extra time on exams for disabilities Forum

[jks289]

Welcome to the real world, Bob. Accommodation of "others" (disabilities, religious beliefs, etc) is a core principal in the founding of this country. In fact, it's legally mandated.

I don't receive any additional time or accommodation, but I have had to deal with a serious (mercifully non-permanent) brain injury. People with disabilities succeed in spite of their challenges, not because they are given an extra hour on an exam. I'm sure they would gladly trade their extra exam time for a life free of academic struggle, and the countless extra hours spent reading and studying.

Don't disagree with any of this in the least, just offering the other side of the coin. I actually have a mental disorder myself (OCD, which I tend to think actually has helped me academically, to be totally honest, although not in a pleasant way). I'm just avoiding studying for civ pro.

I guess that's my point then. I can see people arguing about specific enforcement standards. But it doesn't seem that most reasonable people, yourself included, actually takes the position disabilities shouldn't be accommodated.

[MrKappus]

Interestingly, Sutton v. United airlines seems to suggest that if you successfully treat your disability, you may not qualify for accommodations under the ADA. Seems to create a catch-22, in which you're faced with the choice of seeking treatment or being able to claim protected status.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Interestingly, Sutton v. United airlines seems to suggest that if you successfully treat your disability, you may not qualify for accommodations under the ADA. Seems to create a catch-22, in which you're faced with the choice of seeking treatment or being able to claim protected status.

I would opt for the treatment in a second. Protected status isn't worth it, man.

It is reasonable that you should not be accommodated if you successfully treat your disability. What would successful treatment even look like, though? What would be the standard? What legal test would we use? Disability is a tricky legal status. For instance, the Fair Housing Act Amendments make recovering addict a class of persons with disabilities. However, as soon as you have a relapse and begin taking illegal drugs again, you loose your protection. Most courts have applied that rule.

[SamSeaborn2016]

Interestingly, Sutton v. United airlines seems to suggest that if you successfully treat your disability, you may not qualify for accommodations under the ADA. Seems to create a catch-22, in which you're faced with the choice of seeking treatment or being able to claim protected status.

I would opt for the treatment in a second. Protected status isn't worth it, man.

I have to concur. I would take full mobility over protected status in a heartbeat.

[MrKappus]

Interestingly, Sutton v. United airlines seems to suggest that if you successfully treat your disability, you may not qualify for accommodations under the ADA. Seems to create a catch-22, in which you're faced with the choice of seeking treatment or being able to claim protected status.

I would opt for the treatment in a second. Protected status isn't worth it, man.

I didn't mean to treat it cavalierly. It just seemed counter to the legislation's intent to carve out people that happen to find success w/ treatment.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Interestingly, Sutton v. United airlines seems to suggest that if you successfully treat your disability, you may not qualify for accommodations under the ADA. Seems to create a catch-22, in which you're faced with the choice of seeking treatment or being able to claim protected status.

I would opt for the treatment in a second. Protected status isn't worth it, man.

I didn't mean to treat it cavalierly. It just seemed counter to the legislation's intent to carve out people that happen to find success w/ treatment.

I didn't mean to imply that you were treating it cavalierly. Assuming success treatment means normal ability, it wouldn't make sense to maintain that you have to accommodate someone who had a disability but had successful treatment.

[MrKappus]

I didn't mean to imply that you were treating it cavalierly. Assuming success treatment means normal ability, it wouldn't make sense to maintain that you have to accommodate someone who had a disability but had successful treatment.

It kind of does though, b/c the ADA is meant not only to open jobs, for which they otherwise qualify, up to disabled people, but also to combat the stigma against hiring people who have disabilities. If an employer can discriminate against you because they know that you had ADHD (prior to successful treatment), it seems like the ADA loses some of its punch.

[mikeytwoshoes]

I didn't mean to imply that you were treating it cavalierly. Assuming success treatment means normal ability, it wouldn't make sense to maintain that you have to accommodate someone who had a disability but had successful treatment.

It kind of does though, b/c the ADA is meant not only to open jobs, for which they otherwise qualify, up to disabled people, but also to combat the stigma against hiring people who have disabilities. If an employer can discriminate against you because they know that you had ADHD (prior to successful treatment), it seems like the ADA loses some of its punch.

I think the court applies the law narrowly because of the difficulty in proving disability-discrimination. Disability is highly individualized. It's not like race-discrimination or gender-discrimination. It's most analogous to GLBT-discrimination in that you have to disclose your disability and advocate for your rights. Moreover, lots of people with disabilities don't disclose because of the stigma. It's difficult to maintain the protected class without introducing people who no longer have disabilities.

