I called LSAC about accommodated scores Forum

[Philosopher King]

I called LSAC about extra time accommodations and the woman said that the score does count for a law school. In other words, a higher-than-average LSAT score for a particular school will count in the school's ratings. Since she said this I didn't confront her about how LSAC violates the law but this is good news for me. I can just write an addendum about the extra time and law schools will know I have the skills I want and their mean LSAT could be improved with my score on a re-take. Any thoughts? Other people here have said differently so I just wanted to clear this up.

[510Chicken]

Retaking with accommodations is definitely the right move. But you're still going to have to wait a cycle to apply. The earliest you can retake is in February, which will be too late for any decent schools. No school (worth going to, at least) is going to take you now with a 155 and the promise that your retake will be better come March. Sorry

[bhan87]

I called LSAC about extra time accommodations and the woman said that the score does count for a law school. In other words, a higher-than-average LSAT score for a particular school will count in the school's ratings. Since she said this I didn't confront her about how LSAC violates the law but this is good news for me. I can just write an addendum about the extra time and law schools will know I have the skills I want and their mean LSAT could be improved with my score on a re-take. Any thoughts? Other people here have said differently so I just wanted to clear this up.

Wait... So LSAC accommodates for students with disabilities, and despite the extra time the score fully counts for both admissions and school ratings...

How are they violating the law here?

Also, an addendum about your potential score with accommodations is meaningless without actually retaking. Have you changed your mind about retaking, or is it still too big of an injustice?

[Philosopher King]

Retaking with accommodations is definitely the right move. But you're still going to have to wait a cycle to apply. The earliest you can retake is in February, which will be too late for any decent schools. No school (worth going to, at least) is going to take you now with a 155 and the promise that your retake will be better come March. Sorry

I know. But that's just the way it is. I will retake in June and then apply in late September to some schools. I will study for the GRE and take that after the LSAT to apply to top philosophy Ph.D. programs. I can pursue other careers in the meantime.

Wait... So LSAC accommodates for students with disabilities, and despite the extra time the score fully counts for both admissions and school ratings...

How are they violating the law here?

Also, an addendum about your potential score with accommodations is meaningless without actually retaking. Have you changed your mind about retaking, or is it still too big of an injustice?

I mean add an addendum for next cycle to explain why, despite the extra time (which they know about because LSAC violates the law) I will be a good law student. Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

My argument against LSAC is that accommodations must be given in order to counteract a disability and ADA accommodations are not given to give the person an advantage but rather to take away or at least diminish an unfair disadvantage. That's a big difference on the DRBA website is says that the ADA says that "For a test-taker with sensory, manual or speech impairments, the test provider must ensure that the examination is selected and administered 'so as to best ensure that' the examination results accurately reflect the individual's aptititude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the [disability]." Well, by telling law schools that your test results should be interpreted differently than other test-takers, they are, in effect, making sure that your disability is reflected. What results could possibly reflect a disability more than ones that come with a letter saying to interpret them as lesser than other scores because the person got accommodations to diminish the effect of his or her disability. It's blatantly illegal it seems and the LSAC pinheads think they can get away with it. I would love to change that.

[pcwcecac]

I sincerely admire you.

My approach would be to increase your score as much as you can in June. And have a strong personal statement. Your story, if well written, can move mountains.

Keep at it my friend.

By the way, what motivates you to apply to law school? How is this motivation different from that of going to grad school in philosophy?

If you were to teach down the stretch, what would be the underlying msg you wish to convey to your students? what perspective do you wish to bring to your colleagues and students?

[rinkrat19]

Seems like suing LSAC will be even more effective at killing any potential legal career you might have had than your crappy LSAT score. They probably have more than a couple of lawyers expert on education and testing on staff, and a few more (like, oh, the entire ABA) on speed dial. The legal community has a lot invested in maintaining the status quo and you'll be "that guy" who tried to piss in the collective cheerios.

When it comes to law school and legal hiring and networking, you either play the game or pick a different sport, because if you throw a tantrum over the rules, you will forever be the last kid picked for kickball.

[Philosopher King]

I sincerely admire you.
My approach would be to increase your score as much as you can in June. And have a strong personal statement. Your story, if well written, can move mountains.

Keep at it my friend.

By the way, what motivates you to apply to law school? How is this motivation different from that of going to grad school in philosophy?

