disability testing-is law school even worth it? Forum

[AnnafutureJDstudent]

Anyone else out there had to use it? I have CP which has left me unable to write for myself So, I will need a scribe, and a computer for the essay portion. I know the extended time is frowned upon, I do not want to use it, but it will take up a lot of time to say a,b,c, or put a line here or a Q here for the logic games etc. They also want proof of testing accommodations from the ACT, I have no way of getting that and, if I remember correctly, the highest score I ever received was a 20. That's embarrassing I don't want the personnel to know that!

I am still in my undergrad I have a 3.8(hopefully 3.9 before I graduate
I was a volunteer activity coordinator at a retirement home
internship before graduation
I am in various honors societies
social work major psych minor.

I would not take the test until I finish undergrad. I want to get a tutor because I have never done well with standardized tests.I am confident that with adequate time and preparation that I could figure the test out and get a good score.

I want to go to law school. I want to help people as I think all of us do. I just am starting to wonder if it's even worth it. The LSAC staff make it so hard for people with disabilities to take the test. I have never wanted to be treated differently. I just spend a lot of time on my a$$, but if I am unable to write for myself, what can I do? The LSAT will make or break you.

[bhs12]

I just sent you a voluminous PM (sorry!). I'm a fellow applicant with disabilities, and fwiw, would be happy to share what little I know with anyone in this position.

Bottom line: don't allow the LSAT to thwart your legal ambitions, and as difficult as it is to get accommodations, don't foreclose the possibility. If they're not granted, you will have a very legitimate explanation at your disposal to write in your addendum. The LSAT blows, for everyone, but it's especially onerous and demoralizing for people with disabilities. All isn't lost though.

[Ohiobumpkin]

Anyone else out there had to use it? I have CP which has left me unable to write for myself So, I will need a scribe, and a computer for the essay portion. I know the extended time is frowned upon, I do not want to use it, but it will take up a lot of time to say a,b,c, or put a line here or a Q here for the logic games etc. They also want proof of testing accommodations from the ACT, I have no way of getting that and, if I remember correctly, the highest score I ever received was a 20. That's embarrassing I don't want the personnel to know that!

I am still in my undergrad I have a 3.8(hopefully 3.9 before I graduate
I was a volunteer activity coordinator at a retirement home
internship before graduation
I am in various honors societies
social work major psych minor.

I would not take the test until I finish undergrad. I want to get a tutor because I have never done well with standardized tests.I am confident that with adequate time and preparation that I could figure the test out and get a good score.

I want to go to law school. I want to help people as I think all of us do. I just am starting to wonder if it's even worth it. The LSAC staff make it so hard for people with disabilities to take the test. I have never wanted to be treated differently. I just spend a lot of time on my a$$, but if I am unable to write for myself, what can I do? The LSAT will make or break you.

First off, with either a 3.8 or 3.9 and any accommodated test score, you'll be better off than most LSAT takers. When you take the LSAT with extended time, schools don't compute your score in with the rest of your class. This means for admissions purposes that you will only be considered based on your GPA and any softs. Therefore, if you decide to take the LSAT with extended time, don't waste too much money or sanity studying for the LSAT. It won't be a very decisive factor in your admissions. From my perspective, an accommodated LSAT score acts more like a soft factor in admissions compared to a regular LSAT score. So, unless you do incredibly poorly or amazingly well, it won't be considered that much.

Secondly, you just need to call ACT and request they send you a pdf letter that confirms you received accommodations. I don't even think LSAC requests an official score transcript from your ACT (don't remember). Also, LSAC does not give a hoot what your score was on a previous standardized test. They are simply looking for confirmation that you took either the ACT or SAT with accommodations.

Thirdly, with CP you are in a strong position to receive accommodations. The only group of disabled persons who consistently are treated poorly by LSAC are people with ADHD. By treated poorly I mean LSAC basically does not recognize ADHD for purposes of accommodations. In descending order of preference, LSAC prefers people with physical disabilities> most mental disabilities> ADHD. Given that you have a physical disability, the chances that you will be approved for accommodations are almost certain if you provide ALL the documentation they ask for (required and desired).

Lastly, do not act naive (sorry if this is harsh). Do not take the LSAT regularly (even physically possible?) just to be treated "normally" (whatever that means, honestly). As soon as you take the LSAT regularly, you WILL NOT be able to request accommodations on a subsequent LSAT administration. As somebody with a disability who received extended time, I can empathize with the desire to be treated "normal." But you have to take the hand that was dealt to you in the way that furthers your goals and interests w/o putting too much weight on things like being treated "normal." I think someone with your background and academic potential (fantastic GPA!) would be a great asset to people with disabilities. You should not be dissuaded from attending law school because LSAC is hostile to people with disabilities.

You are welcome to PM me with any questions you might have. Best of luck!

