LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[Tanicius]

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.

That quote you pulled does not support your position. You're assuming the reason they've sought help for their children is because they want to find illegitimate rather than legitimate remedies to a problem. If their kids by and large do tend to have ADHD, then all it proves is that poor people don't get enough access to psychological care.

[cotiger]

Considering that time extended accommodations overpredict 1L grades, what is the argument against disclosing time extension to schools?

To use my totally made-up example, if a time-extended 167 typically performs in school like a 163, why does it make sense to just tell the school that they got a plain old 167? Wouldn't it make more sense to tell the school that they got a time-extended 167, and the school can adjust their understanding of the meaning of the score accordingly? Keep in mind that time-extention substantially reduces correlation with 1L grades as well, so rationally LSAT would be weighted significantly less strongly for those applicants. Also, living in the real world, accommodated tests don't count towards medians, so in practice they carry less weight except to the extent that they inform adcomms about the academic potential of the student.

[Clyde Frog]

Why is everyone assuming the LSAC is going to throw out extra time like candy? The SAT is accommodating less and less every year because of the fact that they don't flag those with disabilities anymore, in addition to the overdiagnosis of ADHD in the United States. It shouldn't be assumed that someone will be able to go to the doctors tomorrow, fake ADHD, and in return get double he time on their LSAT.

Not sure who posted the link to https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2006/04 ... t-and-act/ But thanks. It shows that getting accommodations may actually be more different now that the LSAC is not flagging scores.

Recently the College Board and ACT Inc. have been moving away from the IDEA disability diagnosis model towards the model outlined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA model does not compare the student’s actual performance to his or her potential performance. Rather, it compares the student’s performance to that of the average person; not to his or her peers or self, but to the norm. If a student is performing 1-2 standard deviations above the norm already but could score higher, he or she will have a difficult time getting accommodation using the ADA standards.

Under the ADA model, to get accommodation a student must demonstrate how his/her daily academic functioning is impaired. This is the new gold standard: evidence of functional impairment. According to the ADA, what may be a relative weakness may not indicate a true disability. Under this new ADA model, requests for accommodation for attention deficit disorders and many other types of disabilities are being denied left and right.

Lastly, to those that are complaining about unfair advantages that others get, FUCKING ADAPT! You have a guy running in the Olympics that have no legs, the most renown theoretical physicist has ALS, white guys can dunk basketballs, and hell there was a guy I saw the other day who had no arms and was playing table tennis against the world's best players. He was holding the paddle in his fucking mouth! Amazing!

[Holly Golightly]

Considering that time extended accommodations overpredict 1L grades, what is the argument against disclosing time extension to schools?

To use my totally made-up example, if a time-extended 167 typically performs in school like a 163, why does it make sense to just tell the school that they got a plain old 167? Wouldn't it make more sense to tell the school that they got a time-extended 167, and the school can adjust their understanding of the meaning of the score accordingly? Keep in mind that time-extention substantially reduces correlation with 1L grades as well, so rationally LSAT would be weighted significantly less strongly for those applicants. Also, living in the real world, accommodated tests don't count towards medians, so in practice they carry less weight except to the extent that they inform adcomms about the academic potential of the student.

Law schools don't give a fuck about how the LSAT correlates to 1L grades. They give a fuck about how the LSAT scores of their incoming students affect their U.S. news ranking.

[cotiger]

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.

You're just assuming "slow Johnny" is stupid. But there are apparently plenty of people who could kill the test with unlimited time but struggle with the time crunch. They very well may be cognitive fireballs but just be slow about it; the difference is they just don't have a diagnosis in the DSM. But again, I'm totally open to changing my thoughts on this if there's evidence that diagnosed people overperform their test scores.

To be fair, dyslexia wasn't the best choice for this example, as it has very distinct characteristics. ADHD v regular mind-wanderer is probably a better example.

[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.

That quote you pulled does not support your position. You're assuming the reason they've sought help for their children is because they want to find illegitimate rather than legitimate remedies to a problem. If their kids by and large do tend to have ADHD, then all it proves is that poor people don't get enough access to psychological care.