If you were to teach down the stretch, what would be the underlying msg you wish to convey to your students? what perspective do you wish to bring to your colleagues and students?

Well thank you! What do you think my story is though? I mean, what have you gleaned from what I have said? I have struggled with my PS and could use some advice.

I am motivated to do both because both offer careers that I would enjoy and be good at. In college, I have been really inspired by many of my professors and I have great respect for them. I also feel that I do well in academia and being a professor is one way of never having to live in the real world. It's hard to explain but I just feel like I have a knack for teaching. Before I transferred to my current university I actually wanted to be a high school social studies teacher but changed my mind since employment prospects were so dim for suburban public schools. It would have been a lot of work to get certified and I would have never been able to have two majors but my university actually used to be a teacher's college.

I have also taught some classes at my high school. My former social studies teacher really likes me and she invited me to teach her class a few times on certain "hot" topics such as the tea party and the Egyptian uprising. I also volunteered in summer 2010 to help with a program that they were hosting with a nearby community college. The program was called "Bridge to College" and this is aimed at helping the high functioning students at my special ed high school learn about college and how to be successful. Since I had just finished my two years (61 credits) of college and I really liked college, they wanted me to help. They said I did a good job by providing invaluable insight that the students respected. They said everything I taught them meant so much more coming from me (some of them were even former classmates of mine). With that said, I would rather teach college then high school if only because I wouldn't want to teach special ed and I have no normal high school experience by which to go by, only college. I feel like I would teach public high school too much like college just because that's all I know.

Seems like suing LSAC will be even more effective at killing any potential legal career you might have had than your crappy LSAT score. They probably have more than a couple of lawyers expert on education and testing on staff, and a few more (like, oh, the entire ABA) on speed dial. The legal community has a lot invested in maintaining the status quo and you'll be "that guy" who tried to piss in the collective cheerios.

When it comes to law school and legal hiring and networking, you either play the game or pick a different sport, because if you throw a tantrum over the rules, you will forever be the last kid picked for kickball.

They can have all the lawyers on their side that they want. I have the law on my side so my message to them is: bring it on. Give me a day in court with them and I'll have them babbling nonsensically trying to refute me.

[kerflux]

their mean LSAT could be improved with my score on a re-take

I'm pretty sure that's all most schools are worried about - how you came about the score is irrelevant if it still counts.

[rinkrat19]

I sincerely admire you.
My approach would be to increase your score as much as you can in June. And have a strong personal statement. Your story, if well written, can move mountains.

Keep at it my friend.

By the way, what motivates you to apply to law school? How is this motivation different from that of going to grad school in philosophy?

If you were to teach down the stretch, what would be the underlying msg you wish to convey to your students? what perspective do you wish to bring to your colleagues and students?

Well thank you! What do you think my story is though? I mean, what have you gleaned from what I have said? I have struggled with my PS and could use some advice.

I am motivated to do both because both offer careers that I would enjoy and be good at. In college, I have been really inspired by many of my professors and I have great respect for them. I also feel that I do well in academia and being a professor is one way of never having to live in the real world. It's hard to explain but I just feel like I have a knack for teaching. Before I transferred to my current university I actually wanted to be a high school social studies teacher but changed my mind since employment prospects were so dim for suburban public schools. It would have been a lot of work to get certified and I would have never been able to have two majors but my university actually used to be a teacher's college.

I have also taught some classes at my high school. My former social studies teacher really likes me and she invited me to teach her class a few times on certain "hot" topics such as the tea party and the Egyptian uprising. I also volunteered in summer 2010 to help with a program that they were hosting with a nearby community college. The program was called "Bridge to College" and this is aimed at helping the high functioning students at my special ed high school learn about college and how to be successful. Since I had just finished my two years (61 credits) of college and I really liked college, they wanted me to help. They said I did a good job by providing invaluable insight that the students respected. They said everything I taught them meant so much more coming from me (some of them were even former classmates of mine). With that said, I would rather teach college then high school if only because I wouldn't want to teach special ed and I have no normal high school experience by which to go by, only college. I feel like I would teach public high school too much like college just because that's all I know.

Seems like suing LSAC will be even more effective at killing any potential legal career you might have had than your crappy LSAT score. They probably have more than a couple of lawyers expert on education and testing on staff, and a few more (like, oh, the entire ABA) on speed dial. The legal community has a lot invested in maintaining the status quo and you'll be "that guy" who tried to piss in the collective cheerios.

