LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[alphasteve]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

[NYC-WVU]

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.

I understand what the purpose is. But, since the LSAT uses the time-crunch so heavily to evaluate test-takers, giving extra time clearly can lead to an advantage in certain cases. And it looks like it could be a really large number. Apparently, 20% of boys in the U.S. are being diagnosed with ADHD. If all of them end up getting a one-size-fits-all time extension, it seems inevitable that a large number of test takers could be getting more time than is appropriate to address their disability. My understanding is that most disabilities, particularly one's relating to brain function, are on a spectrum. So the extra time can't possibly accommodate every student appropriately.
If the numbers were to rise to such a large percentage of test takers, i.e., 20% of males, I think LSAC would be forced to either rewrite the exam so that time is not a major factor, or redefine what the exam is testing in order to include speed. As I said above, I don't think speed is a necessary condition to being a good lawyer, and I would prefer that they rewrite the exam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/healt ... d=all&_r=1&

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

And yet again: there are lawyers who don't actually work in biglaw.

[NYC-WVU]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

That's fine. I'm not saying there's no work-around, or that people who need more time will be bad lawyers. I was just responding to the assertion that, for most lawyers, real-world work isn't a race like the LSAT is. Because everything I can see is that many lawyers are constantly racing against a clock, so that they aren't billing more than is reasonable, or cutting their own time, i.e. profit.

[Clyde Frog]

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.

Pretty sure DareDevil is a blind lawyer.

[NYSprague]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

And yet again: there are lawyers who don't actually work in biglaw.

One of the quadriplegic or paraplegic plaintiffs who didn't get double time from LSAC wanted to become an advocate for disabled people. I'm sure he could work to whatever pace was required. People taking the LSAT have a wide range of goals. Speed at work is not always crucial or even necessary.

[Tyr]

Doesn't this decree need to be approved by the government first? I thought I read that somewhere. So this may not be the final version. Also, it mentions what to be done for students with prior standardized test accommodations, but what about the students with accommodations from their undergrad institution due to documented disability who also did not have accommodations on past standardized tests? It almost sounds like the LSAC will err on the side of giving out accommodations to students in either situation.

[NYSprague]

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.

I understand what the purpose is. But, since the LSAT uses the time-crunch so heavily to evaluate test-takers, giving extra time clearly can lead to an advantage in certain cases. And it looks like it could be a really large number. Apparently, 20% of boys in the U.S. are being diagnosed with ADHD. If all of them end up getting a one-size-fits-all time extension, it seems inevitable that a large number of test takers could be getting more time than is appropriate to address their disability. My understanding is that most disabilities, particularly one's relating to brain function, are on a spectrum. So the extra time can't possibly accommodate every student appropriately.
If the numbers were to rise to such a large percentage of test takers, i.e., 20% of males, I think LSAC would be forced to either rewrite the exam so that time is not a major factor, or redefine what the exam is testing in order to include speed. As I said above, I don't think speed is a necessary condition to being a good lawyer, and I would prefer that they rewrite the exam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/healt ... d=all&_r=1&

The burden is on LSAC to make sure the test accurately reflects an individual's aptitude for what is being measured, not the disability.

If they can't do that under the current test, maybe they will need to come up with a new model of testing. Maybe using time pressure is no longer the best way to test the aptitude the LSAT seeks to determine.

(That is one reason flagging didn't work, by flagging the score LSAC was not fulfilling the obligation to give a test reflective of ability, not disability.)

Fun fact you guys may already know: the LSAC score band contains the true score of an individual approximately 68% of the time. ( got this from the DOJ filing)

[NYSprague]

Doesn't this decree need to be approved by the government first? I thought I read that somewhere. So this may not be the final version. Also, it mentions what to be done for students with prior standardized test accommodations, but what about the students with accommodations from their undergrad institution due to documented disability who also did not have accommodations on past standardized tests? It almost sounds like the LSAC will err on the side of giving out accommodations to students in either situation.

This consent decree just has to be accepted by the court. It would be unusual for it to change.

If you didn't have prior accommodations, the consent order has the procedure for requesting accommodations, I think. You don't have to have prior standardized tests accommodations.

