LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[NYSprague]

Way more people have their panties in a twist about the theoretical increase in people gaming the system than have expressed approval that people with disabilities will now be able to get accommodations.

Could be true-I haven't read all of the posts, however focusing on individuals that might potentially game the system doesn't not mean that they don't care about individuals with disabilities.

I care about individuals with disabilities, and strongly believe they deserve a decent shot at the test, however I'm most certainly concerned about individuals gaming the system therefore disadvantaging other students-why wouldn't I be? I don't think that makes me, or anyone else a bad person. Im all about equality for everyone…. I highly doubt someone would tell a blind person they can't have accommodations…need extra time-sure, why not? When you start with ADHD-and extending someones time because of it...

Actually LSAC did deny accommodations to people who had evidence of life long vision problems, even refusing large print books.

I'm not sure why everyone assumes ADHD people weren't getting accommodations before, clearly some people were, and others were denied. As far as I can see, there was never a blanket prohibition about extending time for ADHD.

If anything, the new best practices committee should be much better at determining who to approve.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Way more people have their panties in a twist about the theoretical increase in people gaming the system than have expressed approval that people with disabilities will now be able to get accommodations.

Or expressed disapproval with what LSAC was doing.

I know there was investigation into the risk of people gaming the system back when the ADA was enacted, or amended, or when the regulations were enacted. It was referenced in one of the filings, but I haven't looked it up. Apparently it is a fear without data supporting it.

One funny thing seems to be that the LSAT is not intended to measure speed, but somehow speed seems to be the limiting factor. I don't pretend to understand exam psychometrics.

The exam is supposed to measure reasoning ability, not speed of reasoning. At least that is what I got from skimming some stuff about it.

I'm really curious as to whether they will need to revise the test.

...

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Way more people have their panties in a twist about the theoretical increase in people gaming the system than have expressed approval that people with disabilities will now be able to get accommodations.

Could be true-I haven't read all of the posts, however focusing on individuals that might potentially game the system doesn't not mean that they don't care about individuals with disabilities.

I care about individuals with disabilities, and strongly believe they deserve a decent shot at the test, however I'm most certainly concerned about individuals gaming the system therefore disadvantaging other students-why wouldn't I be? I don't think that makes me, or anyone else a bad person. Im all about equality for everyone…. I highly doubt someone would tell a blind person they can't have accommodations…need extra time-sure, why not? When you start with ADHD-and extending someones time because of it...

Actually LSAC did deny accommodations to people who had evidence of life long vision problems, even refusing large print books.

I'm not sure why everyone assumes ADHD people weren't getting accommodations before, clearly some people were, and others were denied. As far as I can see, there was never a blanket prohibition about extending time for ADHD.

If anything, the new best practices committee should be much better at determining who to approve.

...

[NYSprague]

I posted a link a few posts back to all the pleadings in this case. I don't have it at my fingertips right now.

[NYSprague]

Way more people have their panties in a twist about the theoretical increase in people gaming the system than have expressed approval that people with disabilities will now be able to get accommodations.

Or expressed disapproval with what LSAC was doing.

I know there was investigation into the risk of people gaming the system back when the ADA was enacted, or amended, or when the regulations were enacted. It was referenced in one of the filings, but I haven't looked it up. Apparently it is a fear without data supporting it.

One funny thing seems to be that the LSAT is not intended to measure speed, but somehow speed seems to be the limiting factor. I don't pretend to understand exam psychometrics.

The exam is supposed to measure reasoning ability, not speed of reasoning. At least that is what I got from skimming some stuff about it.

I'm really curious as to whether they will need to revise the test.

A test where every point counts, and is valued four times your GPA, you won't see anyone claiming they have ADHD for the purpose of the LSAT? You know what 5 minutes extra on each section can do for someone in respect to the test, let alone 10, 15, or 20 minutes? You need to be realistic.

That wasn't what I meant. I meant that ADHD has already been a basis for extra time, if properly established, at least from what I've read. LSAC did several illegal things like requiring medication, flagging scores, etc, that they can't do anymore.

A person still has to prove they need the accommodation. A new panel of experts is going to create a best practices system that LSAC has to follow. And other changes of requiring reasonable documentation, etc.

The reason at least some ADHD people were denied was due to discriminatory practices and civil rights violations, not because they weren't entitled to accommodations under the law.

The DOJ is smart enough to understand that people might try to game the system. As I mentioned, that concern was not substantiated, at least according to what I read.
I don't think LSAC convinced anyone that was a legitimate concern.

I'm just saying that ADHD was already a reason for accommodation if properly established as provided by the regulations. This isn't a massive change in the law. It's a change in practices that violated the law.

