LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[alphasteve]

You guys need to read the people they denied, one was a quadriplegic, who got limited accommodations. His hands are paralyzed.
Another guy had just been in a coma.
Someone else had severe pain from bone marrow transplants from leukemia.

I didn't say the LSAC was right. I've personally worked with people who were denied accommodations.

I'm saying, this decision is likely to have vast unintended consequences that have nothing to do with people who have disabilities.

And what type of vast intended consequences would those be?

[Clyde Frog]

I write this as a disability consultant for several testing organization, but NOT the LSAC. However, procedures are quite similar across these groups and I know several of the LSAC consultants.

Here's the problem: When we are talking about certain disabling conditions (blind, motor impairment, etc.) it is quite easy to discern whether an individual is disabled, and these requests are typically approved without issue. I strongly doubt that these individuals were involved in the suit; they received what they needed. The problem lies in the LD and ADHD cases, which account for a large majority of all requests. While it is true that many of these applicants have a history of past accommodations, often these accommodations were provided either in the absence of any evaluation (more commonly the case in private schools) or subsequent to an evaluation that was either equivocal in its findings or done inadequately or incompetently. This is especially true with ADHD-- I have seen a number of people whose 'documentation' accompanying their request was nothing more than a prescription pad on which the doctor has written "Mr. X has ADHD based on my evaluation on 3/13/2010". Within my profession this is very bad practice, yet many students have received accommodations from ACT, SAT, etc., based on such incomplete information. And now DOJ has said that this is entirely sufficient, and that there shouldn't be any further consideration of the merits of the request. In other words, rubber stamp the request as "Approved".

In my opinion this will further open the floodgates for unethical applicants (and health care providers) to buy and sell diagnoses. It's being done already, but this agreement between LSAC and DOJ makes it an even more obvious approach if one wants extra time.

Virtually everyone- disabled or not- taking the LSAC benefits from having extra time. Lots of data have shown this to be true. While the DOJ is acting on behalf of disabled people who feel they are being discriminated against, this agreement creates a new aggrieved class-- those who are not disabled and do not seek any accommodations, because they are now at a disadvantage due to all of the people who will be receiving an edge by receiving unwarranted and unneeded accommodations. I really think that the next step will be for a group of such nondisabled individuals to file their own class action suit claiming that their chance at a legal education is being adversely impacted by nondisabled people gaming the system (with DOJ's approval).

Exactly what I'm worried about. Within a major US city, how hard would it be to find a bent psychologist, and what would it cost?

The incentive to do this will be FAR higher on the LSAT than on the SAT/ACT etc. as time is significantly more important on the LSAT.

The LSAC could of course reformulate the test so that time was not a factor, but that would require throwing away 20 years of work, data and practice tests. And I wonder how they'd make it hard enough. They'd need to greatly up the difficulty of the current material once time was taken out. The cohort taking the LSAT is a very smart group.

You guys need to read the people they denied, one was a quadriplegic, who got limited accommodations. His hands are paralyzed.
Another guy had just been in a coma.
Someone else had severe pain from bone marrow transplants from leukemia.

They required excessive documentation which they then dismissed.

(LinkRemoved)
[url=http://postimage.org/]upload photo[rl]

This guy isn't complaining about having no hands.

[DELG]

LSAC has long been notorious dickbags about accommodation among other things. I agree that this likely is an over-correction but I mean... just do better.

[NYC-WVU]

You guys need to read the people they denied, one was a quadriplegic, who got limited accommodations. His hands are paralyzed.
Another guy had just been in a coma.
Someone else had severe pain from bone marrow transplants from leukemia.

I didn't say the LSAC was right. I've personally worked with people who were denied accommodations.

I'm saying, this decision is likely to have vast unintended consequences that have nothing to do with people who have disabilities.

And what type of vast intended consequences would those be?

I think it's pretty clear from the previous posts that people think the potential "vast unintended consequences" include people getting an "advantage" rather than an "accommodation," possibly people who don't a justified need for an accommodation in the first place.

