LSAT Accommodation? Additional Time. Forum

[Megan170]

I'm writing to find out whether anyone on here has requested accommodation from LSAC in taking the LSAT for a documented disability under ADA?

I am specifically interested in hearing from those who have requested accommodation for additional time.

If so, I'd really appreciate hearing as much as you feel comfortable sharing in terms of what the disability entails, what accommodation you received, and what you had to do to receive it (what documentation you had to provide, how early, what the process to obtain the accommodation was, etc.).

Also, any information regarding whether the accommodation was reported to law schools and, if so, what sort of influence, if any, you feel that it had, would also be greatly appreciated.

[HellOnHeels]

I suggest that you call LSAC and ask them your questions, as they will be able to give you exact answers to your questions, as any info here given here could be wrong or outdated. Good luck.

[Blessedassurance]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=53454

[Blessedassurance]

Candidates who seek additional test time on scored sections of the test should pay particular attention to the following:
* If you receive additional test time as an accommodation for your condition, LSAC will send a statement with your Credential Assembly Service (LSDAS) or LSAT Law School Reports advising that your score(s) should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility.
* Scores earned with additional test time are reported individually and will not be averaged with standard-time scores or other nonstandard-time scores.
* Percentile ranks of nonstandard-time scores are not available and will not be reported.

[Megan170]

Thank you both for these helpful responses. It's interesting LSAC chooses to handle things this way. Sounds a bit like "separate but equal" all over again.

[bp shinners]

Sounds a bit like "separate but equal" all over again.

I don't quite get your argument here at all, and I'd ask you to expound on it before someone jumps on you for saying something like this without fleshing out the argument. It's a huge claim to be making.

As to the original question, I'd strongly suggest calling LSAC and asking them these questions. They really do deal with it on a case by case basis, and their requirements are fairly strict (and undisclosed). However, they are willing to discuss your situation with you, so why not take advantage of that?

[Megan170]

Sounds a bit like "separate but equal" all over again.

I don't quite get your argument here at all, and I'd ask you to expound on it before someone jumps on you for saying something like this without fleshing out the argument. It's a huge claim to be making.

As to the original question, I'd strongly suggest calling LSAC and asking them these questions. They really do deal with it on a case by case basis, and their requirements are fairly strict (and undisclosed). However, they are willing to discuss your situation with you, so why not take advantage of that?

I agree that it is a huge claim to be making. But that's what is seems like to me. And I'm glad to express my reasoning here; to be honest, I'm hoping I'm wrong in some way. Separate but equal separated people out on the basis of race, but claimed that having separate facilities was equal. The SC ruled having these separate was inherently unequal. (I realize this is not doing the case or argument here the justice it deserves. Just trying to state it as simply as possible).

So here, you have someone needing an accommodation to compete as equal. Yet they are separated out on the other end as not equal by having their results reported with the recommendation that the schools view them as unequal. The idea with accommodation should be to close the gap that prevents people with a disability from competing as otherwise equals, whatever particular aspect may define that gap. Calling out that there is such a gap on the other end (that the score obtained with what was necessary to allow the person with a disability to compete as an equal should not be viewed the same as everyone else's scores) defeats the purpose of the accommodation. The person with the disability, because they were accommodated, must then have their score viewed as being somehow advantaged, when the accommodation was to allow them to compete as equal, not advantage them in any way.

[Blessedassurance]

Sounds a bit like "separate but equal" all over again.

I don't quite get your argument here at all, and I'd ask you to expound on it before someone jumps on you for saying something like this without fleshing out the argument. It's a huge claim to be making.

As to the original question, I'd strongly suggest calling LSAC and asking them these questions. They really do deal with it on a case by case basis, and their requirements are fairly strict (and undisclosed). However, they are willing to discuss your situation with you, so why not take advantage of that?

I agree that it is a huge claim to be making. But that's what is seems like to me. And I'm glad to express my reasoning here; to be honest, I'm hoping I'm wrong in some way. Separate but equal separated people out on the basis of race, but claimed that having separate facilities was equal. The SC ruled having these separate was inherently unequal. (I realize this is not doing the case or argument here the justice it deserves. Just trying to state it as simply as possible).

So here, you have someone needing an accommodation to compete as equal. Yet they are separated out on the other end as not equal by having their results reported with the recommendation that the schools view them as unequal. The idea with accommodation should be to close the gap that prevents people with a disability from competing as otherwise equals, whatever particular aspect may define that gap. Calling out that there is such a gap on the other end (that the score obtained with what was necessary to allow the person with a disability to compete as an equal should not be viewed the same as everyone else's scores) defeats the purpose of the accommodation. The person with the disability, because they were accommodated, must then have their score viewed as being somehow advantaged, when the accommodation was to allow them to compete as equal, not advantage them in any way.

