extra time on exams for disabilities Forum

[mikeytwoshoes]

Didn't you bite someone's head off a few pages back for saying one anecdote does not a trend make? *CHOMP* What goes around comes around.

Trend:

Sponsorship from ABA’s 2nd Annual Conference on Employment of Lawyers with Disabilities

Platinum Donors
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
Jenner & Block, LLP
Gold Donors
Jackson Lewis, LLP
LexisNexis®
Littler Mendelson,
P.C. Schiff Hardin, LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
WalMart Stores, Inc.
Silver Donors
ABA Office of the President
Baker Botts, LLP
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

But you're right; it's just an anecdote.

Dude firms will sponsor a bathroom if you put their name and logo in the program. This doesn't equal "accomodations" and you know it.

The point was that it was a conference put on by the ABA, and the firms participated and sponsored the conference. The firms also sent lawyers to participate in the conference. I seriously doubt lawyers would put in the time to develop programs like the following if they were entirely unwilling or unable to provide accommodations.

--LinkRemoved--

Title
Session I: Making the Pledge to Hire Lawyers with Disabilities
Start Time
6/16/2009 9:15 AM
End Time
6/16/2009 10:00 AM
Schedule Type
Schedule; CLE Event
All Day Event

Recurrence

Workspace

Description

This panel will identify current problems in the legal profession regarding the low numbers of lawyers with disabilities. It will emphasize the need to include disability when employers think about diversity, and the Conference’s “Pledge for Change.”
Speakers

Moderator:
Joan M. Durocher, Esq., Senior Attorney Advisor, National Council on Disability, Washington, DC

Speakers:
Michael S. Greco, Esq., Partner, K&L Gates, LLP & Past President ABA (2005-2006), Boston, MA
Fredrick J. Krebs, Esq., President, Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), Washington, DC
James G. Leipold, Esq., Executive Director, National Association for Legal Placement (NALP), Washington, DC
Veta T. Richardson, Esq., Executive Director, Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA), Washington, DC

This is only one of many programs at the conference.

[mikeytwoshoes]

ugh. but aren't firms supposed to give accomodations to b/c of the ADA act? Or is it that they can't fire you b/c of a disability?

I think they are just required to give 'reasonable' accommodations. For example, a construction company is not required to accommodate someone with cerebral palsy.

This a true. An employee must be able to complete the essential tasks.

[d34d9823]

Dude firms will sponsor a bathroom if you put their name and logo in the program. This doesn't equal "accomodations" and you know it.

Where I'm from, we actually do refer to bathrooms as "accommodations."

[HazelEyes]

The thing about the ADD extra time accomodation is that it is made in a blanket sense. Officially, I have ADD. I haven't taken medications or gotten treatment for it for years and I no longer list it on things where I list disabilities. However, if I wanted to, I could very easily go through all the hoops of getting an extra 1.5 hours of time on my exams.

That would be so incredibly unfair. As it stands, I already write more than most people and score near the top of most classes. Given another 1.5 hours, I can say with near certainty that I would book pretty much every exam that doesn't have a word limit. In my case, the accomodation is far, far too generous.

Giving an extra 1.5 hours to everyone with ADD just doesn't make sense. It's far too much extra time for some people, and probably not enough for others. ADD simply doesn't effect everyone the same way.

Also, I realize it makes me a terrible person, but the argument isn't going to fly in a firm. It is not a "reasonable accomodation" if you have to bill a client for 6 hours of work for a task that would have taken a non-disabled person 4 hours. That is ignoring the obvious problem of time-intense projects, because I suppose you could figure out a way to avoid assigning "this needs to be done 5 minutes ago" work to people who have an "extra time" accomodation--but I think even that is pushing it.

Excellent point.

[honestabe84]

What if someone is a defense attorney? Are their clients required by the ADA to tolerate them missing deadlines, because they can't finish their work in time?

I want to know what you edited out of this post.

Here's what I edited:

What if you're a defense attorney? Are your clients required by the ADA to tolerate you missing deadlines, because you can't finish their work in time?

I edited it so it wasn't misconstrued to appear that I was directing it towards anyone in particular (which I wasn't trying to).

Look Mikey, I have no idea if you legitimately require accommodated testing. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you actually have something that would necessitate accommodated testing.

For the last time, what me and everyone else is pissed off about is when someone who simply can't keep up is automatically labeled as disabled and is then given a leg up. Otherwise, the bottom half of test takers are disabled and deserve help.

As long as people who deserve help are being given it, then good. BUT there are are some people (maybe a lot) who don't have what it takes but are being treated like they are entitled to special treatment. THIS is the type of social engineering that makes people bitter.