My take is that if the LSAC had been more reasonable, they would not have lost so much of their decision-making power to other testing companies. Nothing in the court documents I read suggested that they erred by not accepting previous determinations. The error was the unreasonable amount of documentation, required repeated, burdensomely expensive testing and lack of guidance as to why accommodations were denied. I think the DOJ got to this step to protect disabled students from the cost and burden of more testing and reports.

[alphasteve]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

That's fine. I'm not saying there's no work-around, or that people who need more time will be bad lawyers. I was just responding to the assertion that, for most lawyers, real-world work isn't a race like the LSAT is. Because everything I can see is that many lawyers are constantly racing against a clock, so that they aren't billing more than is reasonable, or cutting their own time, i.e. profit.

But that's a different type of race against a clock. It's not a race that inhibits quality of work, as is the case with the LSAT.

[alphasteve]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

And yet again: there are lawyers who don't actually work in biglaw.

I don't see how there is a functional difference between big law and anything else on this point, unless you are implying that speed is more important than quality at non-biglaw places.

[Onomatopoeia]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

And yet again: there are lawyers who don't actually work in biglaw.

I don't see how there is a functional difference between big law and anything else on this point, unless you are implying that speed is more important than quality at non-biglaw places.

If anything, she seems to be implying the exact opposite of that bro.

[alphasteve]

If anything, she seems to be implying the exact opposite of that bro.

Considering that my beginning point was that quality trumped speed at biglaw shops, I highly doubt it.

[Tyr]

Doesn't this decree need to be approved by the government first? I thought I read that somewhere. So this may not be the final version. Also, it mentions what to be done for students with prior standardized test accommodations, but what about the students with accommodations from their undergrad institution due to documented disability who also did not have accommodations on past standardized tests? It almost sounds like the LSAC will err on the side of giving out accommodations to students in either situation.

This consent decree just has to be accepted by the court. It would be unusual for it to change.

If you didn't have prior accommodations, the consent order has the procedure for requesting accommodations, I think. You don't have to have prior standardized tests accommodations.

My take is that if the LSAC had been more reasonable, they would not have lost so much of their decision-making power to other testing companies. Nothing in the court documents I read suggested that they erred by not accepting previous determinations. The error was the unreasonable amount of documentation, required repeated, burdensomely expensive testing and lack of guidance as to why accommodations were denied. I think the DOJ got to this step to protect disabled students from the cost and burden of more testing and reports.

I guess I'm just curious (concerned?) if it will take effect this cycle or if this is one of those things that has a lag effect and won't actually kick in until next year. I am not familiar with how quickly these sorts of things happen.

[jdx2014]

Just make it untimed for everyone
give free cupcakes too, but flag people if they ask for sprinkles!

[BillsFan9907]

Wait... so if i took the SAT 10 years ago with extended time (I didn't), I could just show them that and I would get the same accommodations?

[jdx2014]

Wait... so if i took the SAT 10 years ago with extended time (I didn't), I could just show them that and I would get the same accommodations?

looks less suspicious anyways

[NYSprague]

Wait... so if i took the SAT 10 years ago with extended time (I didn't), I could just show them that and I would get the same accommodations?

On the face of it yes, although the list of accepted tests seems to be subject to amendment by the parties. I expect that part of the agreement could be tightened up.

The reality probably is that no one who wasn't already taking the LSAT is going to use past accommodations. Like I said before, LSAC screwed up in a major way and now a good bit of the decision making is out of their hands.

And by screwed up in a major way, I mean violated the civil rights of disabled test takers under the ADA. The DOJ is coming down hard on LSAC. There will be more major changes in processing requests, once the committee agrees on best practices. Looked for streamlined and precise guidelines and substantive responses.

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.

So that time gets written off, and the attorney works later to accomplish the same goals.

And yet again: there are lawyers who don't actually work in biglaw.

I don't see how there is a functional difference between big law and anything else on this point, unless you are implying that speed is more important than quality at non-biglaw places.

No, I was more addressing the billable hours issue. I don't have billable hours; no one asks me how long it took me to do something. If it takes me longer to get the same amount of work done, it just takes me longer, which means I put in more hours for the same pay as everyone else. I'm sure if I were significantly slower than everyone else in the office someone might say something to me about it eventually, but it's not really tracked like in biglaw. (So really my comment was meant to counter NYC-WVU, and agree with you - I realize the quoting was unclear.)