Unrelated to your question, but related to the above post: What kind of accommodation would be appropriate for a guy who "had just been in a coma?" Why does he have to take the test right now? Why not wait until he's recovered, or until any related condition is clearly established and permanent. On it's face, that doesn't necessarily sound like an unjustified denial (of course it may have been, I don't know all the details.)

[NYSprague]

You guys need to read the people they denied, one was a quadriplegic, who got limited accommodations. His hands are paralyzed.
Another guy had just been in a coma.
Someone else had severe pain from bone marrow transplants from leukemia.

I didn't say the LSAC was right. I've personally worked with people who were denied accommodations.

I'm saying, this decision is likely to have vast unintended consequences that have nothing to do with people who have disabilities.

And what type of vast intended consequences would those be?

I think it's pretty clear from the previous posts that people think the potential "vast unintended consequences" include people getting an "advantage" rather than an "accommodation," possibly people who don't a justified need for an accommodation in the first place.

Unrelated to your question, but related to the above post: What kind of accommodation would be appropriate for a guy who "had just been in a coma?" Why does he have to take the test right now? Why not wait until he's recovered, or until any related condition is clearly established and permanent. On it's face, that doesn't necessarily sound like an unjustified denial (of course it may have been, I don't know all the details.)

His coma left him with residual issues. LSAC demanded another assessment even though he had been assessed 3 months before. All this is in the third amended complaint.

A large part of the issue seems to be unreasonable demands for documentation and failure to explain clear reasons for the denial. They gave him some extra time but not what he requested, without, it seems, explaining why.

[NYC-WVU]

As long as the LSAT is designed as a race, which it clearly is, I'm struggling with the idea of giving extra time as an accommodation to almost anyone. The LSAT is not designed to test whether you can answer the following questions correctly. It's designed to test whether you can answer the following questions correctly in 35 minutes. (As others have pointed out, this is true for the LSAT to a much greater extent than other standardized tests, where extra time for an average test-taker would essentially only be useful for checking over your answers.) So simply giving someone additional time seems like it renders the LSAT ineffective for testing that ability. I'm not necessarily against giving extra time in all cases, but you'd really have to show me that the test is still a race for that particular tester, and just as much of a race as for any tester.

Also, I don't necessarily think that the LSAT should be a race, because being fast is not a necessary condition to being a good lawyer. However, in response to people who are acting like "real-life" as a lawyer is usually not a race, I cannot agree. The vast majority of lawyers bill their hours and are not working on unlimited budgets, so every task is, indeed, a race to finish within the budget. Remember, most LSAT takers will not go into big law, where budgets might be a secondary consideration.

[Tanicius]

...test whether you can answer the following questions correctly in 35 minutes

No. The LSAT is designed to test whether you can *figure out* the following questions correctly in 35 minutes. Conceivably, a person with severe dyslexia could easily get 100% of the questions correct and go on to place first in their class and clerk for a high powered judge, move on and make partner at Cravath; the only reason they don't get the 100% on the section is because they're stuck having to take 15 minutes just to *read* the damn questions, with only 10 minutes available to actually *think about* the questions and come up with answers. That is simply not an issue the test was designed to discriminate.

[ScottRiqui]

It's designed to test whether you can answer the following questions correctly in 35 minutes.

Go to LSAC's "About the LSAT" page and read the part "What the test measures". There's a fairly extensive description about what each of the three types of sections is designed to measure, and nowhere in there does it even hint that speed is desirable, or even a concern.

[alphasteve]

Also, I don't necessarily think that the LSAT should be a race, because being fast is not a necessary condition to being a good lawyer. However, in response to people who are acting like "real-life" as a lawyer is usually not a race, I cannot agree. The vast majority of lawyers bill their hours and are not working on unlimited budgets, so every task is, indeed, a race to finish within the budget. Remember, most LSAT takers will not go into big law, where budgets might be a secondary consideration.

As a lawyer, I can tell you it's not a race. At least not for the .1 or .2 difference that MAY exist between the group. Oh.. and partners can always write down time, or associates can discount their own time.

You're welcome.