[SecondWind]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

[UnicornHunter]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

law school =/= academic NBA. HTH. Also, people may not be given extra time on assignments, but they will be given extra time on exams, which are all that really matter.

I'm on the fence on this, leaning towards its good for some things bad for others, but that was a straight up bad post.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

...

[A. Nony Mouse]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

Yo, Spicoli, no discussion of the merits of AA outside the AA thread.

Law schools are actually also required to accommodate disabilities, in case you hadn't heard.

Also, irregardless isn't a word.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

Yo, Spicoli, no discussion of the merits of AA outside the AA thread.

Law schools are actually also required to accommodate disabilities, in case you hadn't heard.

Also, irregardless isn't a word.

...

[ScottRiqui]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

Yo, Spicoli, no discussion of the merits of AA outside the AA thread.

Law schools are actually also required to accommodate disabilities, in case you hadn't heard.

Also, irregardless isn't a word.

Also, stop perpetuating the myth that anyone who gets accommodations on the LSAT is automatically going to be at the bottom of the barrel in the legal profession, behind every single other lawyer in terms of efficiency and ability.

[NYSprague]

Also, it isn't new. The original act was 1990 and was amended in 2008 to clarify issues raised by Supreme Court rulings that were not consistent with Congressional intent.

The only new thing is that the government finally examined what LSAC was doing and found that it needed a fairly complete overhaul and that LSAC owed civil damages because of past practices.

[Clyde Frog]

My only complaint with this recent decision is the mandatory acceptance of those given accommodations for the SAT. My little sister has severe learning disabilities and to think that someone with normal abilities could have their parents simply pay off a doctor to gain similar accommodations that she would get is pretty disgusting.

[Pneumonia]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

As someone who, based on the quality of the reasoning and writing in this post, almost certainly stands to benefit from the settlement under discussion, I'm not sure why you are disparaging it so heavily.

[SecondWind]

This is just a new form of URM for people to abuse. It's like Adam Silver (Commissioner of the NBA) giving Nate Robinson (a vertically challenged individual) a step stool or a trampoline in the paint so he can drive the lane and really throw it down because it puts him on a level playing field with Lebron, Wade, KD, etc.

-I'm sorry, but if you have cognitive issues (ex dyslexia, ADHD) you shouldn't be given more time. You won't be given extra time in law school to complete assignments, so you shouldn't have it as a crutch to get you into law school.

-If you're missing a hand, I can see why you might need some extra time to bubble in/solve the games/mark up passages because you more than likely are accustomed to typing things out or using text to speech rather than hand writing things.

-If you have bad eye sight, you do deserve a bigger book because you can custom order your text books with bigger print for law school.

-If you're too mentally slow, law school isn't for you.

This, like the URM status and Affirmative Action, impedes what should really happen: The best get in. Irregardless of their skin color, social status, economic status, gender, or whether they are a transsexual student with Aspergers that crushed it and ripped a 180. The best get in because the best (generally speaking) either worked their ass off or had natural talent. You take the cards you're dealt and if you don't cut it, maybe someone has a participant trophy out there for you.

Surf's Up Dude,

-Spicoli

Yo, Spicoli, no discussion of the merits of AA outside the AA thread.

Law schools are actually also required to accommodate disabilities, in case you hadn't heard.

Also, irregardless isn't a word.

Noted on 1 and 3(I learned something new today).

I'm well aware that law schools are required to accommodate disabilities, but if you're mentally too slow, you're TOO slow. The LSAT demands high cognitive processes. If you aren't good enough or prepared enough to handle those you're just SOL. You shouldn't get your hand held. For lack of a better way to put it, it's like saying, "We feel sorry you can't keep up with everyone else. Here's some extra time because without it you won't be competitive with everyone else." I don't believe in handouts like that. Change your strategy; change your career choice to something you are more talented in. Do I have sympathy for those individuals? Absolutely! It may not seem like it, but I do. It sucks, but the harsh reality is that if you do your best and it's not good enough then too bad. It's life. It happens.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm well aware that law schools are required to accommodate disabilities, but if you're mentally too slow, you're TOO slow. The LSAT demands high cognitive processes. If you aren't good enough or prepared enough to handle those you're just SOL. You shouldn't get your hand held. For lack of a better way to put it, it's like saying, "We feel sorry you can't keep up with everyone else. Here's some extra time because without it you won't be competitive with everyone else." I don't believe in handouts like that. Change your strategy; change your career choice to something you are more talented in. Do I have sympathy for those individuals? Absolutely! It may not seem like it, but I do. It sucks, but the harsh reality is that if you do your best and it's not good enough then too bad. It's life. It happens.

