LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[haus]

But schools should absolutely be allowed to know that the score they got tends to overestimate their ability to succeed in law school wrt other applicants of that same score.

What are you talking about? The academic attrition rate at most schools worth mentioning is next to nothing. It would seem that very few people have significant problems in perfuming well enough for schools to keep people around and on track towards graduation. These numbers could increase significantly and still hardly be worth mentioning.

[papercut]

But schools should absolutely be allowed to know that the score they got tends to overestimate their ability to succeed in law school wrt other applicants of that same score.

What are you talking about? The academic attrition rate at most schools worth mentioning is next to nothing. It would seem that very few people have significant problems in perfuming well enough for schools to keep people around and on track towards graduation.

I think succeed in law school doesn't mean "not flunk out of law school." The folks that graduate at the bottom of the class have a much harder time with the bar exam.

[haus]

I think succeed in law school doesn't mean "not flunk out of law school." The folks that graduate at the bottom of the class have a much harder time with the bar exam.

You realize that no matter who is in a given class that 50% of them will still be in the bottom of the class.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The schools that I think haus is talking about have excellent bar passage rates, too. None of the T14 have any problems with bar passage.

[papercut]

I think succeed in law school doesn't mean "not flunk out of law school." The folks that graduate at the bottom of the class have a much harder time with the bar exam.

You realize that no matter who is in a given class that 50% of them will still be in the bottom of the class.

Sigh. Do you think we can debate this without assuming that those that disagree with you are idiots?

If, say, the bottom 10% gets a hugely disproportionate share of the accommodated test takers, that would be a bad thing.

[cotiger]

But schools should absolutely be allowed to know that the score they got tends to overestimate their ability to succeed in law school wrt other applicants of that same score.

What are you talking about? The academic attrition rate at most schools worth mentioning is next to nothing. It would seem that very few people have significant problems in perfuming well enough for schools to keep people around and on track towards graduation.

I think succeed in law school doesn't mean "not flunk out of law school." The folks that graduate at the bottom of the class have a much harder time with the bar exam.

^This.

Also, for schools at the top of the pecking order, in their admissions process they are ostensibly seeking out the best law students, which the LSAT does a better job of predicting than any other indicator.

[papercut]

The schools that I think haus is talking about have excellent bar passage rates, too. None of the T14 have any problems with bar passage.

That is true, but there are significant difference between student cohorts based on class rank.

If the accommodated test admits disproportionately end up failing the bar, it should be a concern.

[haus]

The schools that I think haus is talking about have excellent bar passage rates, too. None of the T14 have any problems with bar passage.

T-14 schools have almost nonexistent academic attrition, and bar passage rates are very solid.

Heck, even going WAY down the lost to a school ranked near the 100th place in USNWR seem to do fine. Pulling out Catholic's numbers. In the most recent 509, 1st year students (even thought they have a part-time program, thus students with a lot more distractions) had 0 1L's removed for academics, and their bar passage rate for Maryland (the most popular state for this school) was 78.5% (over 2% better than the state avg).

The noise about the sky falling for students who have a slightly tweaked LSAT is bogus.

[papercut]

The schools that I think haus is talking about have excellent bar passage rates, too. None of the T14 have any problems with bar passage.

T-14 schools have almost nonexistent academic attrition, and bar passage rates are very solid.

Heck, even going WAY down the lost to a school ranked near the 100th place in USNWR seem to do fine. Pulling out Catholic's numbers. In the most recent 509, 1st year students (even thought they have a part-time program, thus students with a lot more distractions) had 0 1L's removed for academics, and their bar passage rate for Maryland (the most popular state for this school) was 78.5% (over 2% better than the state avg).

The noise about the sky falling for students who have a slightly tweaked LSAT is bogus.

You're looking at the bar passage rates as a whole, which don't tell you much. You'd need to break down the students into accommodated vs not accommodated and then compare the two.

[cotiger]

The noise about the sky falling for students who have a slightly tweaked LSAT is bogus.

Huh? This isn't the concern. Student who get higher LSAT scores than they "should" based on their ability level are the absolute winners. There's no concern that they're getting screwed lol.

[haus]

You're looking at the bar passage rates as a whole, which don't tell you much. You'd need to break down the students into accommodated vs not accommodated and then compare the two.