[mikeytwoshoes]

wait, so biglaw firms hire people with disabilities? Does the ABA require them too?

I only know of one biglaw firm that had a lawyer with disabilities. Skadden has a disability rights fellowship. ABA does not but they cannot discriminate against people with disabilities under the ADA. ABA has been telling schools and firms to make the profession more accessible.

I wasn't aware of Skadden's disability specific fellowship but a number of other firms such as Perkins Coie and Kirkland & Ellis offer diversity fellowships that include language pertaining to those with disabilities.

I'm not sure if Skadden's fellowship regularly accepts people with disabilities, or if it's just about disability rights.

[mikeytwoshoes]

hold on, hold on...my ADD does or does not allow me extra exam time?

I would say it's unlikely. I think people often assume that it's ADD. Most people don't talk about disabilities openly in law school. Certainly some people with ADD get extra time. That you have not researched this seems likely to imply that you don't think you need it.

[mikeytwoshoes]

hold on, hold on...my ADD does or does not allow me extra exam time?

I would say it's unlikely. I think people often assume that it's ADD. Most people don't talk about disabilities openly in law school. Certainly some people with ADD get extra time. That you have not researched this seems likely to imply that you don't think you need it.

Fair enough. And I probably don't need it, but I would appreciate not having to jam myself full of caffeine and nicotine before any focus-necessary activity.

If you apply, they WILL ask whether you had accommodations for the LSAT, SAT, any other standardized test, and during college and high school (seriously, I'm 31 and they asked me about high school). Not applying for, or not being accepted for, LSAT accommodations likely dooms any application.

[pog]

If you apply, they WILL ask whether you had accommodations for the LSAT, SAT, any other standardized test, and during college and high school (seriously, I'm 31 and they asked me about high school). Not applying for, or not being accepted for, LSAT accommodations likely dooms any application.

+1

I agree. Speaking as a 0L, I can tell you that even getting accommodations for the LSAT isn't 'easy' or 'straight-forward' by any means. And it's not just one or two tests. LSAC makes you take a good number of tests, that have to include expert opinion, all of which will cost you in excess of $1,000+ easily. Like Mikey said, even those who seek extra time for the LSAT get turned down routinely. Absent a serious physical disability (eg - amputee or +80% blindness) getting accommodations for the LSAT is a brutally lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process that doesn't have any guarantee for success. Unless you can convincingly demonstrate to LSAC that you have had a mental disability for the better part of your life (eg. doctor's reports, accommodations throughout high-school/SATs and earlier, psychologist's synopsis, etc), your chances of getting accommodations are slim to none. I'd imagine law schools would apply an equally stringent benchmark.

It is also well-documented that LSAC will have their own team of preferred psychologists evaluate you in extreme cases. Some that didn't get accommodations sought court challenges alleged LSAC violated the ADA. Very few cases have been successful.

[hubtubrub]

If you apply, they WILL ask whether you had accommodations for the LSAT, SAT, any other standardized test, and during college and high school (seriously, I'm 31 and they asked me about high school). Not applying for, or not being accepted for, LSAT accommodations likely dooms any application.

+1

I agree. Speaking as a 0L, I can tell you that even getting accommodations for the LSAT isn't 'easy' or 'straight-forward' by any means. And it's not just one or two tests. LSAC makes you take a good number of tests, that have to include expert opinion, all of which will cost you in excess of $1,000+ easily. Like Mikey said, even those who seek extra time for the LSAT get turned down routinely. Absent a serious physical disability (eg - amputee or +80% blindness) getting accommodations for the LSAT is a brutally lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process that doesn't have any guarantee for success. Unless you can convincingly demonstrate to LSAC that you have had a mental disability for the better part of your life (eg. doctor's reports, accommodations throughout high-school/SATs and earlier, psychologist's synopsis, etc), your chances of getting accommodations are slim to none. I'd imagine law schools would apply an equally stringent benchmark.

It is also well-documented that LSAC will have their own team of preferred psychologists evaluate you in extreme cases. Some that didn't get accommodations sought court challenges alleged LSAC violated the ADA. Very few cases have been successful.

why are people so owrried about people "gaming" the system?

[icydash]

why are people so owrried about people "gaming" the system?

Because people gaming the system affects all of us? I'm not sure I get the question.

[A'nold]

Wait, so there are law firms that hire disabled people specifically? Links?

[Rocky Estoppel]

Wait, so there are law firms that hire disabled people specifically? Links?

Yeah, seriously. I mean, in this economy, if cutting off my leg will get me a job, I might consider it.