[DELG]

It's pretty simple, kids

-0 = 180

Now you know the goal, go HAM on that prep

[NYC-WVU]

...test whether you can answer the following questions correctly in 35 minutes

No. The LSAT is designed to test whether you can *figure out* the following questions correctly in 35 minutes. Conceivably, a person with severe dyslexia could easily get 100% of the questions correct and go on to place first in their class and clerk for a high powered judge, move on and make partner at Cravath; the only reason they don't get the 100% on the section is because they're stuck having to take 15 minutes just to *read* the damn questions, with only 10 minutes available to actually *think about* the questions and come up with answers. That is simply not an issue the test was designed to discriminate.

I think you're disagreeing for the sake of argument. First, I don't think "figure out" and "answer" are any different. And I have no problem accommodating someone who has severe dyslexia. I would just prefer it if they could figure out a way to do it that didn't change the primary parameter of this test, i.e., time. I acknowledge that it may not be possible, i just think it would be preferable. And your example of a person with dyslexia being unable to read the questions within the provided time highlights the complexity of this issue. Many test takers struggle to get through all of the prompts in Reading Comprehension. How do you accommodate someone with dyslexia without completely removing the fact that for many test takers RC is testing their ability to read quickly?

[alphasteve]

...test whether you can answer the following questions correctly in 35 minutes

No. The LSAT is designed to test whether you can *figure out* the following questions correctly in 35 minutes. Conceivably, a person with severe dyslexia could easily get 100% of the questions correct and go on to place first in their class and clerk for a high powered judge, move on and make partner at Cravath; the only reason they don't get the 100% on the section is because they're stuck having to take 15 minutes just to *read* the damn questions, with only 10 minutes available to actually *think about* the questions and come up with answers. That is simply not an issue the test was designed to discriminate.

I think you're disagreeing for the sake of argument. First, I don't think "figure out" and "answer" are any different. And I have no problem accommodating someone who has severe dyslexia. I would just prefer it if they could figure out a way to do it that didn't change the primary parameter of this test, i.e., time. I acknowledge that it may not be possible, i just think it would be preferable. And your example of a person with dyslexia being unable to read the questions within the provided time highlights the complexity of this issue. Many test takers struggle to get through all of the prompts in Reading Comprehension. How do you accommodate someone with dyslexia without completely removing the fact that for many test takers RC is testing their ability to read quickly?

You misunderstand... time is not a primary parameter of the test, insofar as what it is testing. It is testing ability to comprehend and to reason. But, given that there would not be a strong curve if everyone had it as a take home exam, they put time restraints to assist with creating a curve. It's not testing the ability to read a passage in 10 minutes, as if a 10 minute reading time is, itself valuable. It's testing the ability to read. But, since anyone can figure it out with unlimited time, the restraints stratefy people. Well, if you have someone that has trouble putting words in order to read them.. then it undermines the point of the test with a time restraint. Think about it this way: If the test were simply a drag race, someone with dyslexia has trouble processing when "go" happens. So they are fundamentally hindered in their ability to drag race.

[NYSprague]

...test whether you can answer the following questions correctly in 35 minutes

No. The LSAT is designed to test whether you can *figure out* the following questions correctly in 35 minutes. Conceivably, a person with severe dyslexia could easily get 100% of the questions correct and go on to place first in their class and clerk for a high powered judge, move on and make partner at Cravath; the only reason they don't get the 100% on the section is because they're stuck having to take 15 minutes just to *read* the damn questions, with only 10 minutes available to actually *think about* the questions and come up with answers. That is simply not an issue the test was designed to discriminate.

I think you're disagreeing for the sake of argument. First, I don't think "figure out" and "answer" are any different. And I have no problem accommodating someone who has severe dyslexia. I would just prefer it if they could figure out a way to do it that didn't change the primary parameter of this test, i.e., time. I acknowledge that it may not be possible, i just think it would be preferable. And your example of a person with dyslexia being unable to read the questions within the provided time highlights the complexity of this issue. Many test takers struggle to get through all of the prompts in Reading Comprehension. How do you accommodate someone with dyslexia without completely removing the fact that for many test takers RC is testing their ability to read quickly?