You say tomato, I say tomato. Either way, it's just another advantage for wealthy white males, at least until children from all backgrounds/races/genders have equal access to psychological care. There's also this gem from the report:

Diagnoses of ADHD in this study were based on the DSM-IV criteria, requiring patients to be symptomatic for at least 6 months, impaired from symptoms in at least 2 settings (eg, home and school), and significantly affected by 1 or more clinical impairments.12 The DSM-IV criteria were not strictly followed in many of the previous epidemiological studies reporting on ADHD. After surveying 3900 pediatricians and other primary care physicians, Wasserman et al45 reported that only 38% of clinicians used DSM-IV criteria for diagnosing ADHD. This finding highlights the variability in diagnostic criteria among studies. The KPSC uses stringent criteria based on DSM-IV that must be met before diagnosis of ADHD.46 These criteria include the following: (1) a Child Behavior Checklist must be completed by parents and teachers to describe the child behavioral and emotional problems, and (2) a clinical interview must be performed by a qualified mental health professional. In the KPSC, all health care professionals diagnosing ADHD in pediatric patients are expected to follow the guideline put forth by the Kaiser Permanente ADHD Guideline Development Team.46 This guideline includes recommendations for use of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Teacher and Parent Rating Scales as part of the evaluation and diagnosis of ADHD in children and adolescents. However, the Conners' Parent and Teacher Rating Scales and Achenbach Scales (Child Behavior Checklist, Teachers Report Form, and Youth Self-Report) are options that can be used in addition to the initial evaluation. Furthermore, the Achenbach and Vanderbilt behavioral rating scales can be used to evaluate the rates and patterns of comorbidity and behavioral problems, including disruptive behavior disorders, learning disorders, anxiety disorders, and mood disorders. These scales led to greater validity in the ADHD diagnoses made at the KPSC relative to those based on parent-teacher reports or diagnoses made by untrained health care professionals. A preliminary analysis of diagnosing-physician specialty for children diagnosed as having ADHD at the KPSC found 96% of children to have had their ADHD diagnosed by professionals trained in diagnosis and treatment of the disorder.

In other words, the majority of ADHD cases are diagnosed by pediatricians and primary care physicians with no training and no stringent standard for making the diagnoses. Even when they do follow the standard, "teacher and parent rating scales" are a large part of their system. If ever there was something ripe for gaming, this is it.

[Tanicius]

In other words, the majority of ADHD cases are diagnosed by pediatricians and primary care physicians with no training and no stringent standard for making the diagnoses. Even when they do follow the standard, "teacher and parent rating scales" are a large part of their system. If ever there was something ripe for gaming, this is it.

Then get mad over LSAC's failure to implement safeguards against bullshit diagnoses. Don't get mad at a policy meant to prevent schools from unfairly discriminating against students by highlighting the students who accepted an accommodation.

This is what bugs me about this whole issue. None of you were complaining when LSAC's policies hurt people who weren't you. You're only getting bent out of shape now that the policy has the potential to slightly harm your chances at one single tier-layer of schools.

[Geaux12]

The sooner we as a society realize that adderall (among other drugs) is a tool and we should just fucking use it responsibly, the better. Maybe then people won't try to wage douche-bag nerd jihad against every ADA accommodation.

Better living through chemistry.

[cotiger]

Considering that time extended accommodations overpredict 1L grades, what is the argument against disclosing time extension to schools?

To use my totally made-up example, if a time-extended 167 typically performs in school like a 163, why does it make sense to just tell the school that they got a plain old 167? Wouldn't it make more sense to tell the school that they got a time-extended 167, and the school can adjust their understanding of the meaning of the score accordingly? Keep in mind that time-extention substantially reduces correlation with 1L grades as well, so rationally LSAT would be weighted significantly less strongly for those applicants. Also, living in the real world, accommodated tests don't count towards medians, so in practice they carry less weight except to the extent that they inform adcomms about the academic potential of the student.

Law schools don't give a fuck about how the LSAT correlates to 1L grades. They give a fuck about how the LSAT scores of their incoming students affect their U.S. news ranking.

This doesn't respond to my question.

