LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[ScottRiqui]

What's kept huge numbers of people from gaming the system up to this point? Is it really that hard to get accommodations for the LSAT, or was it the fear that a flagged score wouldn't carry enough weight with the adcomms? Haven't there always been doctors whom you could bribe/browbeat into a diagnosis?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Will schools eventually be forced to offer extra time with no flagging too?

What's the reasoning for requiring this on entrance exams but not in the schools themselves?

Interested in this. If schools are not required to grant accommodations to everyone who gets extra time on the LSAT, I want to defer a year. Put me on a curve in LS with people who abuse this, I'd love it. OTOH, if schools also have to grant extra time to anyone who can get an ADD diagnosis, that kind of sucks.

Don't schools already offer accommodations? Since they're schools and required to? I've never heard of schools (as opposed to LSAC) flagging accommodated grades.

To be honest, I could see benefits to if the LSAT became less predictive and schools were forced to a more holistic style of admissions review. I know there are problems with that as well, though (just different ones).

[cotiger]

Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

What's kept huge numbers of people from gaming the system up to this point? Is it really that hard to get accommodations for the LSAT, or was it the fear that a flagged score wouldn't carry enough weight with the adcomms? Haven't there always been doctors whom you could bribe/browbeat into a diagnosis?

LSAT Blog has a good overview of the old requirements: http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2010/07/lsa ... tions.html

It was virtually impossible to get any kind of accommodation, even legit ones. That's what prompted these lawsuits. In many ways this is a good agreement, because the LSAT acted badly towards many students with legit disabilities. I've heard horror stories from students with disabilities. Endless forms, months of waiting, new doctors visits required, not all accommodations granted, etc. It's the fact that automatic acceptance of accommodations applies to time that's problematic.

And if the LSAC evidence that you could perform well on a test, no accommodation. ADHD would not get you extra LSAT time. Now that's changed completely.

If this agreement works as stated, the LSAT has instantly switched from "hardest" to "easiest" in terms of getting accommodations.

[cotiger]

What's kept huge numbers of people from gaming the system up to this point? Is it really that hard to get accommodations for the LSAT, or was it the fear that a flagged score wouldn't carry enough weight with the adcomms? Haven't there always been doctors whom you could bribe/browbeat into a diagnosis?

Flagged scores don't count towards LSAT medians.

Also, I'd imagine adcomms are a bit skeptical of your ability to succeed in school to the extent that your LSAT score would indicate. Law school, after all, is a series of race-to-the-finish exams.

[cotiger]

Will schools eventually be forced to offer extra time with no flagging too?

What's the reasoning for requiring this on entrance exams but not in the schools themselves?

Interested in this. If schools are not required to grant accommodations to everyone who gets extra time on the LSAT, I want to defer a year. Put me on a curve in LS with people who abuse this, I'd love it. OTOH, if schools also have to grant extra time to anyone who can get an ADD diagnosis, that kind of sucks.

Don't schools already offer accommodations? Since they're schools and required to? I've never heard of schools (as opposed to LSAC) flagging accommodated grades.

To be honest, I could see benefits to if the LSAT became less predictive and schools were forced to a more holistic style of admissions review. I know there are problems with that as well, though (just different ones).

Wait. You're telling me that some students get extra time on their law school exams? What. the fuck.

[ScottRiqui]

Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

I'm still undecided, and that's why I particularly appreciate papercut's and Graeme's posts. Part of the reason I'm not ready to ditch accommodations altogether is that I think the "time crunch" aspect of the LSAT is an artificiality that's not really necessary for testing what the LSAT purports to test.

If a person reads/processes a little slower and is given a little extra time as a result, I don't necessarily think that makes the LSAT worthless for measuring their reading comprehension, reasoning, or logical abilities. Now of course, if LSAT starts handing out "double time" waivers like they're candy, that's going to screw things up. But I'm not ready to jump straight to "fuck 'em all - no accommodations for anyone".