Aren't you the one requesting separate accommodation?

[soj]

LOL at the thought of admissions committees being ableist when they have GPA/LSAT medians to worry about.

Also it is not a red flag to get extra time on any standardized test and it is also illegal for any school to even think about not taking a person just because they received accommodations. Geez I thought yall were applying to law school?

[Megan170]

Sounds a bit like "separate but equal" all over again.

I don't quite get your argument here at all, and I'd ask you to expound on it before someone jumps on you for saying something like this without fleshing out the argument. It's a huge claim to be making.

As to the original question, I'd strongly suggest calling LSAC and asking them these questions. They really do deal with it on a case by case basis, and their requirements are fairly strict (and undisclosed). However, they are willing to discuss your situation with you, so why not take advantage of that?

I agree that it is a huge claim to be making. But that's what is seems like to me. And I'm glad to express my reasoning here; to be honest, I'm hoping I'm wrong in some way. Separate but equal separated people out on the basis of race, but claimed that having separate facilities was equal. The SC ruled having these separate was inherently unequal. (I realize this is not doing the case or argument here the justice it deserves. Just trying to state it as simply as possible).

So here, you have someone needing an accommodation to compete as equal. Yet they are separated out on the other end as not equal by having their results reported with the recommendation that the schools view them as unequal. The idea with accommodation should be to close the gap that prevents people with a disability from competing as otherwise equals, whatever particular aspect may define that gap. Calling out that there is such a gap on the other end (that the score obtained with what was necessary to allow the person with a disability to compete as an equal should not be viewed the same as everyone else's scores) defeats the purpose of the accommodation. The person with the disability, because they were accommodated, must then have their score viewed as being somehow advantaged, when the accommodation was to allow them to compete as equal, not advantage them in any way.

Aren't you the one requesting separate accommodation?

Well, that's just it. Requesting an accommodation ones needs to compete as equal should not single one out as separate. In doing so, it renders them unequal. In other words, accommodation equalizes and is necessary to do so but the equalized result is then reported in a way that renders it unequal, separating it out as such, thereby prejudicing the ability of the applicant to compete as equal, which is what the accommodation was designed to do in the first place.

[Eichörnchen]

I don't quite get your argument here at all, and I'd ask you to expound on it before someone jumps on you for saying something like this without fleshing out the argument. It's a huge claim to be making.

As to the original question, I'd strongly suggest calling LSAC and asking them these questions. They really do deal with it on a case by case basis, and their requirements are fairly strict (and undisclosed). However, they are willing to discuss your situation with you, so why not take advantage of that?

I agree that it is a huge claim to be making. But that's what is seems like to me. And I'm glad to express my reasoning here; to be honest, I'm hoping I'm wrong in some way. Separate but equal separated people out on the basis of race, but claimed that having separate facilities was equal. The SC ruled having these separate was inherently unequal. (I realize this is not doing the case or argument here the justice it deserves. Just trying to state it as simply as possible).

So here, you have someone needing an accommodation to compete as equal. Yet they are separated out on the other end as not equal by having their results reported with the recommendation that the schools view them as unequal. The idea with accommodation should be to close the gap that prevents people with a disability from competing as otherwise equals, whatever particular aspect may define that gap. Calling out that there is such a gap on the other end (that the score obtained with what was necessary to allow the person with a disability to compete as an equal should not be viewed the same as everyone else's scores) defeats the purpose of the accommodation. The person with the disability, because they were accommodated, must then have their score viewed as being somehow advantaged, when the accommodation was to allow them to compete as equal, not advantage them in any way.

Aren't you the one requesting separate accommodation?

Well, that's just it. Requesting an accommodation ones needs to compete as equal should not single one out as separate. In doing so, it renders them unequal. In other words, accommodation equalizes and is necessary to do so but the equalized result is then reported in a way that renders it unequal, separating it out as such, thereby prejudicing the ability of the applicant to compete as equal, which is what the accommodation was designed to do in the first place.

--ImageRemoved--

[Tiago Splitter]

Schools get to know that you received an accommodation just like they get to know your race and where you went to undergrad. Doesn't mean they are obligated to make a decision based on any of those factors.

[bjsesq]

There was a user who posted here frequently and was denied entrance at Georgetown because of her disability. She made a nuanced argument about bringing suit against GULC. Your situation, while different, is similar in enough ways that you two should talk to each other. I would consider bringing some sort of legal action to do something about LSAC's diabolical behavior. Best of luck.


You're a fucking idiot.