[Jeffort]

Don't let the hassles involved in getting special accommodations deter you from getting what you need and taking the test.

Although applying for special accommodations is typically a difficult and frustrating process for most people, it's a necessary evil since a lot of people try to abuse the system every year to get an unfair advantage. With CP, I doubt you'll experience the same types of problems many people face with repeated denials since your medical condition is obviously established with years of empirical medical proof. It's an annoying hassle to gather all the records/documentation LSAC requires, but once you get that stuff together per LSACs documentation requirements I would be shocked if they denied you special accommodations.

Unlike people seeking special accommodations for ADHD or other purely mental/psychological disabilities where actual level of impairment is subjective and a matter of opinion/debate/dispute, CP is not something people can fake or exaggerate in order to try to get an unfair advantage with extra time. Requesting and submitting a bunch of records and filling out a bunch of forms is an annoying pain but worth the effort to get the accommodations you deserve so that your test score reflects your actual ability level without interference from your physical limitations.

The main reason LSAC is really strict about granting extra time and requires a large amount of solid objective proof of legit disability before they'll say yes is to protect the system from fraud and abuse since thousands of people apply for extra time per year with many illegitimate applications from people just seeking to bull$hit their way into an unfair advantage on their road to riches. Without super strict documentation/objective proof requirements it would be easy for many people to fabricate their way into extra time and a higher LSAT score than they deserve with fraudulent BS claims and notes from shady doctors willing to say/write whatever for some $$.

People make up and exaggerate all sorts of stuff every year to try to BS LSAC into giving extra time. For example, a guy that contacted me about tutoring not long ago told me he was going to apply for double time to try to help him achieve a 167+ score. He claimed he has a medical condition that makes him feel like he needs to pee frequently that forces him to have to go to the bathroom frequently to see if he needs to go. When he told me this his attitude was that he thought he had a valid reason and would actually be granted extra time since he had gone to a doctor about the problem and had some medical records about it he could send in. He arrogantly thought that getting a doctors note about supposedly having incontinence gave him a legitimate basis to get double time per section. He was obviously just trying to cheat his way into getting a huge advantage on the LSAT with a BS doctors note. Thinking like that is not uncommon among unscrupulous types of students that are willing to try to lie and cheat their way into a big $$ legal career and LSAC has to sort out tons of those illegitimate spec accom requests from the legit ones every year. Unfortunately the legal profession attracts lots of dishonest people seeking to get rich at the expense of others every year, but fortunately the LSAC and the LSAT act as good filters to screen many of those types out early in the process.

LSAC isn't going to suspect that you are one of the many people every year that tries to manufacture and/or exaggerate some sort of condition in order to secure an unfair competitive advantage over other LS applicants, but they will require full solid/reliable/verifiable proof of your disabilities before they say yes and grant you the accommodations you need. They aren't necessarily trying to be mean to you, they just require a lot of proof from everyone to make sure none of the liars make it through and get approved with false/exaggerated claims of disability.

The paperwork is a pain but you should do it. As said above, you just need to contact ACT and they'll provide you with the records LSAC wants from them.

Apply long in advance since getting accoms granted usually takes several months or more and you should be fine. Good luck!

[Kimikho]

One thing to note--because you LSAT won't count towards the schools' rankings, your admission will depend entirely on your GPA (though, even with an accommodated test, I find it hard that a school would be willing to admit someone severely below their medians). It is probably much more of a signaling device. This hurts you because a 3.8 is actually below the GPA medians for Penn, UVA, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. Getting your GPA up to a 3.9 though will be phenomenal.

I'm sure you've gotten much more knowledgeable PMs about getting accommodations, but since you are already looking and since I am an LSN-data whore, I wanted to through my $0.02 in about your potential cycle. I think your LSAT score will still matter. You will need accommodations during exams, and LSAT scores are highly correlated with 1L grades. If you want more data I'd suggest talking to international students whose GPAs don't count. Follow their cycles and see how they turn out. There are (I think) a lot more international GPAs than accommodated test scores. Here are some international LSNs from last year that I think would be good indicators of how your cycle could go:
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/joiedevivre18 (169/3.9, strong softs, WL at Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Accepted at Columbia despite below median LSAT)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/decore (170/3.79, ED'd Chicago and rejected despite being at the LSAT median)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/seipk (166/3.92, Accepted at Cornell and U Penn, despite being below LSAT medians)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/xizhao (172/3.78, Waitlisted at Harvard despite being below the LSAT median (GPA median, too))

The interesting one is to compare joiedevivre18 (169/3.80) with http://lawschoolnumbers.com/VeeD101 (169/3.66). Both are non-URM international women with 3-4 years of WE, but Veed101 was waitlisted and then rejected from Columbia (below both medians) while joiedevivre18 (below LSAT median, GPA, though not counting, is above) was accepted outright.

