Top Law Schools

when she asked for special testing accommodations.

Among her requests, Hoyt wants twice the normal amount of time to take the 210-minute test, used by law school admissions offices to select students. She also is asking for the use of a “white noise” machine, a computer for her written essay, and the ability to bring food and drinks to the exam...

[A]ccording to Hoyt’s lawsuit, the group offered to grant an additional 156 minutes of test time. It’s unclear whether the group will also allow Hoyt access to the noise machine, a computer and snacks.

Details:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/educ ... 79a98.html

I swear, if a 61 year old woman sits down next to me eating snacks loudly and with a white noise machine on test day...

A white noise machine? Ludicrous.

Does she have a point about schools finding out about accommodations? I think the lawsuit as a whole is ridiculous, but that part is interesting.

All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer, which would make taking the LSAT under normal circumstances pretty predictive...

Although the real question here is why a 61-year-old woman wants to go to law school.

midwest17 wrote:Although the real question here is why a 61-year-old woman wants to go to law school.

In some states, seniors are offered free or heavily reduced tuition to state schools.

If you have the free time and it did not cost you anything (other than books), why not go to law school?

61 y/o. lol

The LSAT is supposed to be predictive. Thats like... the point. It compares you against everyone else irt test-taking ability, logical skills, etc.

If someone takes the test under different circumstances than everyone else, law schools should know about it, and decide themselves how heavily to weigh it. I'm sure she has a legitimate disability, and shouldn't be discriminated against, but law schools taking into account that she had extra time on a very time-sensitive test (and perhaps deciding to therefore weigh GPA more heavily or whatever) strikes me as common-sense.

I bet she'll be a gunner

mhaas wrote:I bet she'll be a gunner

I'll bet she'll make the same complaint on exams in law school. And the bar.

I also bet once law schools see this, even if she someone scores reasonably well on the LSAT for admission to a law school, that those law schools will realize such and will reject her after a 'holistic' review.

KingofSplitters55 wrote:

mhaas wrote:I bet she'll be a gunner

I'll bet she'll make the same complaint on exams in law school. And the bar.

I also bet once law schools see this, even if she someone scores reasonably well on the LSAT for admission to a law school, that those law schools will realize such and will reject her after a 'holistic' review.

She will sue every law school that reject her lol

indo wrote:

KingofSplitters55 wrote:

mhaas wrote:I bet she'll be a gunner

I'll bet she'll make the same complaint on exams in law school. And the bar.

I also bet once law schools see this, even if she someone scores reasonably well on the LSAT for admission to a law school, that those law schools will realize such and will reject her after a 'holistic' review.

She will sue every law school that reject her lol

Seriously, watch her sue HYSCCN for rejecting her when she applies with a 155/3.0

wtrcoins3 wrote:The LSAT is supposed to be predictive. Thats like... the point. It compares you against everyone else irt test-taking ability, logical skills, etc.

If someone takes the test under different circumstances than everyone else, law schools should know about it, and decide themselves how heavily to weigh it. I'm sure she has a legitimate disability, and shouldn't be discriminated against, but law schools taking into account that she had extra time on a very time-sensitive test (and perhaps deciding to therefore weigh GPA more heavily or whatever) strikes me as common-sense.

Oh, I completely agree with the reasoning here, I think it's safe to say that she'd really struggle at school and in the job market if she needed that much extra time. I'm just curious if that could still be considered "discriminating" against those with disabilities. I'd imagine this has been addressed by LSAC at some point though.

I feel her pain on the snack part

>All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer

No they don't. Especially no to the latter. In real life, see, people have offices, and in these offices, they can do things like close their door to the noises outside, put on music, and otherwise relax.

Tanicius wrote:>All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer

No they don't. Especially no to the latter. In real life, see, people have offices, and in these offices, they can do things like close their door to the noises outside, put on music, and otherwise relax.