No, the test is not testing reading speed, that is why dyslexics get extra time. The test is for comprehension.
Even LSAC recognizes that some people should have extra time. They just implemented pretty much every aspect extremely poorly.

[First Offense]

Congrats on your great score.

The problem is denying people accommodations and flagging test scores violates federal law according to the government. I feel pretty angry that LSAC denied accommodations to people that deserved them. I pretty much feel law school is a mistake for most people, but I don't think people should be stopped from trying simply because they are disabled.

This. People who should have gotten accommodations didn't. This is wrong. A bunch of 0Ls worried that their 173 will turn into a 172 aren't exactly on the radar when it comes to not discriminating against disabled individuals.

[UnicornHunter]

This. People who should have gotten accommodations didn't. This is wrong.

Nobody is arguing about this part. The settlement goes far beyond making sure people who deserve accommodations get them.

[NYSprague]

This. People who should have gotten accommodations didn't. This is wrong.

Nobody is arguing about this part. The settlement goes far beyond making sure people who deserve accommodations get them.

How so? Which provisions do you specifically object to, and why?
It's a genuine question.

[dresden doll]

A bunch of 0Ls worried that their 173 will turn into a 172 aren't exactly on the radar when it comes to not discriminating against disabled individuals.

Nor should they be.

Personally, I don't even understand this obsessive focus on time as the world's greatest advantage on the LSAT. I was very comfortable with 35 minutes-per-section arrangement; the stuff I missed on the day of the test was the stuff I'd have missed either way. Can't think of a section where 35 minutes wasn't enough to fairly think the argument through. Guess I'm not in the with-enough-time-I-would-get-180-on-the-LSAT category.

Also, LOL at whoever said that law is cerebral. Law is bullshit. If you're looking for cerebral, try PhD programs.

[Clyde Frog]

A bunch of 0Ls worried that their 173 will turn into a 172 aren't exactly on the radar when it comes to not discriminating against disabled individuals.

Nor should they be.

Personally, I don't even understand this obsessive focus on time as the world's greatest advantage on the LSAT. I was very comfortable with 35 minutes-per-section arrangement; the stuff I missed on the day of the test was the stuff I'd have missed either way. Can't think of a section where 35 minutes wasn't enough to fairly think the argument through. Guess I'm not in the with-enough-time-I-would-get-180-on-the-LSAT category.

Also, LOL at whoever said that law is cerebral. Law is bullshit. If you're looking for cerebral, try PhD programs.

+1

I tried that blind review method after the tests I took but the ones I missed on the timed exam were the same on the blind review. The LSAT always has those wtf questions.

Does anyone know what percentage of SAT test takers get double time? It's just hard for me to fathom many getting double time for the LSAT, unless they have some severe limitations.

[NYSprague]

A bunch of 0Ls worried that their 173 will turn into a 172 aren't exactly on the radar when it comes to not discriminating against disabled individuals.

Nor should they be.

Personally, I don't even understand this obsessive focus on time as the world's greatest advantage on the LSAT. I was very comfortable with 35 minutes-per-section arrangement; the stuff I missed on the day of the test was the stuff I'd have missed either way. Can't think of a section where 35 minutes wasn't enough to fairly think the argument through. Guess I'm not in the with-enough-time-I-would-get-180-on-the-LSAT category.

Also, LOL at whoever said that law is cerebral. Law is bullshit. If you're looking for cerebral, try PhD programs.

+1

I tried that blind review method after the tests I took but the ones I missed on the timed exam were the same on the blind review. The LSAT always has those wtf questions.

Does anyone know what percentage of SAT test takers get double time? It's just hard for me to fathom many getting double time for the LSAT, unless they have some severe limitations.

I don't know the percentage but LSAC brought that requirement on themselves by denying requests from people who had lifelong documentation and by requiring additional, expensive testing, often to still deny the claim. It appears that LSAC lacked good systems, sufficient qualified experts, diverse qualified experts and was opaque when asked specific reasons for denial. I think if they had been more organized and competent, they might not have been forced to accept other determinations. It seems to me that the DOJ wanted to take some decision-making power out of LSACs hands.