However, that all being said, Harvard has accepted four non-URMs below both medians this year, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were the one to get in too. But should that cycle end poorly, you'd want to maybe ED somewhere the next year. You have a very compelling story, I'm sure you have strong reasons for wanting to go to law school, and appear to be ahead of the game on this. Keep your GPA as high as you can and good luck!

[Jeffort]

scoobers & ohiobumpkin,

Do either of you have a reliable source/authority for concluding and telling OP that her LSAT score isn't going to matter/be given much weight by admissions committees and that only her GPA and softs really matter? I've never seen any reliable source of LS admissions information take that position.

It looks like both of you are just assuming that since schools don't get to include accommodated scores in their ranking stats that they will pretty much just ignore it/not care about it/not put much weight on it when reviewing OPs apps because it won't help the schools stats/rank and/or because it's not directly comparable to regular LSAT scores. If that's the basis for your positions, it's very very wrong and a big misinformation disservice to OP. If you guys are assuming that accommodated scores from extra time are typically inflated due to the extra time and that schools typically dismiss them/give them little weight due to that, you are also incorrect.

Due to the nature of accommodated test scores schools obviously interpret and weigh them differently than regular scores for regular applicants since the two situations are not comparable with the same metrics. However, that doesn't mean schools mainly just ignore the LSAT score/treat it as useless/not very significant information and then just evaluate and compare the applicant to the regular pool based mainly on GPA and typical soft factors with an 'all other things being equal' assumption about the disabled applicant compared to the pool. There are several logical issues, bad assumptions and ignored realities with that perspective that are problematic.

If schools gave significantly less, little or no weight to accommodated LSAT scores for disabled students, they would be guilty of unfair discrimination against disabled students!!! Remember, special accommodations are designed to level the playing field so that disabled students scores more accurately reflect actual ability level with LSAT materials rather than being negatively impacted by limitations unrelated to logical and reading based analysis skills, such as physical limitations.

Scoobers, telling OP that her situation is somewhat analogous to international applicants with non-standardized GPAs and that she can expect similar cycle results as them by just substituting the % rank of her GPA as it compares to schools medians to how those students LSAT scores compare to schools medians is absurd. It's a horrible apples to oranges comparison that ignores basic reality. Disabled applicants have almost nothing in common with international applicants other than a non standardized metric that is not even the same one! Seriously, I thought you had good LSAT skills, that's a horribly flawed argument by analogy. Your advice to OP is basically just unwarranted speculation/guessing based on your limited understanding of, and unwarranted assumptions about the admissions processes.

Applications from disabled students are reviewed very very differently than normal applicants since there are many more variables and subjective factors involved and each disabled applicant is unique/significantly different in many ways from all other applicants. Any type of comparisons to other non-disabled applicants results for prediction purposes is fundamentally flawed and useless. Disabled applicants are in an entirely different world and looked at through a very different lens for evaluation with a bunch of different stuff taken into account and weighted differently than it is for regular applicants because the students circumstances and life paths are soo much different than everyone else in significant and unique ways.

[Ohiobumpkin]

scoobers & ohiobumpkin,

Do either of you have a reliable source/authority for concluding and telling OP that her LSAT score isn't going to matter/be given much weight by admissions committees and that only her GPA and softs really matter? I've never seen any reliable source of LS admissions information take that position.

It looks like both of you are just assuming that since schools don't get to include accommodated scores in their ranking stats that they will pretty much just ignore it/not care about it/not put much weight on it when reviewing OPs apps because it won't help the schools stats/rank and/or because it's not directly comparable to regular LSAT scores. If that's the basis for your positions, it's very very wrong and a big misinformation disservice to OP. If you guys are assuming that accommodated scores from extra time are typically inflated due to the extra time and that schools typically dismiss them/give them little weight due to that, you are also incorrect.

I did not say an accommodated test score is irrelevant. I said it would be treated as a soft factor if you scored really well or poorly (positive soft versus negative soft, respectively). Also, I must admit I view law school admissions (and most higher education admissions) very cynically. I do think that an accommodated LSAT score is going to be less consequential in admissions decisions, but I never said they were of no consequence. At the end of the day, schools want to increase their LSAT/GPA stats. A non-computed LSAT score poses no positive or negative effect on a school's median, and therefore is not as consequential in whether they get admitted or not compared with a computed LSAT score. While I can't speak for scoobers, I think you misinterpreted what I intended to convey. Sorry for any confusion.

As to sources that support my position, there is my anecdotal experience getting admitted into a much higher school than my stats would warrant if my LSAT was non-accommodated. Also, I think my position is supported by common sense. The consensus on TLS is that schools look to a student's LSAT>GPA>softs in making admissions decisions. That does not mean there aren't schools that have more or less emphasis on one of these factors, but the predominant trend is that LSAT scores are more consequential to admissions decisions than GPA or softs.