[Megan170]

There was a user who posted here frequently and was denied entrance at Georgetown because of her disability. She made a nuanced argument about bringing suit against GULC. Your situation, while different, is similar in enough ways that you two should talk to each other. I would consider bringing some sort of legal action to do something about LSAC's diabolical behavior. Best of luck.


You're a fucking idiot.

That's interesting. Did you mean to write the "you're a fucking idiot" remark? It's in tiny letters after your great paragraph above. Doesn't seem consistent.

[bjsesq]

There was a user who posted here frequently and was denied entrance at Georgetown because of her disability. She made a nuanced argument about bringing suit against GULC. Your situation, while different, is similar in enough ways that you two should talk to each other. I would consider bringing some sort of legal action to do something about LSAC's diabolical behavior. Best of luck.


You're a fucking idiot.

That's interesting. Did you mean to write the "you're a fucking idiot" remark?

I have no idea how that got in there.

[soj]

I'm sure bj didn't mean it. His advice in the first paragraph was 180 (the kind without the separate-but-equal asterisk), though. You should definitely get in touch with her.

[Eichörnchen]

There was a user who posted here frequently and was denied entrance at Georgetown because of her disability. She made a nuanced argument about bringing suit against GULC. Your situation, while different, is similar in enough ways that you two should talk to each other. I would consider bringing some sort of legal action to do something about LSAC's diabolical behavior. Best of luck.


You're a fucking idiot.

That's interesting. Did you mean to write the "you're a fucking idiot" remark?

I have no idea how that got in there.

[Megan170]

I'm sure bj didn't mean it. His advice in the first paragraph was 180 (the kind without the separate-but-equal asterisk), though. You should definitely get in touch with her.

That's good, I think, although I'm confused on the 180 comment; 180 is the opposite of the correct answer on the LSAT -- strengthens when you're looking for a weakener, etc., I think. The separate-but-equal bit I discuss does seem like a 180 to me in terms of flipping around what the accommodation is intended to effect (equality). Sorry if I'm not understanding you correctly (or missing something obvious! )

Does someone remember her screen name on here?

[bjsesq]

I'm sure bj didn't mean it. His advice in the first paragraph was 180 (the kind without the separate-but-equal asterisk), though. You should definitely get in touch with her.

That's good, I think, although I'm confused on the 180 comment; 180 is the opposite of the correct answer on the LSAT -- strengthens when you're looking for a weakener, etc., I think. The separate-but-equal bit I discuss does seem like a 180 to me in terms of flipping around what the accommodation is intended to effect (equality). Sorry if I'm not understanding you correctly (or missing something obvious! )

Does someone remember her screen name on here?

I think it was Sibley. Brilliant woman.

[Eichörnchen]

I'm sure bj didn't mean it. His advice in the first paragraph was 180 (the kind without the separate-but-equal asterisk), though. You should definitely get in touch with her.

That's good, I think, although I'm confused on the 180 comment; 180 is the opposite of the correct answer on the LSAT -- strengthens when you're looking for a weakener, etc., I think. The separate-but-equal bit I discuss does seem like a 180 to me in terms of flipping around what the accommodation is intended to effect (equality). Sorry if I'm not understanding you correctly (or missing something obvious! )

Does someone remember her screen name on here?

[Jack Smirks]

Why did you report me yesterday? I know my views can be a bit controversial but I still think they're worth taking into consideration.

[Megan170]

Why did you report me yesterday? I know my views can be a bit controversial but I still think they're worth taking into consideration.

I'm not sure what views you stated that you are now concerned about? Sorry, I honestly don't recall an exchange with you.

[bjsesq]

Why did you report me yesterday? I know my views can be a bit controversial but I still think they're worth taking into consideration.

I'm not sure what views you stated that you are now concerned about.

Naterj lacks class. He will continue this harassment because he has nothing better to do. Lemme know if you need help with any action on this. I can help review any materials.

[Megan170]

Why did you report me yesterday? I know my views can be a bit controversial but I still think they're worth taking into consideration.

I'm not sure what views you stated that you are now concerned about.

Naterj lacks class. He will continue this harassment because he has nothing better to do. Lemme know if you need help with any action on this. I can help review any materials.

Thank you, I really appreciate that. I'll add you as a friend on here if that's okay.

[bjsesq]

Why did you report me yesterday? I know my views can be a bit controversial but I still think they're worth taking into consideration.

I'm not sure what views you stated that you are now concerned about.

Naterj lacks class. He will continue this harassment because he has nothing better to do. Lemme know if you need help with any action on this. I can help review any materials.

Thank you, I really appreciate that. I'll add you as a friend on here if that's okay.

Please do.