When it comes to law school and legal hiring and networking, you either play the game or pick a different sport, because if you throw a tantrum over the rules, you will forever be the last kid picked for kickball.

They can have all the lawyers on their side that they want. I have the law on my side so my message to them is: bring it on. Give me a day in court with them and I'll have them babbling nonsensically trying to refute me.

My point is not that they HAVE lawyers, it's that they're probably pretty secure in their legal position, them being experts and all. You're going to embarrass yourself (more than you already have, I mean).

[pcwcecac]

I sincerely admire you.
My approach would be to increase your score as much as you can in June. And have a strong personal statement. Your story, if well written, can move mountains.

Keep at it my friend.

By the way, what motivates you to apply to law school? How is this motivation different from that of going to grad school in philosophy?

If you were to teach down the stretch, what would be the underlying msg you wish to convey to your students? what perspective do you wish to bring to your colleagues and students?

Well thank you! What do you think my story is though? I mean, what have you gleaned from what I have said? I have struggled with my PS and could use some advice.

I am motivated to do both because both offer careers that I would enjoy and be good at. In college, I have been really inspired by many of my professors and I have great respect for them. I also feel that I do well in academia and being a professor is one way of never having to live in the real world. It's hard to explain but I just feel like I have a knack for teaching. Before I transferred to my current university I actually wanted to be a high school social studies teacher but changed my mind since employment prospects were so dim for suburban public schools. It would have been a lot of work to get certified and I would have never been able to have two majors but my university actually used to be a teacher's college.

I have also taught some classes at my high school. My former social studies teacher really likes me and she invited me to teach her class a few times on certain "hot" topics such as the tea party and the Egyptian uprising. I also volunteered in summer 2010 to help with a program that they were hosting with a nearby community college. The program was called "Bridge to College" and this is aimed at helping the high functioning students at my special ed high school learn about college and how to be successful. Since I had just finished my two years (61 credits) of college and I really liked college, they wanted me to help. They said I did a good job by providing invaluable insight that the students respected. They said everything I taught them meant so much more coming from me (some of them were even former classmates of mine). With that said, I would rather teach college then high school if only because I wouldn't want to teach special ed and I have no normal high school experience by which to go by, only college. I feel like I would teach public high school too much like college just because that's all I know.

Seems like suing LSAC will be even more effective at killing any potential legal career you might have had than your crappy LSAT score. They probably have more than a couple of lawyers expert on education and testing on staff, and a few more (like, oh, the entire ABA) on speed dial. The legal community has a lot invested in maintaining the status quo and you'll be "that guy" who tried to piss in the collective cheerios.

When it comes to law school and legal hiring and networking, you either play the game or pick a different sport, because if you throw a tantrum over the rules, you will forever be the last kid picked for kickball.

They can have all the lawyers on their side that they want. I have the law on my side so my message to them is: bring it on. Give me a day in court with them and I'll have them babbling nonsensically trying to refute me.

Sorry bro. I thought you had disabilities. I guess...I dunno what your story would be. But what you wrote above is ok!

[Philosopher King]

Sorry bro. I thought you had disabilities. I guess...I dunno what your story would be. But what you wrote above is ok!

I'm mildly autistic but I don't have any disability that stands out if you met me. In some ways my life has been easy (great parents, middle class upbringing, etc.) but in other ways it has been hard. I got bullied as a child, I would get so stressed that I would cry and freak out, I got obsessed with stuff, and other such problems. I'm better know but there's certain things I just can't get away from because I am who I am.

[suspicious android]

I called LSAC about extra time accommodations and the woman said that the score does count for a law school. In other words, a higher-than-average LSAT score for a particular school will count in the school's ratings.

When she told you they do "count for a law school" she probably meant that the law school will accept an accommodated score, not just throw it out. Accommodated scores are not used when a school computes its 25th/median/75th percentiles, per ABA regulation:

The ABA instructs that “f a matriculant took the LSAT under nonstandard conditions you should exclude this matriculant from your calculation of 75th, median and 25th percentile calculations,” and specifically explains that “[y]ou can tell on the face of the [score] report when a test was administered to an applicant under nonstandard conditions because there will be. . . no percent rank . . . associated with that score.”

By the way, calling up the LSAC headquarters and speaking to a random customer service representative has traditionally been a really unreliable way to get answers to esoteric policy questions.