[cron1834]

scoobers & ohiobumpkin,

Do either of you have a reliable source/authority for concluding and telling OP that her LSAT score isn't going to matter/be given much weight by admissions committees and that only her GPA and softs really matter? I've never seen any reliable source of LS admissions information take that position.

It looks like both of you are just assuming that since schools don't get to include accommodated scores in their ranking stats that they will pretty much just ignore it/not care about it/not put much weight on it when reviewing OPs apps because it won't help the schools stats/rank and/or because it's not directly comparable to regular LSAT scores. If that's the basis for your positions, it's very very wrong and a big misinformation disservice to OP. If you guys are assuming that accommodated scores from extra time are typically inflated due to the extra time and that schools typically dismiss them/give them little weight due to that, you are also incorrect.

Due to the nature of accommodated test scores schools obviously interpret and weigh them differently than regular scores for regular applicants since the two situations are not comparable with the same metrics. However, that doesn't mean schools mainly just ignore the LSAT score/treat it as useless/not very significant information and then just evaluate and compare the applicant to the regular pool based mainly on GPA and typical soft factors with an 'all other things being equal' assumption about the disabled applicant compared to the pool. There are several logical issues, bad assumptions and ignored realities with that perspective that are problematic.

If schools gave significantly less, little or no weight to accommodated LSAT scores for disabled students, they would be guilty of unfair discrimination against disabled students!!! Remember, special accommodations are designed to level the playing field so that disabled students scores more accurately reflect actual ability level with LSAT materials rather than being negatively impacted by limitations unrelated to logical and reading based analysis skills, such as physical limitations.

Scoobers, telling OP that her situation is somewhat analogous to international applicants with non-standardized GPAs and that she can expect similar cycle results as them by just substituting the % rank of her GPA as it compares to schools medians to how those students LSAT scores compare to schools medians is absurd. It's a horrible apples to oranges comparison that ignores basic reality. Disabled applicants have almost nothing in common with international applicants other than a non standardized metric that is not even the same one! Seriously, I thought you had good LSAT skills, that's a horribly flawed argument by analogy. Your advice to OP is basically just unwarranted speculation/guessing based on your limited understanding of, and unwarranted assumptions about the admissions processes.

Applications from disabled students are reviewed very very differently than normal applicants since there are many more variables and subjective factors involved and each disabled applicant is unique/significantly different in many ways from all other applicants. Any type of comparisons to other non-disabled applicants results for prediction purposes is fundamentally flawed and useless. Disabled applicants are in an entirely different world and looked at through a very different lens for evaluation with a bunch of different stuff taken into account and weighted differently than it is for regular applicants because the students circumstances and life paths are soo much different than everyone else in significant and unique ways.

How you gonna criticize someone for not citing sources, and then ... not cite sources? Both your version and Ohio/Scoobers' seem reasonable to me, but unless you're an AdComm I have no reason to assume your story > their story.

[jk148706]

scoobers & ohiobumpkin,

Do either of you have a reliable source/authority for concluding and telling OP that her LSAT score isn't going to matter/be given much weight by admissions committees and that only her GPA and softs really matter? I've never seen any reliable source of LS admissions information take that position.

It looks like both of you are just assuming that since schools don't get to include accommodated scores in their ranking stats that they will pretty much just ignore it/not care about it/not put much weight on it when reviewing OPs apps because it won't help the schools stats/rank and/or because it's not directly comparable to regular LSAT scores. If that's the basis for your positions, it's very very wrong and a big misinformation disservice to OP. If you guys are assuming that accommodated scores from extra time are typically inflated due to the extra time and that schools typically dismiss them/give them little weight due to that, you are also incorrect.

Due to the nature of accommodated test scores schools obviously interpret and weigh them differently than regular scores for regular applicants since the two situations are not comparable with the same metrics. However, that doesn't mean schools mainly just ignore the LSAT score/treat it as useless/not very significant information and then just evaluate and compare the applicant to the regular pool based mainly on GPA and typical soft factors with an 'all other things being equal' assumption about the disabled applicant compared to the pool. There are several logical issues, bad assumptions and ignored realities with that perspective that are problematic.

If schools gave significantly less, little or no weight to accommodated LSAT scores for disabled students, they would be guilty of unfair discrimination against disabled students!!! Remember, special accommodations are designed to level the playing field so that disabled students scores more accurately reflect actual ability level with LSAT materials rather than being negatively impacted by limitations unrelated to logical and reading based analysis skills, such as physical limitations.