You honestly think that a lot of students who would not make it into Catholic, would find themselves accepted at a T-14 if they had an accommodated LSAT?

[DELG]

It's pretty simple

Just suck less and accommodations won't hurt you

[papercut]

You're looking at the bar passage rates as a whole, which don't tell you much. You'd need to break down the students into accommodated vs not accommodated and then compare the two.

You honestly think that a lot of students who would not make it into Catholic, would find themselves accepted at a T-14 if they had an accommodated LSAT?

Okay, I'm out, you're clearly not even trying to respond to what I'm saying.

[Holly Golightly]

I sincerely hope that most of you are trolling, and not actually this dense, insensitive, and self-absorbed. This is TLS, so I suppose it could go either way.

[cotiger]

I sincerely hope that most of you are trolling, and not actually this dense, insensitive, and self-absorbed. This is TLS, so I suppose it could go either way.

I'm guessing you're referring to me, though I'm not exactly sure why.

People with ADHD or learning disabilities are not some special type of person that need to be treated with super-sensitive kid gloves.

They have some sort of mental hinderance that prevents them from fully expressing their abilities in a particular way, so it makes sense to attempt to accommodate that in order to represent their abilities more accurately. Attempting to determine what leads to the most accurate and equitable representation of their abilities is not being "dense, insensitive, and self-absorbed".

[dwil770]

This is as absurd as giving Nate Robinson moon shoes for nba games because he is 5'9''

[Holly Golightly]

I sincerely hope that most of you are trolling, and not actually this dense, insensitive, and self-absorbed. This is TLS, so I suppose it could go either way.

I'm guessing you're referring to me, though I'm not exactly sure why.

People with ADHD or learning disabilities are not some special type of person that need to be treated with super-sensitive kid gloves.

They have some sort of mental hinderance that prevents them from fully expressing their abilities in a particular way, so it makes sense to attempt to accommodate that in order to represent their abilities more accurately. Attempting to determine what leads to the most accurate and equitable representation of their abilities is not being "dense, insensitive, and self-absorbed".

Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

[redbull12]

Incredible development. I don't think people really appreciate the gravity of this ruling.

I always wondered how much more time these "accommodated" test takers have received over these past few years. Now with what likely be an incredibly larger population sample size than previously before in terms of "accommodated" test takers, I assume this data will be made available by individuals who receive it.

Moreover, if one states that they "have ADHD" and receives a psychiatric evaluation stating such, can one suddenly become "accommodated" under this new ruling? What is the exact time frame in order to receive such a status?

Ruling aside, I predict a whole LOT of future LSAT takers will suddenly state that they "have ADHD."


Another potential way to analyze this in terms of economics. Law school admissions applications are down across the board. How many individuals were kept out of the law school of "their choice", and refused to settle in terms of admissions into a lower ranked school, because of lack of accommodation and hence very low LSAT scores? What does this ruling do? Does this have the potential to change a current trend? Incredible stuff nonetheless.

[Holly Golightly]

This is as absurd as giving Nate Robinson moon shoes for nba games because he is 5'9''

inorite. Why don't they just study more, like I did? People with disabilities being accommodated is just completely unfair to the rest of us.

[redbull12]

Even if LSAC is no longer allowed to flag accommodated scores in the reports they send to schools, there's no reason at all why they couldn't leave the accommodated scores out of the equating process when determining the curve for future administrations. In fact, it would be kind of dumb for them to leave them in.

But what happens if 5-10% of LSAT takers start getting accommodations? That will seriously mess with the curve, especially at the upper percentiles.

With 100,000+ takers every year, I bet that LSAC could leave 10% of them out of the equating process and still have no trouble generating curves for future administrations. On the whole, the sanctity of the LSAT will remain intact.

Now, papercut is right that at the individual level, some applicants are going to be shut out because competing applicants will have higher scores than they would have without accommodations. But I was addressing what I perceived to be his point that "accommodations are bad" in general.

I agree that if people start "gaming the system" in large numbers, it's going to cause problems. But I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater and agree that accommodations in general give an unfair advantage.

My worry is that if people can game the system, then they will. That's how systems work in the US. The SAT is heavily gamed – I'm part of that industry.

