LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[NYSprague]

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?

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

General Obligations. LSAC shall comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 12189 of the ADA and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 36.309 (and California law where applicable), including, inter alia, the obligation to offer the LSAT in a place and manner accessible to persons with disabilities.
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(1)(i), LSAC shall select and administer the LSAT so as to best ensure that, when the LSAT is administered to an individual with a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the LSAT results accurately reflect the individual’s aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the individual’s impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the LSAT purports to measure).
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(3), LSAC shall provide appropriate auxiliary aids for persons with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, unless LSAC can demonstrate that offering a particular auxiliary aid would fundamentally alter the measurement of the skills or knowledge the examination is intended to test or would result in an undue burden.

You realize the bolded language is just an exact quote from the regulation,right? Of course it covers ADD, which everyone seems so concerned about.

[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.

That's a really good point regarding dyslexia. Point noted. But it does seem like LSAC is not explicitly referring to cognitive disabilities (maybe foreseeing the problem we've been discussing and giving themselves a way out?). I might be completely off base, 0L, heh heh, but if it does exclude ADD/ADHD/Autism, we might not have the massive meltdown everyone is scared of.

Well, ADD/ADHD might be a sensory disability if the inability to concentrate materially interferes with their ability to read and understand the question. It's just not as clear-cut as dyslexia being a sensory disability, or the way ALS can affect motor function and speech.

[NYSprague]

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.

That's a really good point regarding dyslexia. Point noted. But it does seem like LSAC is not explicitly referring to cognitive disabilities (maybe foreseeing the problem we've been discussing and giving themselves a way out?). I might be completely off base, 0L, heh heh, but if it does exclude ADD/ADHD/Autism, we might not have the massive meltdown everyone is scared of.

As I said, the quoted language is provided directly in the regulation. Do you really think that cognitive disabilities were excluded from a regulation about examinations? That is the title of the regulation "examinations."

[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.

That's a really good point regarding dyslexia. Point noted. But it does seem like LSAC is not explicitly referring to cognitive disabilities (maybe foreseeing the problem we've been discussing and giving themselves a way out?). I might be completely off base, 0L, heh heh, but if it does exclude ADD/ADHD/Autism, we might not have the massive meltdown everyone is scared of.

As I said, the quoted language is provided directly in the regulation. Do you really think that cognitive disabilities were excluded from a regulation about examinations?

Yes, I think they are. That's why the language in the consent decree mirrors the language in the ADA/Section 504 and specifically talks about motor, sensory and speech disabilities. I honestly don't think you could make a case to LSAC asking for accommodations simply because (for example), you have an IQ of 70.

[NYSprague]

quote="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.

That's a really good point regarding dyslexia. Point noted. But it does seem like LSAC is not explicitly referring to cognitive disabilities (maybe foreseeing the problem we've been discussing and giving themselves a way out?). I might be completely off base, 0L, heh heh, but if it does exclude ADD/ADHD/Autism, we might not have the massive meltdown everyone is scared of.

As I said, the quoted language is provided directly in the regulation. Do you really think that cognitive disabilities were excluded from a regulation about examinations?

Yes, I think they are. That's why the language in the consent decree mirrors the language in the ADA/Section 504 and specifically talks about motor, sensory and speech disabilities. I honestly don't think you could make a case to LSAC asking for accommodations simply because (for example), you have an IQ of 70.[/quote]

Gee, I wonder why so many people who were named plaintiffs in the various complaints have cognitive issues like ADD, processing disorders,etc. I guess the DOJ just left them out of the consent decree. Oops.

[ScottRiqui]

Gee, I wonder why so many people who were named plaintiffs in the various complaints have cognitive issues like ADD, processing disorders,etc. I guess the DOJ just left them out of the consent decree. Oops.

Like I said, ADD may not be considered purely cognitive. And a "processing" disorder might be considered "sensory" as well, if it impairs getting the information into the person's mind or out onto the page. Why do *you* think the language of the ADA and the consent decree specifies "sensory, motor and speech" rather than simply "mental, motor and speech"? I think it's a very strong indicator that there are mental disabilities that the ADA didn't intend to warrant accommodations.

[NYSprague]

Gee, I wonder why so many people who were named plaintiffs in the various complaints have cognitive issues like ADD, processing disorders,etc. I guess the DOJ just left them out of the consent decree. Oops.

Like I said, ADD may not be considered purely cognitive. And a "processing" disorder might be considered "sensory" as well, if it impairs getting the information into the person's mind or out onto the page. Why do *you* think the language of the ADA and the consent decree specifies "sensory, motor and speech" rather than simply "mental, motor and speech"? I think it's a very strong indicator that there are mental disabilities that the ADA didn't intend to warrant accommodations.

No. You are reading it wrong. The first part that you didn't bold covers all disabilities
Then (b) covers those listed disabilities. Read the paragraph you quoted again. The first paragraph under General obligations covers all disabilities.

[NYSprague]

quote="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.[/quote]

DOJ has experts advising them. They have access to the experts who helped write and implement the law, to the extent available.