Scoobers, telling OP that her situation is somewhat analogous to international applicants with non-standardized GPAs and that she can expect similar cycle results as them by just substituting the % rank of her GPA as it compares to schools medians to how those students LSAT scores compare to schools medians is absurd. It's a horrible apples to oranges comparison that ignores basic reality. Disabled applicants have almost nothing in common with international applicants other than a non standardized metric that is not even the same one! Seriously, I thought you had good LSAT skills, that's a horribly flawed argument by analogy. Your advice to OP is basically just unwarranted speculation/guessing based on your limited understanding of, and unwarranted assumptions about the admissions processes.

Applications from disabled students are reviewed very very differently than normal applicants since there are many more variables and subjective factors involved and each disabled applicant is unique/significantly different in many ways from all other applicants. Any type of comparisons to other non-disabled applicants results for prediction purposes is fundamentally flawed and useless. Disabled applicants are in an entirely different world and looked at through a very different lens for evaluation with a bunch of different stuff taken into account and weighted differently than it is for regular applicants because the students circumstances and life paths are soo much different than everyone else in significant and unique ways.

How you gonna criticize someone for not citing sources, and then ... not cite sources? Both your version and Ohio/Scoobers' seem reasonable to me, but unless you're an AdComm I have no reason to assume your story > their story.

Jeffort didn't really make the opposing argument. He just said there is no reason to tell OP her/his lsat won't matter much and/or is comparable to an international applicant.

I think Jeffort was saying we shouldn't be givng advice on how OP should view the lsat when we really don't know how seriously adcomms will take it (and it's better to assume adcomms do view the test as significant rather than assume it won't matter).

Or maybe I misread idk

[Sgt Brody.]

One thing to note--because you LSAT won't count towards the schools' rankings, your admission will depend entirely on your GPA (though, even with an accommodated test, I find it hard that a school would be willing to admit someone severely below their medians). It is probably much more of a signaling device. This hurts you because a 3.8 is actually below the GPA medians for Penn, UVA, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. Getting your GPA up to a 3.9 though will be phenomenal.

I'm sure you've gotten much more knowledgeable PMs about getting accommodations, but since you are already looking and since I am an LSN-data whore, I wanted to through my $0.02 in about your potential cycle. I think your LSAT score will still matter. You will need accommodations during exams, and LSAT scores are highly correlated with 1L grades. If you want more data I'd suggest talking to international students whose GPAs don't count. Follow their cycles and see how they turn out. There are (I think) a lot more international GPAs than accommodated test scores. Here are some international LSNs from last year that I think would be good indicators of how your cycle could go:
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/joiedevivre18 (169/3.9, strong softs, WL at Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Accepted at Columbia despite below median LSAT)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/decore (170/3.79, ED'd Chicago and rejected despite being at the LSAT median)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/seipk (166/3.92, Accepted at Cornell and U Penn, despite being below LSAT medians)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/xizhao (172/3.78, Waitlisted at Harvard despite being below the LSAT median (GPA median, too))

The interesting one is to compare joiedevivre18 (169/3.80) with http://lawschoolnumbers.com/VeeD101 (169/3.66). Both are non-URM international women with 3-4 years of WE, but Veed101 was waitlisted and then rejected from Columbia (below both medians) while joiedevivre18 (below LSAT median, GPA, though not counting, is above) was accepted outright.

However, that all being said, Harvard has accepted four non-URMs below both medians this year, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were the one to get in too. But should that cycle end poorly, you'd want to maybe ED somewhere the next year. You have a very compelling story, I'm sure you have strong reasons for wanting to go to law school, and appear to be ahead of the game on this. Keep your GPA as high as you can and good luck!

Hey scoobers!, a bit off topic, but I noticed that u seem to know alot about LSN data, do you know how to find the data for UCLA ed students. That will be very useful, as Im planning to to ED at ucla, and I need to find the gpa and lsat for those students. Thank you!

[Kimikho]

scoobers & ohiobumpkin,

Do either of you have a reliable source/authority for concluding and telling OP that her LSAT score isn't going to matter/be given much weight by admissions committees and that only her GPA and softs really matter? I've never seen any reliable source of LS admissions information take that position.

It looks like both of you are just assuming that since schools don't get to include accommodated scores in their ranking stats that they will pretty much just ignore it/not care about it/not put much weight on it when reviewing OPs apps because it won't help the schools stats/rank and/or because it's not directly comparable to regular LSAT scores. If that's the basis for your positions, it's very very wrong and a big misinformation disservice to OP. If you guys are assuming that accommodated scores from extra time are typically inflated due to the extra time and that schools typically dismiss them/give them little weight due to that, you are also incorrect.

Due to the nature of accommodated test scores schools obviously interpret and weigh them differently than regular scores for regular applicants since the two situations are not comparable with the same metrics. However, that doesn't mean schools mainly just ignore the LSAT score/treat it as useless/not very significant information and then just evaluate and compare the applicant to the regular pool based mainly on GPA and typical soft factors with an 'all other things being equal' assumption about the disabled applicant compared to the pool. There are several logical issues, bad assumptions and ignored realities with that perspective that are problematic.

