Penn Law Honors Forum

[Anonymous User]

Obviously no one cares about people getting a more quiet room to take a test in the same amount of time as everyone else. Saying it’s an extra hour is downplaying the extra time accommodations, though.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously no one cares about people getting a more quiet room to take a test in the same amount of time as everyone else. Saying it’s an extra hour is downplaying the extra time accommodations, though.

So salty. It shouldn't bother you that your classmates with legitimate ADHD and other confirmed diagnoses (except testing anxiety, because that's literally fake) get 1.5 or 2 extra hours. If it does, you really need to do some introspection.

On the flip side, anyone who defends all students with accommodations is defending cheaters. That's just the state of play right now.

[Anonymous User]

I always wonder how many of the people complaining about the lax process for receiving accommodations have actually gotten accommodations, because I did not find it particularly lax at Penn for my (very obvious, lifelong) disability. I also did not receive all the accommodations I requested. I coached other folks through the accommodations process who also faced an uphill battle getting approved, including for ADHD. There are absolutely ways to manipulate the system (especially if you have a physician who is unethical) but it's not nearly as simple as people describe. As a result, it does not surprise me at all that someone with cancer is struggling with getting the accommodations she needs from Penn.

I think the general suspicion is that it’s easy to get accommodations for those who are willing to be unethical, including by seeking out unethical doctors, so this account doesn’t really go to the meat of the complaints. Do you think there is another step of the accommodations process for ADHD and extra time that people are missing or ignoring? Beyond providing a doctor’s note stating that extra time is needed?

This is why I say I'm not sure how many folks actually have gone through the accommodations process, because in my experience Penn doesn't just require a note stating extra time is needed. You have to have gotten the full array of testing recently (irrespective of how long you've had ADHD). You are also supposed to provide your disability history, including the previous testing results you've had, the accommodations you've received from other academic institutions, etc. When I say there may be unethical doctors, I mean doctors that are either lying about the testing results or are producing falsified tests.

[Anonymous User]

I'll go there, I don't understand extra time for ADHD on a timed exam that's intended to assess who is better at processing information in a timed environment.

It's like getting extra time for a race because you're a slow runner.

In a bar exam that's not supposed to be a competition, sure. But not in LSAT or exams.

[Anonymous User]

I always wonder how many of the people complaining about the lax process for receiving accommodations have actually gotten accommodations, because I did not find it particularly lax at Penn for my (very obvious, lifelong) disability. I also did not receive all the accommodations I requested. I coached other folks through the accommodations process who also faced an uphill battle getting approved, including for ADHD. There are absolutely ways to manipulate the system (especially if you have a physician who is unethical) but it's not nearly as simple as people describe. As a result, it does not surprise me at all that someone with cancer is struggling with getting the accommodations she needs from Penn.

I think the general suspicion is that it’s easy to get accommodations for those who are willing to be unethical, including by seeking out unethical doctors, so this account doesn’t really go to the meat of the complaints. Do you think there is another step of the accommodations process for ADHD and extra time that people are missing or ignoring? Beyond providing a doctor’s note stating that extra time is needed?

This is why I say I'm not sure how many folks actually have gone through the accommodations process, because in my experience Penn doesn't just require a note stating extra time is needed. You have to have gotten the full array of testing recently (irrespective of how long you've had ADHD). You are also supposed to provide your disability history, including the previous testing results you've had, the accommodations you've received from other academic institutions, etc. When I say there may be unethical doctors, I mean doctors that are either lying about the testing results or are producing falsified tests.

That sounds like it may be difficult for those who have had an ADHD diagnosis since childhood but didn’t seek accommodations until law school. (Query whether that person should be allowed to rely on an old diagnosis, given how much ADHD is over-diagnosed in children.) It does not sound difficult for the student who decides mid-1L to seek extra time, gets “tested” for ADHD for the first time, and shows up to the accommodations office with a recent test result.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously no one cares about people getting a more quiet room to take a test in the same amount of time as everyone else. Saying it’s an extra hour is downplaying the extra time accommodations, though.