+1

LSAT may correlate somewhat with performance in 1L, but the connection becomes weaker in later years of school, and I doubt that any real correlation can be shown between someone's overall career performance to their LSAT scores.

haus wrote:

Tanicius wrote:>All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer

No they don't. Especially no to the latter. In real life, see, people have offices, and in these offices, they can do things like close their door to the noises outside, put on music, and otherwise relax.

+1

LSAT may correlate somewhat with performance in 1L, but the connection becomes weaker in later years of school, and I doubt that any real correlation can be shown between someone's overall career performance to their LSAT scores.

Which may be an argument to abandon the LSAT itself... but for now schools not knowing that she took the test under very different conditions and constraints doesn't make sense IMO

wtrcoins3 wrote:

haus wrote:

Tanicius wrote:>All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer

No they don't. Especially no to the latter. In real life, see, people have offices, and in these offices, they can do things like close their door to the noises outside, put on music, and otherwise relax.

+1

LSAT may correlate somewhat with performance in 1L, but the connection becomes weaker in later years of school, and I doubt that any real correlation can be shown between someone's overall career performance to their LSAT scores.

Which may be an argument to abandon the LSAT itself... but for now schools not knowing that she took the test under very different conditions and constraints doesn't make sense IMO

I personally do not care if schools are notified about students receiving accommodations to the test, I just think that people get carried away with the supposed value of this exam. In a recent thread someone seemed shocked that a student with a 155 made it into YLS, with some crazy notion of how will they keep up? And here we have an argument that someone who as far as I know has not even taken the exam yet is doomed to be a bad student and bad future lawyer because they are asking for accommodations that will likely not amount to a hill of beans.

Yes, those people who want to get into a top school should take the exam seriously, because the majority of the legal education world allows themselves to be pushed around by a magazine that so few people in the real world care about that they stopped printing the thing years ago. This is already a silly position, but let's not go overboard and assign magical abilities to this test that it clearly does not posses.

haus wrote: I personally do not care if schools are notified about students receiving accommodations to the test, I just think that people get carried away with the supposed value of this exam. In a recent thread someone seemed shocked that a student with a 155 made it into YLS, with some crazy notion of how will they keep up? And here we have an argument that someone who as far as I know has not even taken the exam yet is doomed to be a bad student and bad future lawyer because they are asking for accommodations that will likely not amount to a hill of beans.

Yes, those people who want to get into a top school should take the exam seriously, because the majority of the legal education world allows themselves to be pushed around by a magazine that so few people in the real world care about that they stopped printing the thing years ago. This is already a silly position, but let's not go overboard and assign magical abilities to this test that it clearly does not posses.

crestor wrote:61 y/o. lol

http://wpc.556e.edgecastcdn.net/80556E/ ... GF_1_1.jpg

Tanicius wrote:>All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer

No they don't. Especially no to the latter. In real life, see, people have offices, and in these offices, they can do things like close their door to the noises outside, put on music, and otherwise relax.

Saying "all" was too strong. But needing twice as long to read things seems like it would be a pretty major hindrance...

midwest17 wrote:

Tanicius wrote:>All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer

No they don't. Especially no to the latter. In real life, see, people have offices, and in these offices, they can do things like close their door to the noises outside, put on music, and otherwise relax.

Saying "all" was too strong. But needing twice as long to read things seems like it would be a pretty major hindrance...

There are probably un-disabled lawyers who need twice as long to read things as other lawyers.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

midwest17 wrote:

Tanicius wrote:>All of those disabilities seem like things that would limit her ability to succeed in law school and as a lawyer

No they don't. Especially no to the latter. In real life, see, people have offices, and in these offices, they can do things like close their door to the noises outside, put on music, and otherwise relax.

Saying "all" was too strong. But needing twice as long to read things seems like it would be a pretty major hindrance...

There are probably un-disabled lawyers who need twice as long to read things as other lawyers.

And their LSAT scores probably reflected that, and it's probably a challenge that they have to find ways to work around. I'm not saying these are impossible issues to overcome, I'm just saying that they're not tangential to what the test is meant to measure.

I hate this woman.

ohpobrecito wrote:I hate this woman.

If you opt to retake, perhaps she would share her snacks with you.