If schools gave significantly less, little or no weight to accommodated LSAT scores for disabled students, they would be guilty of unfair discrimination against disabled students!!! Remember, special accommodations are designed to level the playing field so that disabled students scores more accurately reflect actual ability level with LSAT materials rather than being negatively impacted by limitations unrelated to logical and reading based analysis skills, such as physical limitations.

Scoobers, telling OP that her situation is somewhat analogous to international applicants with non-standardized GPAs and that she can expect similar cycle results as them by just substituting the % rank of her GPA as it compares to schools medians to how those students LSAT scores compare to schools medians is absurd. It's a horrible apples to oranges comparison that ignores basic reality. Disabled applicants have almost nothing in common with international applicants other than a non standardized metric that is not even the same one! Seriously, I thought you had good LSAT skills, that's a horribly flawed argument by analogy. Your advice to OP is basically just unwarranted speculation/guessing based on your limited understanding of, and unwarranted assumptions about the admissions processes.

Applications from disabled students are reviewed very very differently than normal applicants since there are many more variables and subjective factors involved and each disabled applicant is unique/significantly different in many ways from all other applicants. Any type of comparisons to other non-disabled applicants results for prediction purposes is fundamentally flawed and useless. Disabled applicants are in an entirely different world and looked at through a very different lens for evaluation with a bunch of different stuff taken into account and weighted differently than it is for regular applicants because the students circumstances and life paths are soo much different than everyone else in significant and unique ways.

How you gonna criticize someone for not citing sources, and then ... not cite sources? Both your version and Ohio/Scoobers' seem reasonable to me, but unless you're an AdComm I have no reason to assume your story > their story.

I literally said I think her LSAT score will matter, and provided data to back me up. Obviously I'm not an adcomm but I feel like those were some reasonable assumptions there. And I was in no way assuming that OP's score would be "inflated." It will represent OP's ability just as my LSAT score does, or honestly be deflated a bit.

Admissions, purely-ranking wise will matter only based on OP's GPA. That's because (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the parts of our app that matter rankings-wise are URM status, LSAT, and GPA.

More importantly though...

I think your LSAT score will still matter.

HTH. Also, seriously. If everyone on here was required to provide substantive data to back up our posts, there wouldn't be a TLS.

ETA: Read your post more carefully:

Scoobers, telling OP that her situation is somewhat analogous to international applicants with non-standardized GPAs and that she can expect similar cycle results as them by just substituting the % rank of her GPA as it compares to schools medians to how those students LSAT scores compare to schools medians is absurd. It's a horrible apples to oranges comparison that ignores basic reality. Disabled applicants have almost nothing in common with international applicants other than a non standardized metric that is not even the same one! Seriously, I thought you had good LSAT skills, that's a horribly flawed argument by analogy. Your advice to OP is basically just unwarranted speculation/guessing based on your limited understanding of, and unwarranted assumptions about the admissions processes.

Again, I wasn't saying that this was a perfect analogy. All I was saying was that here are some examples of people for whom half their numbers don't count towards the rankings. I wasn't making any assumptions on the nature of it, or on the applicants, or on the OP.

However, I'd love to see some advice you could provide the OP, beyond "study hard and live your dreams!!!" Applicants in this situation are driving blind. Even if it is not a perfect, or even close to perfect, match to their situation, someone who is at least matching one part is better than none.

[Jeffort]

Jeffort didn't really make the opposing argument. He just said there is no reason to tell OP her/his lsat won't matter much and/or is comparable to an international applicant.

I think Jeffort was saying we shouldn't be givng advice on how OP should view the lsat when we really don't know how seriously adcomms will take it (and it's better to assume adcomms do view the test as significant rather than assume it won't matter).

Or maybe I misread idk

You didn't misread, that is exactly what my point is. 180 reading comp for you. The others are just stuck in TLS 'everything is an argument, I must prove you're wrong and that I'm right to win! That's not exactly what I said and I said this too...' debate mode as if it's a competition. Apparently they overlooked the word 'if' in my post and just wanted to have a fight about semantics and strength of verbs used in posts.
Hey guys, notice in my post above: "If that's the basis for your positions,..."

Trying to extrapolate the inner workings of admissions decisions about disabled students with accommodated test scores from data and information about driving factors in admissions for normal applicants and assuming schools stick to the same admissions priorities with disabled applicants as they do with the normal pool is silly and just plain old bad logic.

The point is that schools look at and evaluate applications from disabled students with accommodated scores much differently, much more holistically and with different sets of standards, concerns and priorities than applications in the normal pool. How much differently? How do they weigh LSAT scores compared to normal applicants? I don't know! other than it is really a much more holistic approach with a different overall decision matrix that is much more subjective on a case by case basis than how regular applications are evaluated.