So salty. It shouldn't bother you that your classmates with legitimate ADHD and other confirmed diagnoses (except testing anxiety, because that's literally fake) get 1.5 or 2 extra hours. If it does, you really need to do some introspection.

On the flip side, anyone who defends all students with accommodations is defending cheaters. That's just the state of play right now.

It doesn’t matter how long the extra time is in absolute terms. If you have 50% extra time on a three-hour test, that extra hour and a half is a huge advantage. Worth noting that there is mixed evidence behind the idea that extra time is even an appropriate way of leveling the playing field for students with ADHD.

[Anonymous User]

I'll go there, I don't understand extra time for ADHD on a timed exam that's intended to assess who is better at processing information in a timed environment.

It's like getting extra time for a race because you're a slow runner.

In a bar exam that's not supposed to be a competition, sure. But not in LSAT or exams.

As someone who got extra time for ADHD, I agree with you in the abstract—it's illogical and unfair. But it is even more illogical and unfair to assess one's performance in class and project your legal abilities on the basis of an exam that is structured in a way that disadvantages a large portion of the class. Rather than address the underlying unfairness of the typical law school exam, schools have slapped an unfair bandaid on top of it, on the theory that the unfairness balances itself out.

To give you some insight into my ADHD: for whatever reason, I have always struggled producing written content in short, time-pressured windows where quality and perfection are not important (e.g., I got a 6 out of 12 on my SAT writing section lol (this was pre-diagnosis)). It doesn't take me longer to write polished product (e.g., a paper in law school, a brief in practice) than anyone else. But if you ask me to write as much as I can on a given topic in 30 minutes, I will write about half as much as someone without ADHD.

In practice (litigation), I have not come across anything where my ADHD is as much as a disadvantage as it was on law school exams, though I assume there are a few things out there (emergency petitions in capital cases, for example). I don't think it's right to penalize people like me for something that we have no control over when it has little to no bearing on our actual understanding of the material or our skill as a lawyer. But I think it would be a lot better for everyone if law schools attempted to address the root problem with exam structure rather than applying a bandaid solution that presents its own fairness issues.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's right to penalize people like me for something that we have no control over when it has little to no bearing on our actual understanding of the material or our skill as a lawyer.

This is an argument against having any test or evaluation in law school, or reinventing the entire system so that we only take practical legal research and writing type courses.

[Anonymous User]

I'll go there, I don't understand extra time for ADHD on a timed exam that's intended to assess who is better at processing information in a timed environment.

It's like getting extra time for a race because you're a slow runner.

In a bar exam that's not supposed to be a competition, sure. But not in LSAT or exams.

As someone who got extra time for ADHD, I agree with you in the abstract—it's illogical and unfair. But it is even more illogical and unfair to assess one's performance in class and project your legal abilities on the basis of an exam that is structured in a way that disadvantages a large portion of the class. Rather than address the underlying unfairness of the typical law school exam, schools have slapped an unfair bandaid on top of it, on the theory that the unfairness balances itself out.

To give you some insight into my ADHD: for whatever reason, I have always struggled producing written content in short, time-pressured windows where quality and perfection are not important (e.g., I got a 6 out of 12 on my SAT writing section lol (this was pre-diagnosis)). It doesn't take me longer to write polished product (e.g., a paper in law school, a brief in practice) than anyone else. But if you ask me to write as much as I can on a given topic in 30 minutes, I will write about half as much as someone without ADHD.

In practice (litigation), I have not come across anything where my ADHD is as much as a disadvantage as it was on law school exams, though I assume there are a few things out there (emergency petitions in capital cases, for example). I don't think it's right to penalize people like me for something that we have no control over when it has little to no bearing on our actual understanding of the material or our skill as a lawyer. But I think it would be a lot better for everyone if law schools attempted to address the root problem with exam structure rather than applying a bandaid solution that presents its own fairness issues.

^^ This is the way. The pressure should not be on schools to remove or deny accommodations which might hamper the ability of good lawyers to enter the profession, the pressure should be on schools to make exams fairer and more reflective of actual practice.

[Anonymous User]

People are cheating so we should reinvent law school altogether? Come on.