[Philosopher King]

I called LSAC about extra time accommodations and the woman said that the score does count for a law school. In other words, a higher-than-average LSAT score for a particular school will count in the school's ratings.

When she told you they do "count for a law school" she probably meant that the law school will accept an accommodated score, not just throw it out. Accommodated scores are not used when a school computes its 25th/median/75th percentiles, per ABA regulation:

The ABA instructs that “f a matriculant took the LSAT under nonstandard conditions you should exclude this matriculant from your calculation of 75th, median and 25th percentile calculations,” and specifically explains that “[y]ou can tell on the face of the [score] report when a test was administered to an applicant under nonstandard conditions because there will be. . . no percent rank . . . associated with that score.”

By the way, calling up the LSAC headquarters and speaking to a random customer service representative has traditionally been a really unreliable way to get answers to esoteric policy questions.

Thanks I will call them back tomorrow and confront them. Not only do they break the law, they lie too. Shame on them.

[suspicious android]

Thanks I will call them back tomorrow and confront them. Not only do they break the law, they lie too. Shame on them.

I'm sure she wasn't lying to you, just answered the question she thought you were asking. No need to get snippy with them.

Anyway, there's a pretty good argument in that link I quoted from that not counting accommodated tests towards a school's ranking helps you rather than hurts you.

[VasaVasori]

.

[thederangedwang]

I called LSAC about extra time accommodations and the woman said that the score does count for a law school. In other words, a higher-than-average LSAT score for a particular school will count in the school's ratings.

When she told you they do "count for a law school" she probably meant that the law school will accept an accommodated score, not just throw it out. Accommodated scores are not used when a school computes its 25th/median/75th percentiles, per ABA regulation:

The ABA instructs that “f a matriculant took the LSAT under nonstandard conditions you should exclude this matriculant from your calculation of 75th, median and 25th percentile calculations,” and specifically explains that “[y]ou can tell on the face of the [score] report when a test was administered to an applicant under nonstandard conditions because there will be. . . no percent rank . . . associated with that score.”

By the way, calling up the LSAC headquarters and speaking to a random customer service representative has traditionally been a really unreliable way to get answers to esoteric policy questions.

Thanks I will call them back tomorrow and confront them. Not only do they break the law, they lie too. Shame on them.

For anyone else who has been reading too many of PhilosopherKing's posts, I provide you with relief:

Thanks I needed this.

Also, PK, I have a suggestion for your ps topic. Why don't you write about your lawsuit against LSAC?

[Philosopher King]

PK, I have a suggestion for your ps topic. Why don't you write about your lawsuit against LSAC?

No, it's not about that. I will include some of my arguments in my auxiliary statement.

[1234567890]

Bahahaha this whole thing is hysterical. Especially the stress reliever kit.

For your personal statement, why don't you just write about why you want to be an attorney? I think it might be important for YOU to decide what makes you stand out rather than virtual avatars.

[givemea170]

PK, I have a suggestion for your ps topic. Why don't you write about your lawsuit against LSAC?

No, it's not about that. I will include some of my arguments in my auxiliary statement.

Philosopher King, It HELPS you that your score will not be included in their rankings if you were accepted. Do you not realize that? The fact that you don't realize this makes me worry about whether you should consider law school in the first place.

...155, you should have taken it with extra time to begin with, because maybe the school would have been sympathetic and accepted you knowing that the low score isn't going to hurt their rankings anyway.

[pcwcecac]

Bahahaha this whole thing is hysterical. Especially the stress reliever kit.

For your personal statement, why don't you just write about why you want to be an attorney? I think it might be important for YOU to decide what makes you stand out rather than virtual avatars.

Dude...sweet username. Good for you!

[emkay625]

Retaking with accommodations is definitely the right move. But you're still going to have to wait a cycle to apply. The earliest you can retake is in February, which will be too late for any decent schools. No school (worth going to, at least) is going to take you now with a 155 and the promise that your retake will be better come March. Sorry

I know. But that's just the way it is. I will retake in June and then apply in late September to some schools. I will study for the GRE and take that after the LSAT to apply to top philosophy Ph.D. programs. I can pursue other careers in the meantime.

Wait... So LSAC accommodates for students with disabilities, and despite the extra time the score fully counts for both admissions and school ratings...

How are they violating the law here?

Also, an addendum about your potential score with accommodations is meaningless without actually retaking. Have you changed your mind about retaking, or is it still too big of an injustice?