Someone with a disability isn't "mentally slow." They have some kind of issue going on that affects very specific parts of processing or expressing information. It's not that they just read slow or think slow or write slow, or that they aren't as "good" at one kind of thing than another thing (that is, it's not about talent). Disabilities are actual real things, and they're not the same as mental retardation. Whether someone has ADHD has nothing to do with their IQ, but with how they process material.

I mean, even if you worry that people are going to "game" the system and get accommodations they don't deserve, you could at least recognize that disabilities actually exist as something distinct from "being stupid."

[SecondWind]

I'm well aware that law schools are required to accommodate disabilities, but if you're mentally too slow, you're TOO slow. The LSAT demands high cognitive processes. If you aren't good enough or prepared enough to handle those you're just SOL. You shouldn't get your hand held. For lack of a better way to put it, it's like saying, "We feel sorry you can't keep up with everyone else. Here's some extra time because without it you won't be competitive with everyone else." I don't believe in handouts like that. Change your strategy; change your career choice to something you are more talented in. Do I have sympathy for those individuals? Absolutely! It may not seem like it, but I do. It sucks, but the harsh reality is that if you do your best and it's not good enough then too bad. It's life. It happens.

Someone with a disability isn't "mentally slow." They have some kind of issue going on that affects very specific parts of processing or expressing information. It's not that they just read slow or think slow or write slow, or that they aren't as "good" at one kind of thing than another thing (that is, it's not about talent). Disabilities are actual real things, and they're not the same as mental retardation. Whether someone has ADHD has nothing to do with their IQ, but with how they process material.

I mean, even if you worry that people are going to "game" the system and get accommodations they don't deserve, you could at least recognize that disabilities actually exist as something distinct from "being stupid."

I get that there is a lot of grey area in the topic. By "mentally slow" I mean it takes them longer to synthesize the information and kick out an answer; not a measure of mental aptitude. Disabilities do exist. They are real and have real effects on people's quality of life. Does that mean we should (in a way) lower the standards for them to compensate for that? Maybe the test needs to be designed so that time isn't such a pervasive issue?

At the end of the day, we should be able to sit and say (with a fair amount of accuracy) this pool of people is the best based on their abilities. If that means that half the test takers need 15 extra minutes per section then I'm all for it, so long as the outcome is one that truly reflects who the best candidates are. More often than not though, I feel that giving more time to people (other than situations like someone is missing their hand) is going to misrepresent people's abilities relative to each other.

I mean, do a PT with 10 extra minutes per section and see the difference in your score. Then imagine people with extra time getting those same gains when it counts.

[Pneumonia]

Please, explain the difference between a missing hand and issues like vision impairment.

[NYSprague]

I'm well aware that law schools are required to accommodate disabilities, but if you're mentally too slow, you're TOO slow. The LSAT demands high cognitive processes. If you aren't good enough or prepared enough to handle those you're just SOL. You shouldn't get your hand held. For lack of a better way to put it, it's like saying, "We feel sorry you can't keep up with everyone else. Here's some extra time because without it you won't be competitive with everyone else." I don't believe in handouts like that. Change your strategy; change your career choice to something you are more talented in. Do I have sympathy for those individuals? Absolutely! It may not seem like it, but I do. It sucks, but the harsh reality is that if you do your best and it's not good enough then too bad. It's life. It happens.

Someone with a disability isn't "mentally slow." They have some kind of issue going on that affects very specific parts of processing or expressing information. It's not that they just read slow or think slow or write slow, or that they aren't as "good" at one kind of thing than another thing (that is, it's not about talent). Disabilities are actual real things, and they're not the same as mental retardation. Whether someone has ADHD has nothing to do with their IQ, but with how they process material.

I mean, even if you worry that people are going to "game" the system and get accommodations they don't deserve, you could at least recognize that disabilities actually exist as something distinct from "being stupid."

I get that there is a lot of grey area in the topic. By "mentally slow" I mean it takes them longer to synthesize the information and kick out an answer; not a measure of mental aptitude. Disabilities do exist. They are real and have real effects on people's quality of life. Does that mean we should (in a way) lower the standards for them to compensate for that? Maybe the test needs to be designed so that time isn't such a pervasive issue?

At the end of the day, we should be able to sit and say (with a fair amount of accuracy) this pool of people is the best based on their abilities. If that means that half the test takers need 15 extra minutes per section then I'm all for it, so long as the outcome is one that truly reflects who the best candidates are. More often than not though, I feel that giving more time to people (other than situations like someone is missing their hand) is going to misrepresent people's abilities relative to each other.

I mean, do a PT with 10 extra minutes per section and see the difference in your score. Then imagine people with extra time getting those same gains when it counts.

