

[Renzo]

While it might be near impossible to work through logic games without drawing pictures, the LSAT doesn't require one to do so. It's just encouraged. I don't think being unable to do something that makes something easier is necessarily discriminatory.

Agreed. I never diagrammed any games; not in practice and not on the real thing. So, it can be done.

Although, it is bullshit that schools can't enroll him without requiring an LSAT score.

That's pretty impressive

I tried to learn to diagram, but it made me so slow I couldn't finish all the games.

[03121202698008]

We have several blind people at Michigan. Somehow they took the LSAT...one guy has absolutely no sight and a dog.

[CanadianWolf]

Northwestern will permit him to take the GMAT in lieu of the LSAT. Also, several law schools (e.g., Michigan & Valpo) admit highly qualified undergraduates from that law school's university without taking the LSAT.
In light of the above, it looks like he may have a case that could affect the LSAT requirement for law school admission since several ABA accredited law schools think that the LSAT is not necessary for all applicants.

[09042014]

We have several blind people at Michigan. Somehow they took the LSAT...one guy has absolutely no sight and a dog.

That doesn't mean the LSAT still didn't massively discriminate against him. Those blind people could have 1) gotten in without an LSAT like U of M allows it's undergrads to do. 2) done really terribly on the LSAT and written an addendum about it.

What is the harm in allowing a blind person to take an LSAT without an LG section?

Although technically the ABA doesn't require the LSAT, they just require a standardized test. That how U of M gets away with letting in it's undergrads, and how NU gets away with letting people in based on their GMAT.

[03121202698008]

We have several blind people at Michigan. Somehow they took the LSAT...one guy has absolutely no sight and a dog.

That doesn't mean the LSAT still didn't massively discriminate against him. Those blind people could have 1) gotten in without an LSAT like U of M allows it's undergrads to do. 2) done really terribly on the LSAT and written an addendum about it.

What is the harm in allowing a blind person to take an LSAT without an LG section?

Although technically the ABA doesn't require the LSAT, they just require a standardized test. That how U of M gets away with letting in it's undergrads, and how NU gets away with letting people in based on their GMAT.

I agree with the fact they were probably accommodated (and rightly so). Wouldn't taking an incomplete LSAT affect the curve somehow? Also, why put on LSAC to accomodate versus the individual school. Since the school will need to accommodate them in class/on finals..why wouldn't they just accomodate for admissions to?

[TheOcho]

I would be interested to see how he scored on the other sections of the test.

[09042014]

We have several blind people at Michigan. Somehow they took the LSAT...one guy has absolutely no sight and a dog.

That doesn't mean the LSAT still didn't massively discriminate against him. Those blind people could have 1) gotten in without an LSAT like U of M allows it's undergrads to do. 2) done really terribly on the LSAT and written an addendum about it.

What is the harm in allowing a blind person to take an LSAT without an LG section?

Although technically the ABA doesn't require the LSAT, they just require a standardized test. That how U of M gets away with letting in it's undergrads, and how NU gets away with letting people in based on their GMAT.

I agree with the fact they were probably accommodated (and rightly so). Wouldn't taking an incomplete LSAT affect the curve somehow? Also, why put on LSAC to accomodate versus the individual school. Since the school will need to accommodate them in class/on finals..why wouldn't they just accomodate for admissions to?

It would be trivial to come up with a 2RC-2LR curved test. It wouldn't be exactly the same but it'd be damn close.

I think the push to make LSAC accommodate is because set themselves as the monopoly of Law school admissions testing, and the ABA requires an admissions test. There are ways to get around it, but I don't know if schools allow it for blind people.

I think they should just give blind people a modified test, because LG without being able to diagram is much harder than without diagramming. I almost don't believe it's possible, but Renzo claims he did it.

[03121202698008]

We have several blind people at Michigan. Somehow they took the LSAT...one guy has absolutely no sight and a dog.

That doesn't mean the LSAT still didn't massively discriminate against him. Those blind people could have 1) gotten in without an LSAT like U of M allows it's undergrads to do. 2) done really terribly on the LSAT and written an addendum about it.

What is the harm in allowing a blind person to take an LSAT without an LG section?

Although technically the ABA doesn't require the LSAT, they just require a standardized test. That how U of M gets away with letting in it's undergrads, and how NU gets away with letting people in based on their GMAT.

I agree with the fact they were probably accommodated (and rightly so). Wouldn't taking an incomplete LSAT affect the curve somehow? Also, why put on LSAC to accomodate versus the individual school. Since the school will need to accommodate them in class/on finals..why wouldn't they just accomodate for admissions to?

It would be trivial to come up with a 2RC-2LR curved test. It wouldn't be exactly the same but it'd be damn close.

I think the push to make LSAC accommodate is because set themselves as the monopoly of Law school admissions testing, and the ABA requires an admissions test. There are ways to get around it, but I don't know if schools allow it for blind people.

I think they should just give blind people a modified test, because LG without being able to diagram is much harder than without diagramming. I almost don't believe it's possible, but Renzo claims he did it.

Yeah, I see your point. BTW, how shitty must his other sections have been to not get into Cooley? Can't you practically leave games blank and still score within Cooley's range?

[09042014]

That doesn't mean the LSAT still didn't massively discriminate against him. Those blind people could have 1) gotten in without an LSAT like U of M allows it's undergrads to do. 2) done really terribly on the LSAT and written an addendum about it.

What is the harm in allowing a blind person to take an LSAT without an LG section?

Although technically the ABA doesn't require the LSAT, they just require a standardized test. That how U of M gets away with letting in it's undergrads, and how NU gets away with letting people in based on their GMAT.