[TheQuietStorm86]

The ADA Amendment Act of 2008 says that the court's ruling in Sutton was wrong. Mitigating measures are not to be taken into account in most circumstances.

[mbw]

ADD? Really? Seems like your school is inviting fraud. I bet there's a Dr. nearby saving for a boat with all the "ADD" students he's now "treating".

Not that ADD isn't real, I know it is. It is also one of the most over-diagnosed learning disabilities, however - easy for dishonest students to get on that extra 1.5 hours list....

ADD is probably underdiagnosed among adults. That being said, it responds well to medication and it shouldn't be necessary to give most people who have it extra time.

I have fairly profound ADD, and while I could probably have benefited from extra time, on meds, I didn't request it, though I probably should have.

However, I ended up in the ER on Monday for what my student health center diagnosed as a possible CVA/stroke (actually MS-induced optic neuritis), and now have all kinds of accommodations, initiated by the administration, not me. Do my classmates really believe that after 3 MRIs, a catscan, three IV infusions of high dose side-effect-inducing steroids and loss of vision in one eye, that these accommodations come even close to leveling the playing field this week? If so, let me be the first to switch places. And I seriously feel now for people who need accommodations, and yet can't, or won't, request them. They're available for good reason, and are seldom exploited by unscrupulous actors. If anything, it's probably the opposite.

[stinger35]

my doctor over the summer told me thought i had ADD... i said whatever whether i do or i dont it doesnt matter... it's my personality and a part of me and i need to learn to adapt (and i clearly have).

if i had an extra 1.5 hours on exams? holy crap... i'd cali every class. i think the same goes for anyone else who would otherwise be reasonably in the top 15-20%. i dont know anyone at my school who gets extra time.

It's actually really easy to psych yourself out about the extra time. For instance, if you finish early, there is a temptation to go back and find errors. As you analyzed them the first time, you understood them one way, but when you go back, your mental context changes. This could just be me, but it's really easy to mistake the proper place for detail.

if there's no word limit ill just keep writing about every ambiguity of the law i can possibly imagine (this is basically what i do anyways since i type quickly and it works out well)

I 100% agree with you. As someone who has CALI'd several classes in normal time, an extra 1.5 hours, I guarantee a cali on 90% of my exams.

[SamSeaborn2016]

Wait, so there are law firms that hire disabled people specifically? Links?

A'nold. I don't think there are firms specifically looking for disabled people but there seems to be a greater awareness in the legal field to recognize and hire capable lawyers who may be disabled.

The impact career fair might be a good starting point. The 2009 list of participating employers has a number of BigLaw firms as well as some smaller ones and government offices.

--LinkRemoved--

[icydash]

I 100% agree with you. As someone who has CALI'd several classes in normal time, an extra 1.5 hours, I guarantee a cali on 90% of my exams.

what is CALI?

[hubtubrub]

does time really make that big of a difference as people in this thread say it does?

I'm a 0L... so please forgive my ignorance.

[awesomepossum]

what can 1.5 hours more on exams do to you anyway?

It's about how much you know your stuff (granted I'm a 0L so I don't know if it is true or not)...

I would rather have take exames in 1 hour instead of 3 than have a learning disability.

Uhhh....an extra 1.5 hours on a lot of law school exams would make a huge difference.

[TTH]

hold on, hold on...my ADD does or does not allow me extra exam time?

I would say it's unlikely. I think people often assume that it's ADD. Most people don't talk about disabilities openly in law school. Certainly some people with ADD get extra time. That you have not researched this seems likely to imply that you don't think you need it.

Fair enough. And I probably don't need it, but I would appreciate not having to jam myself full of caffeine and nicotine before any focus-necessary activity.

I was actually planning to start a thread about this, and I'm happy to find one already. TLS, you're always there for me.

I have a mild case of ADD, I think. I was diagnosed with it in 3rd Grade, but the medication harmed more than helped so I was taken off of it. My mom thinks I was misdiagnosed. I do notice that when I'm writing a paper, I get distracted pretty easily (who doesn't?). But during a four-hour in-class exam, I won't have time to get distracted.

I don't take ritalin/adderall and I have never had any accomodations before. For those of you in the same boat, have you found staying focused through an exam to be a problem? How did you deal with it? Or does the adrenaline of taking a law school exam keep you focused despite your normal tendency to wonder off?

[SteelReserve]

I think it's fine to give students with disabilities like ADD extra time in law school so at least they have a chance to even things out in the law school bubble.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I certainly can't see a partner saying to his associate, "oh yes dear we will give you an extra couple days to violate the filing date due to your ADD. I'm sure the Judge will understand."