Are you serious? Maybe think about the last sentence again.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I get that there is a lot of grey area in the topic. By "mentally slow" I mean it takes them longer to synthesize the information and kick out an answer; not a measure of mental aptitude. Disabilities do exist. They are real and have real effects on people's quality of life. Does that mean we should (in a way) lower the standards for them to compensate for that? Maybe the test needs to be designed so that time isn't such a pervasive issue?

Well, the ADA requires that people get reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, so yes, something has to be done. I don't think getting extra time (for the particular small subset of applicants for whom this is appropriate) is lowering standards as much as it's allowing those applicants the opportunity to test in a way that better reflects their abilities. But I could also get behind redesigning the test so that it's not such a test of time (personally, the only section where extra time would have helped me was the games - I always finished the other sections with lots of time left over. Didn't mean I got everything right, I just read fast. So for most of the test, more time actually wouldn't have made any difference at all).

[BillsFan9907]

Is there a way to figure out when this will be decided on by the Court? Is there a court date or something or is it like a decision without a set date.

[Onomatopoeia]

I get that there is a lot of grey area in the topic. By "mentally slow" I mean it takes them longer to synthesize the information and kick out an answer; not a measure of mental aptitude. Disabilities do exist. They are real and have real effects on people's quality of life. Does that mean we should (in a way) lower the standards for them to compensate for that? Maybe the test needs to be designed so that time isn't such a pervasive issue?

Well, the ADA requires that people get reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, so yes, something has to be done. I don't think getting extra time (for the particular small subset of applicants for whom this is appropriate) is lowering standards as much as it's allowing those applicants the opportunity to test in a way that better reflects their abilities. But I could also get behind redesigning the test so that it's not such a test of time (personally, the only section where extra time would have helped me was the games - I always finished the other sections with lots of time left over. Didn't mean I got everything right, I just read fast. So for most of the test, more time actually wouldn't have made any difference at all).

Time matters for all sections. If you finish early there are always two or three questions per section that having the time to relax and tackle is game changing, like changing your score from the upper 160s to upper 170s. A new test is needed.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

...

[Tanicius]

Time is a significant factor on the LSAT. How can anyone claim otherwise? Add extra 5-10 minutes to reading comprehension and you are looking most certainly at a better score (basing my assumption on average TLS taker)...

I would be interested in seeing a "before and after" details about accommodations. How much is a test taker with ADHD on average getting extra time now compared to before etc.? One of the points stated earlier is that LSAC did not lower their standards in regards to accommodating test takers, but how can that be inferred? As stated before I would love to see before and after details to be certain that there is no room for gaming the system, just improvement in accommodations for people that deserve it.

Seriously, what is with this obsessive stereotype with ADHD with you guys? Do you think that all you need to get extra time on the LSAT is some basic ADHD diagnosis? Did you not know that medication is often seen as a sufficient accommodation for most cases of ADHD, especially for someone who has already reached adulthood? The people with ADHD who get time extensions on the LSAT are the people with really fucking bad cases of ADHD. And let's be real here -- if you have ADHD that is so bad that it doesn't let you adequately sit down to read four passages in 35 minutes, how much is an extra 10 minutes really going to help you?

Yes, we get it -- 20% of boys in America are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. That neither means that they still have an active diagnosis at the time they are taking the LSAT, nor that they require anything more to deal with their ADHD than a simple prescription.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Time is a significant factor on the LSAT. How can anyone claim otherwise? Add extra 5-10 minutes to reading comprehension and you are looking most certainly at a better score (basing my assumption on average TLS taker)...

I would be interested in seeing a "before and after" details about accommodations. How much is a test taker with ADHD on average getting extra time now compared to before etc.? One of the points stated earlier is that LSAC did not lower their standards in regards to accommodating test takers, but how can that be inferred? As stated before I would love to see before and after details to be certain that there is no room for gaming the system, just improvement in accommodations for people that deserve it.

Seriously, what is with this obsessive stereotype with ADHD with you guys? Do you think that all you need to get extra time on the LSAT is some basic ADHD diagnosis? Did you not know that medication is often seen as a sufficient accommodation for most cases of ADHD, especially for someone who has already reached adulthood? The people with ADHD who get time extensions on the LSAT are the people with really fucking bad cases of ADHD. And let's be real here -- if you have ADHD that is so bad that it doesn't let you adequately sit down to read four passages in 35 minutes, how much is an extra 10 minutes really going to help you?

Yes, we get it -- 20% of boys in America are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. That neither means that they still have an active diagnosis at the time they are taking the LSAT, nor that they require anything more to deal with their ADHD than a simple prescription.

...