[Cavalier]

I'd be curious how students with extra time do compared to the rest of the students. If their grades are average, then I wouldn't be too worried. However, if the students with extra time were doing substantially better than average, then I'd suspect some of them were just BSing their way into getting extra time, or that the extra time awarded was too much, assuming, of course, that there is no correlation between a disability and exam-taking ability.

[mbw]

I'd be curious how students with extra time do compared to the rest of the students. If their grades are average, then I wouldn't be too worried. However, if the students with extra time were doing substantially better than average, then I'd suspect some of them were just BSing their way into getting extra time, or that the extra time awarded was too much, assuming, of course, that there is no correlation between a disability and exam-taking ability.

Why should this be a concern? What if the disability affected the student's admissions prospects, so now they're at a school where they're intellectually superior to most of their classmates? Should they still not be able to reach their best potential, albeit with the same accommodations that would have brought them merely to a level playing field at an intellectually-appropriate school?

Anyway, despite having substantial neurological disabilities (and being the parent of two profoundly disabled children), I find this thread to be mostly annoying -- the number of ways people gain "advantages" in law school is a joke, and yet so much of all of it is completely arbitrary. Perservating on the extremely small number of students with disabilities -- or an even smaller group of "fakers" -- while ignoring five-ton elephants (legacy admits, purchased memos and briefs, illegal use of stimulants, cheating, unprofessional behavior by faculty, etc.,) is a waste of time and energy. I'm glad Matthies and Mikey are here to clarify the difficulty, but, seriously, eight pages?

[transferALT]

For the last time, what me and everyone else is pissed off about is when someone who simply can't keep up is automatically labeled as disabled and is then given a leg up. Otherwise, the bottom half of test takers are disabled and deserve help.

As long as people who deserve help are being given it, then good. BUT there are are some people (maybe a lot) who don't have what it takes but are being treated like they are entitled to special treatment. THIS is the type of social engineering that makes people bitter.

Sorry for snapping at your earlier, d00d. I think what pissed me off was that you equated ADHD with a per se case of "not hav[ing] what it takes." If there are people that are legitimately not hindered by the ADHD, then I completely agree with you. I guess my issue is the appearance of what seems like a presumption that each individual is acting unethically, where we give everyone else the benefit of the doubt otherwise (i.e. during the brief or write-on).

[transferALT]

I'd be curious how students with extra time do compared to the rest of the students. If their grades are average, then I wouldn't be too worried. However, if the students with extra time were doing substantially better than average, then I'd suspect some of them were just BSing their way into getting extra time, or that the extra time awarded was too much, assuming, of course, that there is no correlation between a disability and exam-taking ability.

From what I could tell from the less than 3% of people in my class that get accommodations, grades were spread out across the curve. I don't know exact grades, but I would bet the median of those fits, or is just slightly higher, than the overall median.

[transferALT]

The thing about the ADD extra time accomodation is that it is made in a blanket sense. Officially, I have ADD. I haven't taken medications or gotten treatment for it for years and I no longer list it on things where I list disabilities. However, if I wanted to, I could very easily go through all the hoops of getting an extra 1.5 hours of time on my exams.

That would be so incredibly unfair. As it stands, I already write more than most people and score near the top of most classes. Given another 1.5 hours, I can say with near certainty that I would book pretty much every exam that doesn't have a word limit. In my case, the accomodation is far, far too generous.

Giving an extra 1.5 hours to everyone with ADD just doesn't make sense. It's far too much extra time for some people, and probably not enough for others. ADD simply doesn't effect everyone the same way.

Also, I realize it makes me a terrible person, but the argument isn't going to fly in a firm. It is not a "reasonable accomodation" if you have to bill a client for 6 hours of work for a task that would have taken a non-disabled person 4 hours. That is ignoring the obvious problem of time-intense projects, because I suppose you could figure out a way to avoid assigning "this needs to be done 5 minutes ago" work to people who have an "extra time" accomodation--but I think even that is pushing it.

Excellent point.

I don't know. If he is able to write more than the rest of his classmates, it appears his ADD is well managed. If it is mild, I am not certain he would gain accommodations. Proving the existence of ADD/disability isn't a sufficient condition to get accommodations; there must still be a cognizable impact or history of accommodations—something to show the disability does or has affected performance against peers. However, I do agree with him, and have previously stated, that the standardized "extra time" is not a perfect fit for each, but a one-size fits all (with a little variation).