[cotiger]

Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

I'm still undecided, and that's why I appreciate papercut's and Graeme's posts. Part of the reason I'm not ready to ditch accommodations altogether is that I think the "time crunch" aspect of the LSAT is an artificiality that's not really necessary for testing what the LSAT purports to test.

If a person reads/processes a little slower and is given a little extra time as a result, I don't necessarily think that makes the LSAT worthless for measuring their reading comprehension, reasoning, or logical abilities. Now of course, if LSAT starts handing out "double time" waivers like they're candy, that's going to screw things up. But I'm not ready to jump straight to "fuck 'em all - no accommodations for anyone".

My point is that there are plenty of people who read or process slowly. Why should those who can identify a cause of their slowness in the DSM (and have the money/knowledge to get it officially diagnosed) be afforded extra time, while other slow processors not get extra time?

[haus]

What's kept huge numbers of people from gaming the system up to this point? Is it really that hard to get accommodations for the LSAT, or was it the fear that a flagged score wouldn't carry enough weight with the adcomms? Haven't there always been doctors whom you could bribe/browbeat into a diagnosis?

Flagged scores don't count towards LSAT medians.

Also, I'd imagine adcomms are a bit skeptical of your ability to succeed in school to the extent that your LSAT score would indicate. Law school, after all, is a series of race-to-the-finish exams.

I imagine that in the efforts to study the validity of the LSAT exam in comparison to 1L scores, LSAC also learned how well scores with accommodations compared, although to the best of my knowledge they never opted to release such information. I suspect that if LSAC felt that this information would somehow have supported their notion of continuing to flag this information, they would have used this opportunity to shed light on this.

[Calbears123]

The real question I think we all want to ask is, how can I use this to get HYS to give me thousands of dollars in tuition

[A. Nony Mouse]

Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

The policy behind accommodations is that in many cases, there are ways for the person with the disability to compensate for the specific disability with other skills/abilities. Here's a simplistic example: I teach a history class. I give map quizzes to test students on their ability to locate historical societies/landmarks. A blind student can't just label the right thing on a blank map because they can't see the map; however, they could demonstrate the same skills by verbally describing location (the Pyrenees are located in the south of France/north of Spain and extend along the French/Spanish border). I'm not going to be able to give a good example of how this plays out in the LSAT, but I can believe there are some people who have a documented disability that means they have a hard time processing information as presented on the LSAT, but can actually reason through logical relationships in other ways.

I also think you can have a disability that can't be accommodated for a specific context. I don't think you could come up with an accommodation whereby a quadriplegic could pass the requirements of a surgical residency, for instance. I'm sure there are people with processing disabilities who aren't going to succeed at the LSAT regardless. As for why some slow readers rather than others: there is actual testing to identify actual disabilities as opposed to "Johnny doesn't read very fast." Is it possible to abuse this? Sure, but that's a different issue than suggesting disabilities aren't any different from reading more slowly.

I guess I'd be much more concerned about the accommodations if I believed the LSAT was a great predictor of law school success. It's one of the better predictors we have (LSAT + UGPA is better), but it's still not great. And I'm not convinced that ability on the LSAT is especially strongly tied to ability as a lawyer.

As for extra time on law school exams: come on, the ADA requires accommodations. Schools have to provide them. Law schools aren't exempt just because they're law schools. My impression is that few people take them, because of the kind of stigma that attaches (just on a personal level, that is - like I said, I don't know that they're flagged), and because the documentation is fairly strict. But sure, if you can demonstrate that you need accommodations, I don't see how law schools can deny them. FWIW, I don't know of anyone at my school who got accommodations. Again, extra time isn't the only kind of accommodation allowed/needed, so it doesn't make sense to tar all accommodations/disabled test takers with that brush.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

I imagine that in the efforts to study the validity of the LSAT exam in comparison to 1L scores, LSAC also learned how well scores with accommodations compared, although to the best of my knowledge they never opted to release such information. I suspect that if LSAC felt that this information would somehow have supported their notion of continuing to flag this information, they would have used this opportunity to shed light on this.