[Anonymous User]

People are cheating so we should reinvent law school altogether? Come on.

So how do you propose separating out legitimate accommodations from illegitimate ones?

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's right to penalize people like me for something that we have no control over when it has little to no bearing on our actual understanding of the material or our skill as a lawyer.

This is an argument against having any test or evaluation in law school, or reinventing the entire system so that we only take practical legal research and writing type courses.

Not necessarily—for example, some professors give exams that are 4 hours of content but you have 8 hours to complete it. I wouldn't get any disadvantage from that structure, and that's obviously not that radical from what we have now.

It's also worth remembering that you "normies" are the ones whining about extra time, i.e., the current state of affairs. That sentence was an argument for why extra time shouldn't be taken away; I think most people who actually have ADHD are perfectly happy to keep on keeping on with the system as is. All I am saying is that I see how the extra time accommodation is unfair for people without accommodations, especially given how many people seem to be able to qualify for it, and that if we take it away, we should think about ways to remedy the underlying problem that extra time is supposed to be solving.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's right to penalize people like me for something that we have no control over when it has little to no bearing on our actual understanding of the material or our skill as a lawyer.

This is an argument against having any test or evaluation in law school, or reinventing the entire system so that we only take practical legal research and writing type courses.

Not necessarily—for example, some professors give exams that are 4 hours of content but you have 8 hours to complete it. I wouldn't get any disadvantage from that structure, and that's obviously not that radical from what we have now.

It's also worth remembering that you "normies" are the ones whining about extra time, i.e., the current state of affairs. That sentence was an argument for why extra time shouldn't be taken away; I think most people who actually have ADHD are perfectly happy to keep on keeping on with the system as is. All I am saying is that I see how the extra time accommodation is unfair for people without accommodations, especially given how many people seem to be able to qualify for it, and that if we take it away, we should think about ways to remedy the underlying problem that extra time is supposed to be solving.

This only works if you give more time than is technically needed and therefore say that no one needs time accommodations. If you have an eight-hour test and some people get twelve, that’s still an unfair advantage. Even if it’s only four hours of content, it’s helpful to have the extra time to look up answers. To eliminate the benefit of time accommodations, you would have to get closer to the 48 hour mark, and then you can have issues related to compressing the curve.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's right to penalize people like me for something that we have no control over when it has little to no bearing on our actual understanding of the material or our skill as a lawyer.

This is an argument against having any test or evaluation in law school, or reinventing the entire system so that we only take practical legal research and writing type courses.

Not necessarily—for example, some professors give exams that are 4 hours of content but you have 8 hours to complete it. I wouldn't get any disadvantage from that structure, and that's obviously not that radical from what we have now.

It's also worth remembering that you "normies" are the ones whining about extra time, i.e., the current state of affairs. That sentence was an argument for why extra time shouldn't be taken away; I think most people who actually have ADHD are perfectly happy to keep on keeping on with the system as is. All I am saying is that I see how the extra time accommodation is unfair for people without accommodations, especially given how many people seem to be able to qualify for it, and that if we take it away, we should think about ways to remedy the underlying problem that extra time is supposed to be solving.

This only works if you give more time than is technically needed and therefore say that no one needs time accommodations. If you have an eight-hour test and some people get twelve, that’s still an unfair advantage. Even if it’s only four hours of content, it’s helpful to have the extra time to look up answers. To eliminate the benefit of time accommodations, you would have to get closer to the 48 hour mark, and then you can have issues related to compressing the curve.

Correct, that's what I mean (at least for ADHD, if you have a broken hand or something and just can't type as fast, obviously time accommodations are an appropriate remedy). Word limits are helpful here too so exam answers don't get out of hand.

[Anonymous User]

Steering this thread back to its original intent... Just did the math, 3.94 was order but not summa

[mjaseidh]

3.8 was enough for cum this year. No idea what the range was.

[Anonymous User]

3.93 got order and magna.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know what the cutoffs were this year?

[Anonymous User]

3.96 was magna / coif.

[Anonymous User]

3.72, no cum

[Anonymous User]

3.75. no cum