[BillsFan9907]

Wait... so if i took the SAT 10 years ago with extended time (I didn't), I could just show them that and I would get the same accommodations?

On the face of it yes, although the list of accepted tests seems to be subject to amendment by the parties. I expect that part of the agreement could be tightened up.

The reality probably is that no one who wasn't already taking the LSAT is going to use past accommodations. Like I said before, LSAC screwed up in a major way and now a good bit of the decision making is out of their hands.

And by screwed up in a major way, I mean violated the civil rights of disabled test takers under the ADA. The DOJ is coming down hard on LSAC. There will be more major changes in processing requests, once the committee agrees on best practices. Looked for streamlined and precise guidelines and substantive responses.

So for what test do these new rules start applying? ASAP?

[NYSprague]

Doesn't this decree need to be approved by the government first? I thought I read that somewhere. So this may not be the final version. Also, it mentions what to be done for students with prior standardized test accommodations, but what about the students with accommodations from their undergrad institution due to documented disability who also did not have accommodations on past standardized tests? It almost sounds like the LSAC will err on the side of giving out accommodations to students in either situation.

This consent decree just has to be accepted by the court. It would be unusual for it to change.

If you didn't have prior accommodations, the consent order has the procedure for requesting accommodations, I think. You don't have to have prior standardized tests accommodations.

My take is that if the LSAC had been more reasonable, they would not have lost so much of their decision-making power to other testing companies. Nothing in the court documents I read suggested that they erred by not accepting previous determinations. The error was the unreasonable amount of documentation, required repeated, burdensomely expensive testing and lack of guidance as to why accommodations were denied. I think the DOJ got to this step to protect disabled students from the cost and burden of more testing and reports.

I guess I'm just curious (concerned?) if it will take effect this cycle or if this is one of those things that has a lag effect and won't actually kick in until next year. I am not familiar with how quickly these sorts of things happen.

As far as I can tell the effective date of the agreement is the day it is signed. Which I assume will be soon as they already had the press release. I expect it to change rapidly. The best practices part has a timeframe built in.

I haven't read it carefully as to dates,but there is no reason it shouldn't be in effect for the September LSAT, depending on when registration cutoff dates are, etc

[NYSprague]

Wait... so if i took the SAT 10 years ago with extended time (I didn't), I could just show them that and I would get the same accommodations?

On the face of it yes, although the list of accepted tests seems to be subject to amendment by the parties. I expect that part of the agreement could be tightened up.

The reality probably is that no one who wasn't already taking the LSAT is going to use past accommodations. Like I said before, LSAC screwed up in a major way and now a good bit of the decision making is out of their hands.

And by screwed up in a major way, I mean violated the civil rights of disabled test takers under the ADA. The DOJ is coming down hard on LSAC. There will be more major changes in processing requests, once the committee agrees on best practices. Looked for streamlined and precise guidelines and substantive responses.

So for what test do these new rules start applying? ASAP?

When is registration for the September test closed? I think submission of request for accommodations ties into that. (This is assuming the judge signs it.)

I think DOJ wants the discrimination and civil rights violations to end ASAP.
Check it out yourself at Ada.gov.
The link is on the top left side.
I am not great at linking PDFs through my phone.

[dresden doll]

No, I was more addressing the billable hours issue. I don't have billable hours; no one asks me how long it took me to do something. If it takes me longer to get the same amount of work done, it just takes me longer, which means I put in more hours for the same pay as everyone else. I'm sure if I were significantly slower than everyone else in the office someone might say something to me about it eventually, but it's not really tracked like in biglaw. (So really my comment was meant to counter NYC-WVU, and agree with you - I realize the quoting was unclear.)

This is 100 percent accurate for me too.

[jdx2014]

Can the MCAT get extra time?

I would hate to see the Heart Surgeon who needs extra time on the job....

[NYSprague]

Can the MCAT get extra time?

I would hate to see the Heart Surgeon who needs extra time on the job....

Yes. This is the thing with civil rights, they apply to everyone. The ADA included testing intentionally to allow disabled people access to educational opportunities.

Accommodations have to be given.

I have no clue what the rules for the MCAT are. I feel certain that if they still flag accommodated scores, they may be stopping.