Lastly, regarding employment, test environment does not equal work environment. Moreover, people with ADD can overcome many challenges in a work environment that they are unable to overcome without accommodation in a testing environment due to the various constraints in the testing environment. An example of this is why accommodation is required for testing, but most don't require similar accommodation for writing assignments. And, the work products between a test and a work assignment are drastically different, and can be approached with different strategies.

[katjust]

I really don't care too much about giving extra time. However, on principle I don't think anyone should get extra time, no matter the disability, unless it is done som voluntarily (The ADA is crap). Everyone has different aptitudes in life. Sometimes we are born with less intellectual capacity or more. There is not much that one can do about this. Sometimes we, through no fault of our own, become disabled later. Life is tough. It is no one's responsibility to make things "fair". Work with what you have, live the best you can. If someone wants to help you out, that's fine, but no one should expect extra time in life.

[ToTransferOrNot]

You realize that the ADA is more focused on reasonable physical plant accomodations, right? As many people have pointed out, requiring employers to significantly reduce their profitability by hiring people who require significant extra time to complete tasks is not what is contemplated by the ADA. You're not going to have to hire Turrets guy to be your floor salesman, either.

[mikeytwoshoes]

I really don't care too much about giving extra time. However, on principle I don't think anyone should get extra time, no matter the disability, unless it is done som voluntarily (The ADA is crap). Everyone has different aptitudes in life. Sometimes we are born with less intellectual capacity or more. There is not much that one can do about this. Sometimes we, through no fault of our own, become disabled later. Life is tough. It is no one's responsibility to make things "fair". Work with what you have, live the best you can. If someone wants to help you out, that's fine, but no one should expect extra time in life.

Regarding aptitudes, that's true but disabilities are based on the confluence of physical impairment and social recognition of the physical impairment. We are law school students, future lawyers, it is our duty to respect the law as it is written. There is a major ethical issue with thinking that the ADA is crap and that you shouldn't have to accommodate anyone. Moreover, it's not just the ADA but IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, and FHAA. Disability rights laws aren't going anywhere.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I really don't care too much about giving extra time. However, on principle I don't think anyone should get extra time, no matter the disability, unless it is done som voluntarily (The ADA is crap). Everyone has different aptitudes in life. Sometimes we are born with less intellectual capacity or more. There is not much that one can do about this. Sometimes we, through no fault of our own, become disabled later. Life is tough. It is no one's responsibility to make things "fair". Work with what you have, live the best you can. If someone wants to help you out, that's fine, but no one should expect extra time in life.

Regarding aptitudes, that's true but disabilities are based on the confluence of physical impairment and social recognition of the physical impairment. We are law school students, future lawyers, it is our duty to respect the law as it is written. There is a major ethical issue with thinking that the ADA is crap and that you shouldn't have to accommodate anyone. Moreover, it's not just the ADA but IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, and FHAA. Disability rights laws aren't going anywhere.

Er, arguing that a law on the books is crap does not rise to an ethical issue. I hope that isn't what you meant to argue, even though it is, in fact, what you argued.

Failing to conform with the law would obviously be a problem, but the law as written doesn't require that buisnesses significantly injure profitability to put accomodations in place.

[mikeytwoshoes]

I really don't care too much about giving extra time. However, on principle I don't think anyone should get extra time, no matter the disability, unless it is done som voluntarily (The ADA is crap). Everyone has different aptitudes in life. Sometimes we are born with less intellectual capacity or more. There is not much that one can do about this. Sometimes we, through no fault of our own, become disabled later. Life is tough. It is no one's responsibility to make things "fair". Work with what you have, live the best you can. If someone wants to help you out, that's fine, but no one should expect extra time in life.

Regarding aptitudes, that's true but disabilities are based on the confluence of physical impairment and social recognition of the physical impairment. We are law school students, future lawyers, it is our duty to respect the law as it is written. There is a major ethical issue with thinking that the ADA is crap and that you shouldn't have to accommodate anyone. Moreover, it's not just the ADA but IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, and FHAA. Disability rights laws aren't going anywhere.

Er, arguing that a law on the books is crap does not rise to an ethical issue. I hope that isn't what you meant to argue, even though it is, in fact, what you argued.

Failing to conform with the law would obviously be a problem, but the law as written doesn't require that buisnesses significantly injure profitability to put accomodations in place.

I was speaking of the posters unwillingness to accommodate based on the idea, as I read his post, that the ADA is crap. There is no issue with saying a law is crap, but there is in saying that you shouldn't have to follow it.

[lawman54]

Dont they put an * next to your score and dont count it in the percentile? I was looking ino this but hearing that information kind of scared of me off!