I mean add an addendum for next cycle to explain why, despite the extra time (which they know about because LSAC violates the law) I will be a good law student. Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

My argument against LSAC is that accommodations must be given in order to counteract a disability and ADA accommodations are not given to give the person an advantage but rather to take away or at least diminish an unfair disadvantage. That's a big difference on the DRBA website is says that the ADA says that "For a test-taker with sensory, manual or speech impairments, the test provider must ensure that the examination is selected and administered 'so as to best ensure that' the examination results accurately reflect the individual's aptititude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the [disability]." Well, by telling law schools that your test results should be interpreted differently than other test-takers, they are, in effect, making sure that your disability is reflected. What results could possibly reflect a disability more than ones that come with a letter saying to interpret them as lesser than other scores because the person got accommodations to diminish the effect of his or her disability. It's blatantly illegal it seems and the LSAC pinheads think they can get away with it. I would love to change that.

To me LSAC is helping you out - it will be easier for you to get law school exam accommodations if the school knows you were given them for the lsat.

[Philosopher King]

To me LSAC is helping you out - it will be easier for you to get law school exam accommodations if the school knows you were given them for the lsat.

I realize now that I should have gotten accommodations. It would be like having the median LSAT score for whatever school I apply to if the score was accommodated. Meaning that it would basically remove the LSAT as an important factor IF I could convince them that I would be a good law student. I would only boost the stats of any school that accepted me, including HYS where my GPA is above their 75th percentile. Shit, I'm just thinking of this now. Arrrghhh. Live and learn.

[emkay625]

Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

My argument against LSAC is that accommodations must be given in order to counteract a disability and ADA accommodations are not given to give the person an advantage but rather to take away or at least diminish an unfair disadvantage. That's a big difference on the DRBA website is says that the ADA says that "For a test-taker with sensory, manual or speech impairments, the test provider must ensure that the examination is selected and administered 'so as to best ensure that' the examination results accurately reflect the individual's aptititude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the [disability]."

ADD IS a disability, but it is not a sensory, manual, or speech impairment. Your ability to see/hear (blind and deaf), walk/move (like being in a wheelchair) or speak is not an issue. So by your own evidence/quote, you don't qualify. sorry bud.

ftr, I do feel like people with ADD should get accommodations, but LSAC already provides them. So why are you suing?

[pcwcecac]

Sorry bro. I thought you had disabilities. I guess...I dunno what your story would be. But what you wrote above is ok!

I'm mildly autistic but I don't have any disability that stands out if you met me. In some ways my life has been easy (great parents, middle class upbringing, etc.) but in other ways it has been hard. I got bullied as a child, I would get so stressed that I would cry and freak out, I got obsessed with stuff, and other such problems. I'm better know but there's certain things I just can't get away from because I am who I am.

In your other thread, you mentioned that you went to a special ed high school. That, combined with the topic of this thread lead me to make the inference that you had some form of disability. Sorry for being presumptuous.

You've been through a lot. It is not an easy journey from special ed to 155 on the LSAT. My friend, that should be your story.

Study as hard as you can and retake. I have confidence that you can reach 160 or even 165.

EDIT: I also admire the fact that you can take so much beating on these threads and continue to defend your point of view. Such tenacity is probably what transformed you from your high school years to a 4.0 college student. Some of these motherfuckers need to have some perspective.

[Simplicity]

Time for another copy and paste to say why LSAC is violating the law:

My argument against LSAC is that accommodations must be given in order to counteract a disability and ADA accommodations are not given to give the person an advantage but rather to take away or at least diminish an unfair disadvantage. That's a big difference on the DRBA website is says that the ADA says that "For a test-taker with sensory, manual or speech impairments, the test provider must ensure that the examination is selected and administered 'so as to best ensure that' the examination results accurately reflect the individual's aptititude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the [disability]."

ADD IS a disability, but it is not a sensory, manual, or speech impairment. Your ability to see/hear (blind and deaf), walk/move (like being in a wheelchair) or speak is not an issue. So by your own evidence/quote, you don't qualify. sorry bud.

I wouldn't go that far. The ADA only covers certain disabilities that impair a major life activity and cannot be easily corrected (AIDS counts as a disability because it inhibits your ability to make children, evidently a major life activity, as decided by the courts......on the other hand, poor eyesight does not qualify as a disability). Does mild autism qualify as a disability under the ADA? I have no idea.