I want to nip this in the bud. This line of reasoning came up earlier in the thread too.

A settlement is NOT an admission of being in the wrong. A settlement is not even an admission that you expect you'll lose. A settlement is merely a way to avoid a lawsuit. From an article linked to in this thread:

Attorney Robert Burgoyne of Norton Rose Fulbright said the group settled because it faced the prospect of five years of litigation if it tried to fight.

“LSAC denies that it violated the ADA in any respect,” he said. “To the extent that DOJ had concerns regarding LSAC’s longstanding policies and practices, LSAC believes that those concerns should have been addressed through a rulemaking or by way of technical guidance, not by way of an enforcement action.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

LSAC may or may not have had data supporting their decision. We'll never know, because this case was never tried, and evidence was never made public.

[haus]

I imagine that in the efforts to study the validity of the LSAT exam in comparison to 1L scores, LSAC also learned how well scores with accommodations compared, although to the best of my knowledge they never opted to release such information. I suspect that if LSAC felt that this information would somehow have supported their notion of continuing to flag this information, they would have used this opportunity to shed light on this.

I want to nip this in the bud. This line of reasoning came up earlier in the thread too.

A settlement is NOT an admission of being in the wrong. A settlement is not even an admission that you expect you'll lose. A settlement is merely a way to avoid a lawsuit. From an article linked to in this thread:

Attorney Robert Burgoyne of Norton Rose Fulbright said the group settled because it faced the prospect of five years of litigation if it tried to fight.

“LSAC denies that it violated the ADA in any respect,” he said. “To the extent that DOJ had concerns regarding LSAC’s longstanding policies and practices, LSAC believes that those concerns should have been addressed through a rulemaking or by way of technical guidance, not by way of an enforcement action.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

LSAC may or may not have had data supporting their decision. We'll never know, because this case was never tried, and evidence was never made public.

You do know that a trial is not necessary for LSAC to release information that they hold.

[Ded Precedent]

What happens when a student gets an accommodation on the LSAT and on law school exams and then enters practice? Does he bill for the extra time it takes him?

[cotiger]

Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

The policy behind accommodations is that in many cases, there are ways for the person with the disability to compensate for the specific disability with other skills/abilities. Here's a simplistic example: I teach a history class. I give map quizzes to test students on their ability to locate historical societies/landmarks. A blind student can't just label the right thing on a blank map because they can't see the map; however, they could demonstrate the same skills by verbally describing location (the Pyrenees are located in the south of France/north of Spain and extend along the French/Spanish border). I'm not going to be able to give a good example of how this plays out in the LSAT, but I can believe there are some people who have a documented disability that means they have a hard time processing information as presented on the LSAT, but can actually reason through logical relationships in other ways.

I also think you can have a disability that can't be accommodated for a specific context. I don't think you could come up with an accommodation whereby a quadriplegic could pass the requirements of a surgical residency, for instance. I'm sure there are people with processing disabilities who aren't going to succeed at the LSAT regardless. As for why some slow readers rather than others: there is actual testing to identify actual disabilities as opposed to "Johnny doesn't read very fast." Is it possible to abuse this? Sure, but that's a different issue than suggesting disabilities aren't any different from reading more slowly.

I have no problem with the hypothetical blind student receiving accommodations to help with that kind of disability.

I totally understand that there are tests to identify slow-reading Johnny bc he just isn't a super quick thinker vs slow-reading Johnny bc he has XYZ from the DSM. My question is why Johnny #2 should get extra time while Johnny #1 should not. It's neither of their "faults" that they read slowly, and they would both benefit and be able to express their full talents if they were given extra time.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

I imagine that in the efforts to study the validity of the LSAT exam in comparison to 1L scores, LSAC also learned how well scores with accommodations compared, although to the best of my knowledge they never opted to release such information. I suspect that if LSAC felt that this information would somehow have supported their notion of continuing to flag this information, they would have used this opportunity to shed light on this.