The LSAT has been, to a surprisingly extent, ungameable. There are probably 20,000 people every year who would pay $5,000+ for a reliable 10-15 point boost on the LSAT. They've tried courses and everything else, and they've plateau. And their future is riding on that score. $5,000 is nothing.

For that kind of money, you can buy yourself into a diagnosis, register for another post-secondary test, get extra time, and use section 5a to transfer that automatically to the LSAT by sending in a letter. This might take 1-2 months.

I've been on the receiving end of hundreds of desperate emails complaining about time issues. "I can score 170 with enough time, but when I try it timed, I get 151. Help!!!!!!!!" And I can't help. Not to the extent they want. Right now, they're stuck.

This agreement, prima facie, has opened a chink in that armor. I can see this chink clearly. I'm not going to exploit it for money, but others will. Networks will form in the major cities between test prep consultants and "lenient" psychologists. Guides will be written for which tests are easiest to get accommodations for, and how to send those results to LSAC.

Now, maybe the system has safeguards that aren't written into the consent agreement. But if the agreement works as written, what's stopping people from gaming the system en masse?

It's already happening with the SAT, except the stakes for extra time aren't as high, so fewer people are exploiting it.

I agree with you on your other points, but I don't think you've integrated systems thinking into your approach.

TITCR. IMHO this is what will happen.

[Holly Golightly]

Did you guys also hear that the U.S. government was behind 9/11?

[cotiger]

I sincerely hope that most of you are trolling, and not actually this dense, insensitive, and self-absorbed. This is TLS, so I suppose it could go either way.

I'm guessing you're referring to me, though I'm not exactly sure why.

People with ADHD or learning disabilities are not some special type of person that need to be treated with super-sensitive kid gloves.

They have some sort of mental hinderance that prevents them from fully expressing their abilities in a particular way, so it makes sense to attempt to accommodate that in order to represent their abilities more accurately. Attempting to determine what leads to the most accurate and equitable representation of their abilities is not being "dense, insensitive, and self-absorbed".

Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

Alright, you got me. That was insensitively worded. Though to be perfectly honest, I still haven't heard evidence why slow-reading dyslexic Johnny should get extra time while run-of-the-mill slow-reading Johnny should not. Only Nony's statement that that's just what we as a society have decided. If there's evidence that dyslexic Johnny tends to overperform his test scores while plain Johnny does not, I'd be more than happy to change my thoughts on that.

Regardless, that doesn't affect any of the arguments of the last 5 pages or so about the appropriateness of the current extended time accommodation rules.

[papercut]

Alright, you got me. That was insensitively worded. Though to be perfectly honest, I still haven't heard evidence why slow-reading dyslexic Johnny should get extra time while run-of-the-mill slow-reading Johnny should not. Only Nony's statement that that's just what we as a society have decided. If there's evidence that dyslexic Johnny tends to overperform his test scores while plain Johnny does not, I'd be more than happy to change my thoughts on that.

Regardless, that doesn't affect any of the arguments of the last 5 pages or so about the appropriateness of the current extended time accommodation rules.

This seems like a very appropriate way to feel about all this.

[UnicornHunter]

Did you guys also hear that the U.S. government was behind 9/11?

Yup, there's absolutely no evidence that wealthy families game the system by getting their children diagnosed with cognitive learning disorders like ADD/ADHD at a much higher rate than the general population. O wait... --LinkRemoved--

Higher rates of ADHD observed in affluent, white families likely represent an effort by these highly educated parents to seek help for their children who may not be fulfilling their expectations for schoolwork.

[ScottRiqui]

Alright, you got me. That was insensitively worded. Though to be perfectly honest, I still haven't heard evidence why slow-reading dyslexic Johnny should get extra time while run-of-the-mill slow-reading Johnny should not.

The reason is that the test is purportedly measuring what's in your head, and while someone with dyslexia, or vision problems, or paralysis might be an intellectual/cognitive fireball, they have a legitimate defect in the interface between their mind and the outside world. That's different from "slow Johnny" who just, well, slow. Granted, some of these "interface defects" might cause problems later in school or in the workplace, but that's outside the wheelhouse of an aptitude test.