[LawLucy]

Dont they put an * next to your score and dont count it in the percentile? I was looking ino this but hearing that information kind of scared of me off!

I was reading into this issue and (please correct me if I am wrong) a school will observe the score, but NOT include it when they publish their stats for admissions reasons. From my understanding, law schools are wanting the "diversity" card really bad, but not wanting to get a potential 'ding' on admitting a student who has 'said disability', therefore, they don't include the scoring of a disability candidate

[mikeytwoshoes]

Dont they put an * next to your score and dont count it in the percentile? I was looking ino this but hearing that information kind of scared of me off!

I will assume you are talking about the LSAT. In that regard, they do flag your score but schools already know where numeric scores fall within the percentile rankings. To many people with disabilities damn their applications by not seeking accommodations. My LSAT tutor agreed to teach a blind student the LSAT methods right after he taught me. This student refused to seek accommodations. He could not read the test or use the materials. He could make out the logic games drawn on a white board. His diagnostic score was 123 IIRC. That's essentially the same as guessing a single letter for the entire test. While that asterisk might be a big issue for someone on boarder between needing accommodations and being able to compete normally, it is better to have a high score with an asterisk than to have a low score. If you legitimately need extra time, that asterisk shouldn't scare you.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Dont they put an * next to your score and dont count it in the percentile? I was looking ino this but hearing that information kind of scared of me off!

I was reading into this issue and (please correct me if I am wrong) a school will observe the score, but NOT include it when they publish their stats for admissions reasons. From my understanding, law schools are wanting the "diversity" card really bad, but not wanting to get a potential 'ding' on admitting a student who has 'said disability', therefore, they don't include the scoring of a disability candidate

LSAC doesn't count it toward percentiles. If schools don't report the score for rakings purposes, then they have to note it to USNEWS and NALP IIRC.

[LawLucy]

![/quote]
His diagnostic score If you legitimately need extra time, that asterisk shouldn't scare you.[/quote]


No fear.
RAWR

[fenway]

note: getting extra time on the LSAT is not nearly as easy as it is being portrayed. you cannot just send in a doc's note saying you have ADD and that you take adderall. you have to go through an extensive and specific battery of testing and you must be scored as impaired on the majority of the measures. then they check through your background (i.e SAT) where prior performance can preclude you from getting extra time. the LSAT realizes all the concerns that people have, and they are reflected in the approval process. the people who bullshit their way to extra time are few and far between. knowing one asshole who somehow got lucky makes for a pretty weak generalization arguing widespread abuse/fraud. for the vast majority, the people who receive extra time (*on the LSAT) deserve to have it based on what is stated in the ADA. extra time in undergrad can certainly receive more scrutiny though

[fenway]

also, speculating on how a school will view your "take X's score into consideration" is a waste of your time. Absolutely NO adcom would be f*ing dumb enough to say that it negatively impacted your chances (school would get BLASTED/sued) and otherwise all your information is coming from kids who either like to think it hurts/helps drawing on their own self-interest. there is no legitimate way to tell so don't bother trying to spin yourself in circles to find the answer. if you are able to get through the approval process and feel you have a disability, take extra time. if not both of the two, don't

[ToTransferOrNot]

This thread was originally talking about extra time on law school exams, not the LSAT. It is much easier to get the extra time for law school exams.

[mikeytwoshoes]

This thread was originally talking about extra time on law school exams, not the LSAT. It is much easier to get the extra time for law school exams.

Not in my experience, it wasn't. The only way it was easier was that I already had the documentation. They actually required more documentation than LSAC. I had to get specific documentation regarding reading speed from within 3 months of the date at which they requested it. All the schools that accepted me required the same things. I even had a hard time getting accommodations for my hearing loss for ASD.

[mikeytwoshoes]

also, speculating on how a school will view your "take X's score into consideration" is a waste of your time. Absolutely NO adcom would be f*ing dumb enough to say that it negatively impacted your chances (school would get BLASTED/sued) and otherwise all your information is coming from kids who either like to think it hurts/helps drawing on their own self-interest. there is no legitimate way to tell so don't bother trying to spin yourself in circles to find the answer. if you are able to get through the approval process and feel you have a disability, take extra time. if not both of the two, don't

This isn't entirely true; by looking at the schools that accepted you versus the schools that didn't, you can see how they generally treated your score. If you only get accepted at schools that would normally be safeties, then they marked you down a little. If you get accepted by every school with a mid 160s score, they gave you a boost. In my case, I got into the schools that I should have. It is anecdotal evidence.