Read the consent decree and see all the requirements DOJ is imposing.

[Clyde Frog]

Just looked into those that get double time for the SAT and it's damn near impossible. For even some extra time on the SAT it seems that you must have a long documented history of learning disabilities, proof of a history of accommodations in the classroom, extensive psychological evaluations, in addition to teacher recommendations.

Personally I think anyone is a moron if they put in this much effort to "game/cheat" a standardized test. If you really want to cheat then I can think of way better ways than to spend thousands of dollars to label yourself as a disabled person. It's along the same lines as a homeless guy posing as a veteran.

[Mosie]

The consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied.

Does it really, though? From the decree (emphasis added):

"Plaintiffs and LSAC agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, the DFEH believes it is in the public interest of California, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms without trial of any issues of fact or law raised in any of the Plaintiffs’ complaints, and without resort to protracted litigation. Further, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there has been no adjudication as to the merits of any of the claims raised herein, and the fact that LSAC has entered into this Consent Decree should in no way be considered evidence of guilt or liability that it has violated the law in any way. "

In the eyes of DOJ (and of course, the applicant) they were valid. But how does DOJ determine validity? They know 'the truth', while professionals in their fields do not? I have seen a number of ridiculous accommodations requests, but I believe the applicants really believed they were valid. I reviewed a case of a man who required SEXTUPLE time because of what he described as a series of laborious strategies needed to understand what he has read. He was approved for 50% additional time, which was very generous given a lack of good documentation, but he didn't want this and hired a well-known disability lawyer to represent him. Do you really think that sextuple time would 'level the playing field' for a slow reader? I have seen countless requests for double time because of anxiety. Again, the applicants believe this is reasonable, yet there is no data to support extended time as a valid accommodation for anxiety, and in fact many professionals would say it is counterindicated (why place yourself into a situation that evokes severe anxiety for twice as long?) Countless times I have seen applicants state that the accommodations they have been awarded are insufficient, because they require even more accommodations. I can't tell you the number of cases of psychiatric disorder I've reviewed that have morphed into a diagnosis of ADHD (with an extra time accommodation being required, natch). Are these among the 'valid' claims being denied?

[NYSprague]

The consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied.

Does it really, though? From the decree (emphasis added):

"Plaintiffs and LSAC agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, the DFEH believes it is in the public interest of California, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms without trial of any issues of fact or law raised in any of the Plaintiffs’ complaints, and without resort to protracted litigation. Further, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there has been no adjudication as to the merits of any of the claims raised herein, and the fact that LSAC has entered into this Consent Decree should in no way be considered evidence of guilt or liability that it has violated the law in any way. "

In the eyes of DOJ (and of course, the applicant) they were valid. But how does DOJ determine validity? They know 'the truth', while professionals in their fields do not? I have seen a number of ridiculous accommodations requests, but I believe the applicants really believed they were valid. I reviewed a case of a man who required SEXTUPLE time because of what he described as a series of laborious strategies needed to understand what he has read. He was approved for 50% additional time, which was very generous given a lack of good documentation, but he didn't want this and hired a well-known disability lawyer to represent him. Do you really think that sextuple time would 'level the playing field' for a slow reader? I have seen countless requests for double time because of anxiety. Again, the applicants believe this is reasonable, yet there is no data to support extended time as a valid accommodation for anxiety, and in fact many professionals would say it is counterindicated (why place yourself into a situation that evokes severe anxiety for twice as long?) Countless times I have seen applicants state that the accommodations they have been awarded are insufficient, because they require even more accommodations. I can't tell you the number of cases of psychiatric disorder I've reviewed that have morphed into a diagnosis of ADHD (with an extra time accommodation being required, natch). Are these among the 'valid' claims being denied?