[ratfukr]

I think extra-time accommodations for ADD/ADHD are trickier than for other disabilities, and I can see the argument for declining accommodations for it in many cases, based on the wording of the ADA:

"failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure)."

Things like Parkinson's, blindness and dyslexia are obviously problems with "sensory, manual or speaking skills", and the ADA requires that testers don't receive a lower score just because they have problems getting the information from the test booklet into their mind, or getting their answers from their mind onto the answer sheet. But is ADD/ADHD really an "interface" problem like the ADA is describing, or is it a cognitive problem?

I think add/adhd is a nonsense excuse for extra time for most people except the true extreme cases, which are only a small proportion of all people currently diagnosed as add. It's one of the more commonly over diagnosed conditions these days. From what I've seen with many students, add kids tend to do better and improve faster than others, whether medicated or not, due to their quick thinking minds and being used to jumping from thinking about one thing to another rapidly like you do in LR and LGs, but that's just anecdotal from my experience.

christ what an asshole
u write w the economy of some1 who just discovered adderall so maybe in a couple hours u will understand what a stim crash is
even the XR dip is a thing 2 deal w. u should start PTing rn & let me know what happens when u suddenly come off in the middle of a timed section

[NYC-WVU]

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.

Your anecdotal evidence as a lawyer doing one particular type of law is not going to convince me that the 0.1 or 0.2 hours is insignificant when the total is 0.6 hours. For 2200 hours that amounts to a difference of ~360 to 720 hours. As a patent prosecutor I can tell you that my day is a series of races to get things done in 1-4 hours. I would imagine its similar for lawyers working for small clients or individuals.

And "thank you", I guess.

[NYC-WVU]

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.

You must have gotten a very high score if you were only missing the questions that you misread or misunderstood. I certainly could have used extra time for the "find the answer in the prompt" questions reading comp and would have aced the games consistently with extra time.
To clarify, I'm not arguing that extra time is unwarranted in cases, but to assert that it wouldn't be advantageous for the average test taker seems unrealistic.

[NYSprague]

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.

Your anecdotal evidence as a lawyer doing one particular type of law is not going to convince me that the 0.1 or 0.2 hours is insignificant when the total is 0.6 hours. For 2200 hours that amounts to a difference of ~360 to 720 hours. As a patent prosecutor I can tell you that my day is a series of races to get things done in 1-4 hours. I would imagine its similar for lawyers working for small clients or individuals.

And "thank you", I guess.

I guess it's good boies went to Cravath. Being on a big law budget he didn't have to worry about time.

[NYC-WVU]

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.

At the private high school I went to, with a very small class size, 10% of students got extra time on the SAT. And, as a student, it seemed like the school encouraged parents of students who were testing lower than the class average to find a "reason" for their relatively lower performance. Of course the class average was nowhere near the national average.

Justified or not, I think the concern people have with ADD/ADHD is that it seems to be over diagnosed, particularly to affluent students, and the symptoms are ones that everyone relates to, so people are jealous because they're stuck with their own wandering/distracted mind, while others are having it diagnosed as a condition.

[NYSprague]

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.

At the private high school I went to, with a very small class size, 10% of students got extra time on the SAT. And, as a student, it seemed like the school encouraged parents of students who were testing lower than the class average to find a "reason" for their relatively lower performance. Of course the class average was nowhere near the national average.

Justified or not, I think the concern people have with ADD/ADHD is that it seems to be over diagnosed, particularly to affluent students, and the symptoms are ones that everyone relates to, so people are jealous because they're stuck with their own wandering/distracted mind, while others are having it diagnosed as a condition.

Whatever the concern and misperceptions about the reality of ADD, the consent decree means that a history of a disability along with proof it impacts ability to take the exam, has to be acknowledged.
The regulations specifically require that history be given weight in the determination, which LSAC was not doing. Read the complaints if you want to understand how flawed the LSAC process has been.

[dresden doll]

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.

Your anecdotal evidence as a lawyer doing one particular type of law is not going to convince me that the 0.1 or 0.2 hours is insignificant when the total is 0.6 hours. For 2200 hours that amounts to a difference of ~360 to 720 hours. As a patent prosecutor I can tell you that my day is a series of races to get things done in 1-4 hours. I would imagine its similar for lawyers working for small clients or individuals.

And "thank you", I guess.

Here's my anecdotal evidence doing law for individuals/small clients. He's 100 percent right.

[NYSprague]

He might be right about the need to work quickly, but that doesn't mean a person shouldn't get extended time on the LSAT. The two things don't correlate. In fact, a disabled person can get accommodations from their employer, if needed. Or maybe these disabled people just need more time on an exam, but in other ways they are brilliant or very fast workers.

A vision impaired worker may have ways of working just as fast as anyone else, for example. I worked with a blind tax attorney on a deal and he was just as fast as anyone else. But I'm sure he couldn't go into an unfamiliar exam room and perform the same.