Also, the whole point of the LSAT is to give schools an idea of how well the applicant will fair in school, not to give something for USNWR to rank. Schools may be unduely influenced by USNWR, but at the end of the day, the reason why everyone has to take that test is to help schools understand where everyone stands.

[redbull12]

Adderall is shit compared to Nuvigil. (My personal experience) Nuvigil is a legit cognitive enhancer whereas Adderall....

[UnicornHunter]

In other words, the majority of ADHD cases are diagnosed by pediatricians and primary care physicians with no training and no stringent standard for making the diagnoses. Even when they do follow the standard, "teacher and parent rating scales" are a large part of their system. If ever there was something ripe for gaming, this is it.

Then get mad over LSAC's failure to implement safeguards against bullshit diagnoses. Don't get mad at a policy meant to prevent schools from unfairly discriminating against students by highlighting the students who accepted an accommodation.

This is what bugs me about this whole issue. None of you were complaining when LSAC's policies hurt people who weren't you. You're only getting bent out of shape now that the policy has the potential to slightly harm your chances at one single tier-layer of schools.

A) I've already been accepted to law schools, I could care less about how this impacts me or anyone else.

B) But since you brought it up, if anything, it helps me. If the LSAT over-predicts how well someone with accommodation for time will do in law school, then I'm on an easier curve.

C) I zeroed in on people gaming the system because I've seen it first hand. Adderall and Ritalin were the drug of choice at my high school and college, both of which were packed with rich white people whose parents expected them to perform at a level very much above average.

[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.

You're just assuming "slow Johnny" is stupid. But there are apparently plenty of people who could kill the test with unlimited time but struggle with the time crunch.

The people who are crunched for time on the LSAT aren't crunched simply because they're slow readers - it's the thinking that has to take place after you've read the question. In fact, I doubt there are many "Johnnys" out there who are simultaneously mentally/cognitively sharp AND hampered by slow reading speed (discounting people taking the test in other than their native language). If someone without vision problems/dyslexia/ADHD/etc is a markedly slow reader, that's a cognitive issue, so there's no point in accommodating for it in a test that's measuring cognitive ability.

[cotiger]

In other words, the majority of ADHD cases are diagnosed by pediatricians and primary care physicians with no training and no stringent standard for making the diagnoses. Even when they do follow the standard, "teacher and parent rating scales" are a large part of their system. If ever there was something ripe for gaming, this is it.

Then get mad over LSAC's failure to implement safeguards against bullshit diagnoses. Don't get mad at a policy meant to prevent schools from unfairly discriminating against students by highlighting the students who accepted an accommodation.

This is what bugs me about this whole issue. None of you were complaining when LSAC's policies hurt people who weren't you. You're only getting bent out of shape now that the policy has the potential to slightly harm your chances at one single tier-layer of schools.

It's not hurting me now, broseph. It would be great if you could stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a) mad and b) only disagreeing out of naked self-interest.

To the people who are arguing against the accommodations:
Why argue against the accommodation itself? It's really difficult to judge how much of a disadvantage a certain test taker has relative to his peers on the test, and essentially impossible to judge what amount of time would negate that disadvantage. Why put so much effort into regulating the unknowable when you're likely to fuck it up in one way or the other?

Instead, use what we do know. We can measure the amount of over (or under!) prediction each type of accommodation leads to. Give that information to schools, don't count the scores in medians, and voila! That applicant only gets judged based on their academic prowess (not how they affect the median), which can be relatively accurately matched using the over/under prediction data.

[UnicornHunter]

In other words, the majority of ADHD cases are diagnosed by pediatricians and primary care physicians with no training and no stringent standard for making the diagnoses. Even when they do follow the standard, "teacher and parent rating scales" are a large part of their system. If ever there was something ripe for gaming, this is it.

Then get mad over LSAC's failure to implement safeguards against bullshit diagnoses. Don't get mad at a policy meant to prevent schools from unfairly discriminating against students by highlighting the students who accepted an accommodation.

This is what bugs me about this whole issue. None of you were complaining when LSAC's policies hurt people who weren't you. You're only getting bent out of shape now that the policy has the potential to slightly harm your chances at one single tier-layer of schools.