No one is saying all requests are valid. It is disingenuous to even claim that is an issue.
The DOJ reviewed the documentation and the behavior of LSAC to determine valid claims were being denied. Read the consent decree, I don't recall the exact language. As I said a few times now, LSAC is operating under federal oversight (through a best practices committee with 2 members appointed by the government, required staffing, required new procedures and auditing) under a consent decree consisting of extremely specific steps. The DOJ doesn't waste time on stuff like this if they don't believe discrimination has occurred.

[Mosie]

The consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied.

Does it really, though? From the decree (emphasis added):

"Plaintiffs and LSAC agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, the DFEH believes it is in the public interest of California, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms without trial of any issues of fact or law raised in any of the Plaintiffs’ complaints, and without resort to protracted litigation. Further, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there has been no adjudication as to the merits of any of the claims raised herein, and the fact that LSAC has entered into this Consent Decree should in no way be considered evidence of guilt or liability that it has violated the law in any way. "

In the eyes of DOJ (and of course, the applicant) they were valid. But how does DOJ determine validity? They know 'the truth', while professionals in their fields do not? I have seen a number of ridiculous accommodations requests, but I believe the applicants really believed they were valid. I reviewed a case of a man who required SEXTUPLE time because of what he described as a series of laborious strategies needed to understand what he has read. He was approved for 50% additional time, which was very generous given a lack of good documentation, but he didn't want this and hired a well-known disability lawyer to represent him. Do you really think that sextuple time would 'level the playing field' for a slow reader? I have seen countless requests for double time because of anxiety. Again, the applicants believe this is reasonable, yet there is no data to support extended time as a valid accommodation for anxiety, and in fact many professionals would say it is counterindicated (why place yourself into a situation that evokes severe anxiety for twice as long?) Countless times I have seen applicants state that the accommodations they have been awarded are insufficient, because they require even more accommodations. I can't tell you the number of cases of psychiatric disorder I've reviewed that have morphed into a diagnosis of ADHD (with an extra time accommodation being required, natch). Are these among the 'valid' claims being denied?

No one is saying all requests are valid. It is disingenuous to even claim that is an issue.
The DOJ reviewed the documentation and the behavior of LSAC to determine valid claims were being denied. Read the consent decree, I don't recall the exact language. As I said a few times now, LSAC is operating under federal oversight (through a best practices committee with 2 members appointed by the government, required staffing, required new procedures and auditing) under a consent decree consisting of extremely specific steps. The DOJ doesn't waste time on stuff like this if they don't believe discrimination has occurred.

Why is it disingenuous to say that everyone who submits a request for accommodations believes their claim is valid? I would hope that if they didn't believe they were disabled they wouldn't apply. The corollary of this is that everyone who is denied a request feels they have been screwed. But just because someone at some past point in time provided you with a diagnosis does not mean you are disabled today, even if you think you are. And if you are legitimately disabled, just because you ask for accommodations X, Y and Z doesn't mean they are appropriate for the nature and severity of your disability, even if someone told you they were or even if you received X, Y and Z at some point in the past. You need to be currently disabled, at the time of testing, in order to be accommodated. The fact that you have a 2 page evaluation from 1995 that says you have dyslexia doesn't mean you have dyslexia in 2014. DOJ believes it does; they have said in numerous past cases that any history of a disability or accommodations should be sufficient evidence to satisfy a testing agency. Ask any 10 professionals in the field whether they believe that this good practice, and I predict all 10 will tell you "no". What does DOJ know that highly respected experts in their fields do not? Does DOJ have a team of professionals to advise them? No.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[ScottRiqui]

Hey, I haven't taken the time to read the entire agreement but I did see something unusual I was hoping someone on here could clarify. In one section, it specifically addresses disabilities that impair sensory, manual, or speaking skills, and uses those terms a lot throughout the paper. I might be completely off base, but it seems like this settlement does not directly address students with mental impairments like dyslexia, ADHD/ADD, and other disabilities that do not fit in those categories. Could someone clear that up with me?

Dyslexia is certainly a sensory disability - what the person sees literally isn't the same as what's on the page. I think you have a good argument regarding ADD/ADHD, though - I think that's more of a cognitive problem, which may be part of the reason why accommodations for ADD/ADHD have historically been harder to get.