I want to nip this in the bud. This line of reasoning came up earlier in the thread too.

A settlement is NOT an admission of being in the wrong. A settlement is not even an admission that you expect you'll lose. A settlement is merely a way to avoid a lawsuit. From an article linked to in this thread:

Attorney Robert Burgoyne of Norton Rose Fulbright said the group settled because it faced the prospect of five years of litigation if it tried to fight.

“LSAC denies that it violated the ADA in any respect,” he said. “To the extent that DOJ had concerns regarding LSAC’s longstanding policies and practices, LSAC believes that those concerns should have been addressed through a rulemaking or by way of technical guidance, not by way of an enforcement action.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... tion-date/

LSAC may or may not have had data supporting their decision. We'll never know, because this case was never tried, and evidence was never made public.

You do know that a trial is not necessary for LSAC to release information that they hold.

Of course not. But they haven't been fighting this battle in the press. Companies don't tend to release information unless it serves a specific purpose.

They've already settled, and the DOJ will be on their case as this decision gets implemented. Continuing to argue will just annoy the DOJ and makes things harder for the LSAC.

So there's no benefit to releasing, and plenty of downsides.

[Alright, I'm going to bed.]

[ScottRiqui]

This would obviously be a big change, but would it be possible to re-structure the LSAT so that the "time crunch" isn't as big of a factor (similar to how the SAT was described upthread)? It seems to me that if giving people just 5-10 extra minutes per section can bump their scores by five, ten or more points, then maybe that's a weakness in the LSAT itself.

It appears that LSAC has pretty much committed themselves to giving accommodations in many more cases than they have in the past - perhaps they need to figure out how to minimize the potential unfair advantages from those accommodations?

[cotiger]

I'm completely fine with a low bar for accommodated testing.

Just flag that shit because it's not the same test. Give adcomms a complete picture rather than pretending it's all the same.

If a kid with double time 170 had a 3.9 and honors theses, great LOR, etc, then adcomms could feel pretty confident that the 170 represented his true abilities. If a kid with double time 175 had a 3.2, mediocre recs, etc, then adcomms would be justified in suspecting that that score was more likely the result of getting the extra time and might give that splitter slot to someone who could score that highly without help.

[A. Nony Mouse]

What happens when a student gets an accommodation on the LSAT and on law school exams and then enters practice? Does he bill for the extra time it takes him?

See, this is why I don't think LSAT/law school exams are especially good at predicting lawyering ability. There are some law jobs that student would do poorly at, but there are others they'd probably do very well at. Someone who has issues processing written information under timed conditions like the LSAT or law school exams might handle a busy misdemeanor criminal docket really well, where it's much more talking with the court/agents/defendants/etc. and handling a lot of stuff orally on your feet.

I totally understand that there are tests to identify slow-reading Johnny bc he just isn't a super quick thinker vs slow-reading Johnny bc he has XYZ from the DSM. My question is why Johnny #2 should get extra time while Johnny #1 should not. It's neither of their "faults" that they read slowly, and they would both benefit and be able to express their full talents if they were given extra time.

I mean, I get this, but by virtue of the fact that one is labeled a disability, we (society) have deemed it an obstacle that can't be overcome without assistance, and presumably a lot of "slow readers" can get past that with work. I'm not expressing it well, but I just don't buy the equation of reading slowly with genuine disabilities. (For instance, people with ADHD frequently get extra time - it's not because they read slowly, it's because of the hyperactivity/distraction issues.)

I'm not saying it's always easy to distinguish or come up with a solution for these things. Personally, I would rather have the options out there for e.g. blind students, and figure out a way to deal with the disability/slow reader conundrum, rather than screw them all over. And I recognize there's a potential for abuse. Just saying which problem I'd rather deal with.