If you guys want to speculate, argue and try to 'be right' about how schools actually evaluate applications with accommodated scores, have fun with that controversial topic of mystery but don't go posting your guesses as factual advice to the OP or others since your conclusions are just guesses.

I don't claim to know how schools weigh accommodated scores because they all do it however they want on a case by case subjective basis BECAUSE there isn't a giant data pool of statistics about similarly situated applicants from the past to use as guidance about an applicants potential as a 1L, making it so there is no logically valid generalization people can rely on about how accommodated scores are weighed because one cannot exist. It cannot be generalized due to the unique nature of such applications, generalizations about populations don't apply to these types of applicants precisely because they are irregular/significantly different from all others that general admissions data represents at the get go.

Simply put, admissions statistics about how non accommodated applicants numbers performed for admissions are irrelevant for making predictions or judgements about how applications with an accommodated score will fare based on numbers. OP should do her best to achieve a high LSAT score and not believe people here that claim to know how much weight her numbers will likely get whether they think it's a lot or a little.

[cron1834]

You didn't misread, that is exactly what my point is. 180 reading comp for you. The others are just stuck in TLS 'everything is an argument, I must prove you're wrong and that I'm right to win! That's not exactly what I said and I said this too...' debate mode as if it's a competition. Apparently they overlooked the word 'if' in my post and just wanted to have a fight about semantics and strength of verbs used in posts.

Bullshit. You made a series of factual claims, some of which are strident and none of which are sourced. You're not better than anyone else ITT, except perhaps in self-satisfaction. You seem pretty good at that.

If you guys are assuming that accommodated scores from extra time are typically inflated due to the extra time and that schools typically dismiss them/give them little weight due to that, you are also incorrect.

However, that doesn't mean schools mainly just ignore the LSAT score/treat it as useless/not very significant information and then just evaluate and compare the applicant to the regular pool based mainly on GPA and typical soft factors with an 'all other things being equal' assumption about the disabled applicant compared to the pool

If schools gave significantly less, little or no weight to accommodated LSAT scores for disabled students, they would be guilty of unfair discrimination against disabled students!!!

Disabled applicants have almost nothing in common with international applicants

Any type of comparisons to other non-disabled applicants results for prediction purposes is fundamentally flawed and useless

Disabled applicants are in an entirely different world and looked at through a very different lens for evaluation

[Jeffort]

You are having an RC, context and logic failure with your interpretation of this discussion. Disputing some of the unwarranted assumptions made or implied by others about how accommodated scores actually do operate in admissions like I did in most of what you quoted isn't the same thing as making baseless factual claims like you say I did. I disagreed that the other posters are correct to assume the opposite of those things is necessarily true without proof! Me not providing sources to prove their assumptions and conclusions are wrong doesn't make them true, which is kinda what it sounds like you're trying to say.

If you want to fight and pointlessly argue, head over to the off topic board please.

[cron1834]

You DID make a series of unsourced factual claims. I just cited several of them. Your holier-than-thou attitude isn't justified in the remotest sense. Wouldn't it be awesome if just writing, "RC FAIL, /THREAD" made one correct? It doesn't, though. HTH.

I'll slow this down, since you don't seem very good at responding to others:

In criticizing others for making unsourced claims, you ALSO make unsourced claims, and act like a smug asshole in the process. You didn't SIMPLY suggest that others' claims may be unwarranted, you made claims of your own.

Clearer?

I'm not stating that Scoobers is correct. I'm saying you look like a tool when you criticize guesswork with more guesswork. Because, you know, you do. You could have simply said, "*source needed.*" Instead, you desperately asserted yourself all over the place. Desperately.

[Jeffort]

Why are you trying to distort this thread into an adversarial he said she said pissing contest like it's some sort of deposition or debate contest and now also shifting the topic into being personal and not about the thread topic?

If you have a personal issue with me for some reason, PM me, but don't try to convert an on topic LSAT thread into a personal pissing match to satisfy your aggression, I don't even know you and don't think I've ever had any interaction with you here. Why the hostility bro? Your condescending tone towards me is also completely unwarranted, the logic of your posts isn't very good. Take that petty argumentative nonsense to the off topic board.

If you have something meaningful to contribute to the topic of accommodated scores that might actually be useful to a disabled student, feel free to share your opinions in a civilized hopefully logical way like everyone else. If you just want to have a petty adversarial argument so you can argue with and try to prove somebody wrong, please do it somewhere other than on the LSAT board where students are actually looking for useful information and useful on topic discussions. I don't understand why you jumped in this thread suddenly just to argue against and criticize me. Care to explain?