I agree with the fact they were probably accommodated (and rightly so). Wouldn't taking an incomplete LSAT affect the curve somehow? Also, why put on LSAC to accomodate versus the individual school. Since the school will need to accommodate them in class/on finals..why wouldn't they just accomodate for admissions to?

It would be trivial to come up with a 2RC-2LR curved test. It wouldn't be exactly the same but it'd be damn close.

I think the push to make LSAC accommodate is because set themselves as the monopoly of Law school admissions testing, and the ABA requires an admissions test. There are ways to get around it, but I don't know if schools allow it for blind people.

I think they should just give blind people a modified test, because LG without being able to diagram is much harder than without diagramming. I almost don't believe it's possible, but Renzo claims he did it.

Yeah, I see your point. BTW, how shitty must his other sections have been to not get into Cooley? Can't you practically leave games blank and still score within Cooley's range?

I doubt he was knocking on the doors of the HLS but even a 157 becomes a 140 with a blank LG section.

[03121202698008]

I doubt he was knocking on the doors of the HLS but even a 157 becomes a 140 with a blank LG section.

Their median was only 148 or something. Just saying...if he's taken it like 6 times and can't get in the 140s without games altogether...law school's not right for him no matter if he's blind or not.

Also...really? The ABA is threatening accreditation for admitting blind kids? Doesn't experience tell use the ABA would accredit my dog to teach the law? I really hope this case gets assigned to my judge...lol.

[Renzo]

We have several blind people at Michigan. Somehow they took the LSAT...one guy has absolutely no sight and a dog.

That doesn't mean the LSAT still didn't massively discriminate against him. Those blind people could have 1) gotten in without an LSAT like U of M allows it's undergrads to do. 2) done really terribly on the LSAT and written an addendum about it.

What is the harm in allowing a blind person to take an LSAT without an LG section?

Although technically the ABA doesn't require the LSAT, they just require a standardized test. That how U of M gets away with letting in it's undergrads, and how NU gets away with letting people in based on their GMAT.

I agree with the fact they were probably accommodated (and rightly so). Wouldn't taking an incomplete LSAT affect the curve somehow? Also, why put on LSAC to accomodate versus the individual school. Since the school will need to accommodate them in class/on finals..why wouldn't they just accomodate for admissions to?

It would be trivial to come up with a 2RC-2LR curved test. It wouldn't be exactly the same but it'd be damn close.

I think the push to make LSAC accommodate is because set themselves as the monopoly of Law school admissions testing, and the ABA requires an admissions test. There are ways to get around it, but I don't know if schools allow it for blind people.

I think they should just give blind people a modified test, because LG without being able to diagram is much harder than without diagramming. I almost don't believe it's possible, but Renzo claims he did it.

I didn't realize that I was making such an outlandish claim . To be clear, I did make little notes to myself (which a blind person could not), but no picture or graphs.

But you actually make a good point. It would be fairer to have a relatively standardized test for the blind, rather than letting each school figure it out for themselves.

[09042014]

I didn't realize that I was making such an outlandish claim . To be clear, I did make little notes to myself (which a blind person could not), but no picture or graphs.

But you actually make a good point. It would be fairer to have a relatively standardized test for the blind, rather than letting each school figure it out for themselves.

It's not supremely outlandish if you have a mind well suited to keeping track of the order of things. But the average person just can't do that. I tried doing it on my first LG section because I didn't know any better and I couldn't get any questions right (other than the first one which is usually stupidly easy).

[Rock-N-Roll]

If the problem is not being able to write things out, LSAC could allow visually impaired to use small braille tiles (like Scrabble tiles) to allow them to be able to represent the sequences and charts for LGs.

[Renzo]

I didn't realize that I was making such an outlandish claim . To be clear, I did make little notes to myself (which a blind person could not), but no picture or graphs.

But you actually make a good point. It would be fairer to have a relatively standardized test for the blind, rather than letting each school figure it out for themselves.

It's not supremely outlandish if you have a mind well suited to keeping track of the order of things. But the average person just can't do that. I tried doing it on my first LG section because I didn't know any better and I couldn't get any questions right (other than the first one which is usually stupidly easy).

Yeah. Rote memorization is basically impossible for me (I don't know my own home phone number without looking, and I'm prone to forget my own birthday), but organization and systems of things are easy.

[03121202698008]

I didn't realize that I was making such an outlandish claim . To be clear, I did make little notes to myself (which a blind person could not), but no picture or graphs.

But you actually make a good point. It would be fairer to have a relatively standardized test for the blind, rather than letting each school figure it out for themselves.

It's not supremely outlandish if you have a mind well suited to keeping track of the order of things. But the average person just can't do that. I tried doing it on my first LG section because I didn't know any better and I couldn't get any questions right (other than the first one which is usually stupidly easy).

Yeah. Rote memorization is basically impossible for me (I don't know my own home phone number without looking, and I'm prone to forget my own birthday), but organization and systems of things are easy.

You should read http://www.amazon.com/Memory-Book-Class ... 0345410025. It's the exact opposite of Rote. You'd probably be killer at remembering numbers if you ordered them into a visual system. May sound crazy...but this kind of system actually works. I read this book when I was 12 and can still recite the 25 random word list in the first chapter without ever having looked at it again. When I was still in practice for coming up with the words...I could remember up to like 50 digits after a single reading. Came in handy reading serial numbers off doors when I was stationed in ND and it was -35. Used to just go back to the truck and call them all in one at a time from memory.