A) I've already been accepted to law schools, I could care less about how this impacts me or anyone else.

B) But since you brought it up, if anything, it helps me. If the LSAT over-predicts how well someone with accommodation for time will do in law school, then I'm on an easier curve.

C) I zeroed in on people gaming the system because I've seen it first hand. Adderall and Ritalin were the drug of choice at my high school and college, both of which were packed with rich white people whose parents expected them to perform at a level very much above average.

You know who this really screws? Applicants with legitimate disabilities who did really well in college. Now they have to rock the LSAT, which should still be legitimately hard for them because the extra time only evens the playing field for them. Meanwhile Johnny "I can read sports blogs all day but I have ADD" Richpants uses his ADD diagnosis to turn the LSAT into the easiest test on earth.

[ScottRiqui]

Instead, use what we do know. We can measure the amount of over (or under!) prediction each type of accommodation leads to. Give that information to schools, don't count the scores in medians, and voila! That applicant only gets judged based on their academic prowess (not how they affect the median), which can be relatively accurately matched using the over/under prediction data.

Now you're talking about devising and applying some sort of "correction factor" to a correlation that's already pretty shitty and loose. That's fast approaching the point where tea leaves and chicken bones would be a viable alternative. Better to re-stucture the LSAT so that timing isn't an issue.

[cotiger]

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.

You're just assuming "slow Johnny" is stupid. But there are apparently plenty of people who could kill the test with unlimited time but struggle with the time crunch.

The people who are crunched for time on the LSAT aren't crunched simply because they're slow readers - it's the thinking that has to take place after you've read the question. In fact, I doubt there are many "Johnnys" out there who are simultaneously mentally/cognitively sharp AND hampered by slow reading speed (discounting people taking the test in other than their native language). If someone without vision problems/dyslexia/ADHD/etc is a markedly slow reader, that's a cognitive issue, so there's no point in accommodating for it in a test that's measuring cognitive ability.

I buy it. Dyslexia was probably the worst example I could pick.

I guess in my mind I'm thinking of the ADD/ADHD/generic learning differences kids that I see or remember who don't seem to be significantly different cognitively from other kids with short attention spans or who aren't that good with standard instruction.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that ADHD and learning differences aren't real disorders. Just wondering if sufferers tend to out perform their test scores, while related non-clinical cases do not.

[cotiger]

Instead, use what we do know. We can measure the amount of over (or under!) prediction each type of accommodation leads to. Give that information to schools, don't count the scores in medians, and voila! That applicant only gets judged based on their academic prowess (not how they affect the median), which can be relatively accurately matched using the over/under prediction data.

Now you're talking about devising and applying some sort of "correction factor" to a correlation that's already pretty shitty and loose. That's fast approaching the point where tea leaves and chicken bones would be a viable alternative. Better to re-stucture the LSAT so that timing isn't an issue.

Except that LSAC gives schools a chart that X LSAT predicts Y 1LGPA. Giving them those same predictions that are associated with the accommodation is not exactly a stretch or any more tea leaves and chicken bones than with unaccommodated scores. I mean, there is the fact that accommodated scores have lower correlations, so the weighting should be (and is) less, but that doesn't affect the prediction itself.

[Ohiobumpkin]

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.

+1

To the rest of the armchair psychometricians here, grow up. LSAC is not stupid and will make sure that people do not game the system, or receive accommodations disproportionate with their disabilities.

Furthermore, similar arguments ( economic class favoritism, accuracy concerns, testing accommodations fraud, etc.) could be made about other aspects of the LSAT. Why should testing accommodations for disabled students be given extra scrutiny when it comes to protecting the validity of LSAT results.

Students with wealthy families tend to have more free time to focus on studying, pay for LSAT classes, and buy more study supplements. Why is this not a concern here? Wealthy parents don't just aid in "bribing" a specialist to diagnose a student with a disability (btw, the credentials of the evaluating specialist is taken into consideration when determining to give out accommodations). Should LSAC deduct a certain number of points off of a test taker's score if s/he comes from a wealthy household?