[cotiger]

I mean, I get this, but by virtue of the fact that one is labeled a disability, we (society) have deemed it an obstacle that can't be overcome without assistance, and presumably a lot of "slow readers" can get past that with work. I'm not expressing it well, but I just don't buy the equation of reading slowly with genuine disabilities. (For instance, people with ADHD frequently get extra time - it's not because they read slowly, it's because of the hyperactivity/distraction issues.)

I'm not saying it's always easy to distinguish or come up with a solution for these things. Personally, I would rather have the options out there for e.g. blind students, and figure out a way to deal with the disability/slow reader conundrum, rather than screw them all over. And I recognize there's a potential for abuse. Just saying which problem I'd rather deal with.

But if it was something that they could just get through with a little bit of hard work, then you wouldn't have all of these kids that Graeme mentioned who go through TLS boot camp and kill it untimed but majorly struggle timed.

I guess I'm confused why it should be a who-can-think-the-quickest test for those without a diagnosis vs a show us how good you are at getting the right answer test for those with a diagnosis.

I do agree that I'd rather have all the options out there (ie relatively low bar for accommodations) but maintain the flagging for complete disclosure that you took the latter test.

[ScottRiqui]

I guess I'm confused why it should be a who-can-think-the-quickest test for those without a diagnosis vs a show us how good you are at getting the right answer test for those with a diagnosis.

I agree strongly with this. That's why if accommodations are going to become much more common, I'd like to see the LSAT revamped to remove the artificial "time crunch" aspect. I'm sure LSAC could do it - I've taken plenty of tests where I've gotten all the points I was ever going to get well before the allotted time was up. It's not necessary to make it a racehorse test in order to get a wide distribution of grades.

[haus]

I guess I'm confused why it should be a who-can-think-the-quickest test for those without a diagnosis vs a show us how good you are at getting the right answer test for those with a diagnosis.

I agree strongly with this. That's why if accommodations are going to become much more common, I'd like to see the LSAT revamped to remove the artificial "time crunch" aspect. I'm sure LSAC could do it - I've taken plenty of tests where I've gotten all the points I was ever going to get well before the allotted time was up. It's not necessary to make it a racehorse test in order to get a wide distribution of grades.

I suspect that you are right. It seems reasonable that a quality test can be devised that is not as dependent on time as a factor.

[Pneumonia]

Yeah to me it seems practically that the main takeaway here is that LSAC's use of the time crunch to inflate difficulty was always going to lead to this issue. I'm with Scott that the same skills could be tested in a way that did not rely as heavily on that factor.

Also re the above: I don't think anyone ITT is freaking out about the LSAT having a lessened predictive ability for 1L because we all agree that whatever correlation exist(ed) wasn't super strong. The issue is that these new regulations on their face seem to make it almost infinitely easier to buy a good score.

[Dredd_2017]

Regardless of the policy reasoning behind extra time, or the flagged versus non-flagged scores issue, one of the outcomes of this will be a surge in LSAT's taken with disability accommodation. Since US News will no longer be able to discount accommodated LSAT's due to no special markings being given, they will be worth just as much to a law school's ranking as regular LSAT's. It's quite likely that the vast majority of accommodated testers (At least initially) will have real disabilities that negatively affect their performance. Yet it's also worth noting that people respond to incentives, and in the realm of law school applications opening an avenue to game the LSAT is perhaps the most powerful. It's why people pay thousands of dollars for prep courses, and it's why this system is rife for abuse.

Watch as contrary to the current trend towards lower medians, scores instead trend upward rapidly in the next couple of years due to an increasing awareness of this lowest-common-denominator standard of proof. Which post-graduate test has the broadest scope and weakest verification of disabilities that the LSAT will be forced to match (The GRE, GMAT, MCAT)? I'm profoundly thankful I'll be attending this cycle, and not the next. Splitters are screwed from here on out, HYS to 175+ medians.

[Onomatopoeia]

dis iz bullshyt