[DELG]

My understanding is that blind people are basically unable to perform on the games section. Which makes sense. I wonder if LSAC will accommodate them with more RC/LR (like they already should have done)

[NYC-WVU]

My understanding is that blind people are basically unable to perform on the games section. Which makes sense. I wonder if LSAC will accommodate them with more RC/LR (like they already should have done)

Why does it make sense? Because they can't diagram? Blind people must have some way of organizing interrelated information. And some blind people are probably very good at that particular skill, so to have the accommodation be simply to allow them to skip that section seems unjustified. This is the kind of accommodation that I think would be innappropriate because it's not addressing the disability. Instead, it's equating the disability with an incapability. I am confident blind people could do logic games given the right tools (and appropriate time to use those tools).

[DELG]

Just found a phamphlet on how blind people do them with Braille magnets. Pretty cool.

[NYC-WVU]

Just found a phamphlet on how blind people do them with Braille magnets. Pretty cool.

Magnets makes sense. I was envisioning scrabble tiles.

[NYSprague]

Just found a phamphlet on how blind people do them with Braille magnets. Pretty cool.

Magnets makes sense. I was envisioning scrabble tiles.

I'm really jaded. I am expecting some 0L to post how they could ace games if they could use the blind people magnets.

I'm surprised at how incensed I am about the many ways LSAC was denying people accommodations and violating the AD A. That they have to form a committee with government reps to set up exacting best practices just shows how arbitrary they were. And even with that they are subject to monitoring with strict reporting requirements.

I'm going to put together links to all the stuff I've found sometime in the next couple of days. The more I read about it the more angry I am.

[NYC-WVU]

Just found a phamphlet on how blind people do them with Braille magnets. Pretty cool.

Magnets makes sense. I was envisioning scrabble tiles.

I'm really jaded. I am expecting some 0L to post how they could ace games if they could use the blind people magnets.

I'm surprised at how incensed I am about the many ways LSAC was denying people accommodations and violating the AD A. That they have to form a committee with government reps to set up exacting best practices just shows how arbitrary they were. And even with that they are subject to monitoring with strict reporting requirements.

I'm going to put together links to all the stuff I've found sometime in the next couple of days. The more I read about it the more angry I am.

I think you're overestimating people's concerns about what is fair. Time is the only thing that I think people really care about, because it helps nearly everyone perform better. In an ideal world, all accommodations would be things that would only be helpful to a person with the disability, such that giving an average test-taker the accommodation wouldn't provide any advantage, like the magnets for the blind or a special answering method for people with motor problems. That way, when LSAC is denying someone the accommodation, they are only doing so because it's too costly to let everyone have the modified test, not because they don't deserve the advantages provided by the accommodation.

[NYSprague]

Just found a phamphlet on how blind people do them with Braille magnets. Pretty cool.

Magnets makes sense. I was envisioning scrabble tiles.

I'm really jaded. I am expecting some 0L to post how they could ace games if they could use the blind people magnets.

I'm surprised at how incensed I am about the many ways LSAC was denying people accommodations and violating the AD A. That they have to form a committee with government reps to set up exacting best practices just shows how arbitrary they were. And even with that they are subject to monitoring with strict reporting requirements.

I'm going to put together links to all the stuff I've found sometime in the next couple of days. The more I read about it the more angry I am.

I think you're overestimating people's concerns about what is fair. Time is the only thing that I think people really care about, because it helps nearly everyone perform better. In an ideal world, all accommodations would be things that would only be helpful to a person with the disability, such that giving an average test-taker the accommodation wouldn't provide any advantage, like the magnets for the blind or a special answering method for people with motor problems. That way, when LSAC is denying someone the accommodation, they are only doing so because it's too costly to let everyone have the modified test, not because they don't deserve the advantages provided by the accommodation.

Plenty of disabilities require time to mitigate them. Often those disabilities are invisible to the outside view but are apparent from testing. If someone is complaining because a person deemed to be disabled getting more time is unfair to them and their able-bodied self, I don't agree with them. The law was specifically changed to protect the kinds if disabilities people are complaining about. The point is that some disabilities require extra time to compensate. It is not to give anyone an advantage.

Very few people care that many people were discriminated against by LSACs egregious conduct or that the justice department is now heavily involved in the decision making of a private company because of that widespread discriminatory conduct. All people care about is their results and the validity of a bullshit entrance exam that has little correlation to law school success or practice.

People are concerned their scores will be diluted because people will now get accommodations they were entitled to in the first place. Maybe they will be diluted because more disabled people will be on a level playing field.

Schools and LSAC are going to have to deal with complying with the law. And so are 0Ls. It's the law. Deal with it.

I don't believe LSAC had a chance to win this suit. They may say it was too expensive to fight, but their procedures and practices were poor at best. They can't even prove they complied with the past consent decree, which required them to make reasonable requests. I'm sure that DOJ finally looked at what was actually being done and decided they had to step in.

I would have enjoyed seeing the discovery from LSAC about their process.

[haus]

I don't believe LSAC had a chance to win this suit. They may say it was too expensive to fight,

Besides, how could LSAC find an attorney that does not harbor ill will towards them for having the wait weeks to get their @&?! scantron form graded.