What of the ability to take the LSAT multiple times? Is it valid that somebody with 156, 169, and 175 gets to use only their 175 score? Is that really more accurate of their natural ability? I would say no. So why is the validity of the test so important to protect when it comes to accommodations? Why not insist on only using a test taker's first score?

As to testing accommodations fraud, I can't comment on SAT's standards for giving extra time and how they compare to the old LSAC standard. What I can say is that LSAC employs a large number of specialists who can tell whether somebody has faked a disability (for example, a student is only diagnosed with having a disability in the year they take the SAT). I feel that LSAC is unlikely to roll over and just hand out extra time like candy after this ruling. But, we will have to wait and see on this point.

To a great extent, this thread is filled with posters with double standards, ignorance, and (sometimes) prejudice against the mentally handicapped. Pretty disappointing.

[ScottRiqui]

Except that LSAC gives schools a chart that X LSAT predicts Y 1LGPA. Giving them those same predictions that are associated with the accommodation is not exactly a stretch or any more tea leaves and chicken bones than with unaccommodated scores. I mean, there is the fact that accommodated scores have lower correlations, so the weighting should be (and is) less, but that doesn't affect the prediction itself.

Um, I would really like to see this chart you're talking about. We know there's a weak correlation between LSAT and 1L grades (and it *is* weak), but if you actually tried to make a chart from it, the information would be worthless - it would be something like "with a 168 LSAT, we can predict with 95% confidence that the student will have somewhere between a 3.0 and 4.0 GPA at the end of 1L".

And now you're talking about multiplying an already-weak correlation by a correction factor that will have its own imprecisions and estimations. That's only going to weaken the correlation further, not strengthen it.

[bizzike]

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.

+1

To the rest of the armchair psychometricians here, grow up. LSAC is not stupid and will make sure that people do not game the system, or receive accommodations disproportionate with their disabilities.

Furthermore, similar arguments ( economic class favoritism, accuracy concerns, testing accommodations fraud, etc.) could be made about other aspects of the LSAT. Why should testing accommodations for disabled students be given extra scrutiny when it comes to protecting the validity of LSAT results.

Students with wealthy families tend to have more free time to focus on studying, pay for LSAT classes, and buy more study supplements. Why is this not a concern here? Wealthy parents don't just aid in "bribing" a specialist to diagnose a student with a disability (btw, the credentials of the evaluating specialist is taken into consideration when determining to give out accommodations). Should LSAC deduct a certain number of points off of a test taker's score if s/he comes from a wealthy household?

What of the ability to take the LSAT multiple times? Is it valid that somebody with 156, 169, and 175 gets to use only their 175 score? Is that really more accurate of their natural ability? I would say no. So why is the validity of the test so important to protect when it comes to accommodations? Why not insist on only using a test taker's first score?

As to testing accommodations fraud, I can't comment on SAT's standards for giving extra time and how they compare to the old LSAC standard. What I can say is that LSAC employs a large number of specialists who can tell whether somebody has faked a disability (for example, a student is only diagnosed with having a disability in the year they take the SAT). I feel that LSAC is unlikely to roll over and just hand out extra time like candy after this ruling. But, we will have to wait and see on this point.

To a great extent, this thread is filled with posters with double standards, ignorance, and (sometimes) prejudice against the mentally handicapped. Pretty disappointing.

Be sure to request a doctor with ADHD the next time you're sent to the ER, I'm sure the universe will grant him extra time while you bleed out.

[Tanicius]

Be sure to request a doctor with ADHD the next time you're sent to the ER, I'm sure the universe will grant him extra time while you bleed out.

ITT: People who don't understand what a requirement for reasonable accommodations means.

[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.

+1

To the rest of the armchair psychometricians here, grow up. LSAC is not stupid and will make sure that people do not game the system, or receive accommodations disproportionate with their disabilities.

Furthermore, similar arguments ( economic class favoritism, accuracy concerns, testing accommodations fraud, etc.) could be made about other aspects of the LSAT. Why should testing accommodations for disabled students be given extra scrutiny when it comes to protecting the validity of LSAT results.