[cron1834]

*acts smug, criticizes others, calls posters a "fail", pretends to Mod

*wonders why hostile response



JFC. I'll stop now, but JFC.

[Jeffort]

*acts smug, criticizes others, calls posters a "fail", pretends to Mod

*wonders why hostile response



JFC. I'll stop now, but JFC.

Seriously, why did you jump into this thread to make an extended and unprovoked personal attack against me all the sudden? You obviously aren't concerned about the topic of the thread. I'm genuinely curious why you decided to jump in and pick a fight with me and attack when there wasn't an adversarial fight/argument/dispute even going on? You've only been a member of TLS for less than two months, I think you have some wrong ideas about what the LSAT study board is supposed to be for.

[cron1834]

My initial point was substantive - you are answering guesswork with guesswork. It's still true.

After that, your charming combination of dismissiveness, condescension, and hypocrisy sucked me in. I am a sucker for that, I guess. The heart wants what it wants.

You can have last word. I'm out. Good luck with future aspie endeavors.

[Jeffort]

My initial point was substantive - you are answering guesswork with guesswork. It's still true.

After that, your charming combination of dismissiveness, condescension, and hypocrisy sucked me in. I am a sucker for that, I guess. The heart wants what it wants.

You can have last word. I'm out. Good luck with future aspie endeavors.

Whatever you want to believe... I wasn't answering with guesswork, there is plenty of published information about accommodated scores and admissions that is the basis for all of my assertions you are disputing and itemized as unsupported claims. Not that you really cared about the validity of anything I said anyway, but pretty much everything I said is spelled out in the LSAC published guidelines about the use of accommodated scores in admissions if you want a source. It's pretty clear from your posts that you just wanted to personally attack me for whatever reason and that the truth of the substance wasn't really your concern, which is probably why you just assumed I had no sources for my claims and was wrong without having a sound basis for your position before jumping in to start a fight, take sides and derail the thread. I still don't understand why you had the urge to lash out at me, insult me, set out to prove me wrong or whatever and continue to make more personal insults. You weren't even part of the thread until you jumped in to turn the conversation into an adversarial whos right/whos wrong debate, directly attacked me and immediately made things personal instead of about the thread topic supposedly because I didn't supply you with a bunch of links to published information about accommodated scores and admissions to win the 'who's got the right sources' dispute you just manufactured.

I don't appreciate your unwarranted assumptions and characterizations about me, they are way off, but thanks for stopping by and sharing your glib opinions. My purpose for posting in this thread was to help the OP get accurate information that pertains to her situation, which included pointing out some shoddy advice/information others offered. Other than for being an a-hole to me and disruptive to the topic, I don't understand your purpose for posting in this thread since you still haven't explained.

[Ohiobumpkin]

Six hours of sleep and I wake up to this!

[flash21]

settle it in a mud wrestling match

[Ohiobumpkin]

settle it in a mud wrestling match

Loser has to cry out "You're right! Accommodated LSAT scores are/aren't a major consideration in law school admissions."

[bhs12]

Without stepping on anyone's toes, I'd offer this summary based on my personal experience as an applicant with disabilities:

1. I would not worry about the normative import of "being treated differently." If you are granted accommodations, you are being treated differently because you are different. You deserve to be judged on the basis of your intrinsic intellectual merits/LSAT ability; any intervention that can control for differential variables that will interfere unduly with your performance are more than fair. Definitely fill out the requisite forms and follow the prescribed procedures that LSAT dictates.

2. As I mentioned in my PM, I agree with some of the previous posters that whether just or not, LSAC is more accommodating of those with physical disabilities. Based on the information you provided, it seems to me that if you follow LSAC's procedures, you stand a good chance at having your requests met.

3. If you are granted extended time, it's true that your LSAT score will not be reported to the ABA. That said, I don't think any of us can know the extent to which this fact will influence individual admissions officers/committees. They will have a less of an institutional incentive to reject you on the basis of your LSAT score, but it would be naïve to assume that they will overlook it entirely. The bottom line is that although the law school admissions process is more quantitatively driven than other admissions processes, it is still governed by a significant degree of subjectivity and individual-level decision making. And while this makes it difficult to ascertain exactly how much a nonstandardized score will matter in any individual applicant's case, at any individual school, it also means that you have the potential to appeal to admissions officers by highlighting the subjective merits of your application (the diversity you bring, the adversity you have overcome, etc.)

4. If you are not granted accommodations—and you'd be amazed by the strong cases of some of those denied— remember that the LSAT really isn't everything. You will have a lot of other things 'going for you' in your application.

5. Your situation will be unusual, and therefore LSN is not likely to be terribly helpful or predictive in your case. Try not to put too much stock in it.

[AnnafutureJDstudent]

Okay. I am just an undergrad student looking for advice.... There is no need to break out into arguments. I appreciate all of the advice I'm getting.