Students with wealthy families tend to have more free time to focus on studying, pay for LSAT classes, and buy more study supplements. Why is this not a concern here? Wealthy parents don't just aid in "bribing" a specialist to diagnose a student with a disability (btw, the credentials of the evaluating specialist is taken into consideration when determining to give out accommodations). Should LSAC deduct a certain number of points off of a test taker's score if s/he comes from a wealthy household?

What of the ability to take the LSAT multiple times? Is it valid that somebody with 156, 169, and 175 gets to use only their 175 score? Is that really more accurate of their natural ability? I would say no. So why is the validity of the test so important to protect when it comes to accommodations? Why not insist on only using a test taker's first score?

As to testing accommodations fraud, I can't comment on SAT's standards for giving extra time and how they compare to the old LSAC standard. What I can say is that LSAC employs a large number of specialists who can tell whether somebody has faked a disability (for example, a student is only diagnosed with having a disability in the year they take the SAT). I feel that LSAC is unlikely to roll over and just hand out extra time like candy after this ruling. But, we will have to wait and see on this point.

To a great extent, this thread is filled with posters with double standards, ignorance, and (sometimes) prejudice against the mentally handicapped. Pretty disappointing.

No clue why the highest score is used. Pretty sure that's an ABA thing, not an LSAC thing, though. Agree that it's BS. Average score shows the highest predictive accuracy: https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Val ... 1&ie=UTF-8

I don't think I agree that familial SES is a large confounding factor. Most people aren't KJD and are therefore working while studying. And those books are not that expensive (like $20 for 10 tests?). But even if it is, there's a big reason why it's not the same thing as in this case: it doesn't change the test. Anything that removes the most difficult aspect of the test and then measurably confers an advantage is bound to be controversial.

I wish people would stop with the ad-hominem stuff.

[ScottRiqui]

Be sure to request a doctor with ADHD the next time you're sent to the ER, I'm sure the universe will grant him extra time while you bleed out.

Why assume that professionals with a disability or medical condition are automatically going to be the dregs of their profession? Even with ADHD, that doctor is licensed to practice, has privileges at the hospital, and is probably a "better" doctor than at least some of his colleagues, even the ones without a condition/disability.

[UnicornHunter]

Be sure to request a doctor with ADHD the next time you're sent to the ER, I'm sure the universe will grant him extra time while you bleed out.

ITT: People who don't understand what a requirement for reasonable accommodations means.

I'm pretty sure the entire debate is over what is reasonable. As long as the time crunch is the LSAT's primary way of creating separation, this is going to be a dicey issue.

[cotiger]

Except that LSAC gives schools a chart that X LSAT predicts Y 1LGPA. Giving them those same predictions that are associated with the accommodation is not exactly a stretch or any more tea leaves and chicken bones than with unaccommodated scores. I mean, there is the fact that accommodated scores have lower correlations, so the weighting should be (and is) less, but that doesn't affect the prediction itself.

Um, I would really like to see this chart you're talking about. We know there's a weak correlation between LSAT and 1L grades (and it *is* weak), but if you actually tried to make a chart from it, the information would be worthless - it would be something like "with a 168 LSAT, we can predict with 95% confidence that the student will have somewhere between a 3.0 and 4.0 GPA at the end of 1L".

They literally predict FYA, which they then compare with actual FYA to calculate the residuals that keep being mentioned. I guess I don't know for certain that they give that out to schools, but considering the wealth of information that they do share, I don't know why they would do all the calculations just to withhold that pretty basic info.

Also, the point is not to exactly try to guess what the FYA of that student will be, but to see roughly where that score puts the student's score's competitiveness in relation to the great mass of other students.

0.36 isn't a great correlation, but to say that it's worthless is a bit much. It's the single best predictor of success in law school.

And now you're talking about multiplying an already-weak correlation by a correction factor that will have its own imprecisions and estimations. That's only going to weaken the correlation further, not strengthen it.

Don't know what you mean by this..

There's no multiplication going on. Or correction factors. It's literally doing the exact same thing as the regression of FYA on LSAT, just restricting the domain to the accommodated scores.

Accommodated scores do have a lower correlation with FYA, but that's just an indication that you should weight other factors such as UGPA and LORs more heavily than you would for a non-accommodated score. The scores are still biased upwards, despite the fact that they are less correlated.