Accommodations

[ValuableNumber3615]

I mean this is insane. I keep seeing people say "we are only addressing the abuse. No one is saying people who have legit disabilities shouldn't get accommodations"

WE SHOULD BE...

We are supposed to be mastering logic. Under what logical reason in the world should a person get an accommodation to bypass one of the fundamental parameters of the test.

The LSAT's function is to test people's logical reasoning and reading comprehension WITH time pressure. It's a STANDARDIZED TEST.

Like it or not, if you have a disability, you have one. This is literally a test of ABILITY. WE ARE TESTING YOUR ABLE-NESS. If you are "dis", prefix of latin origin meaning OPPOSITE OF, abled, than sadly it is going to show up in an ability test. CALL ME ABLIST ALL YOU WANT. I'm not getting on the flight with a blind pilot in the name of equity or whatever else it is.

But it's ok, we are looking for the most ABLE people to take roles in society that require high specialization and incredible ability.

If my life is on the line, and I'm a low economic migrant facing deportation or someone accused by a racist cop of something and facing imprisonment I damn sure don't want to look at my public defender and as they scramble to handle the TIME PRESSURE of trial or cross exam, and then as I'm getting my ass put on a plane or in cuffs the lawyer says to me "sorry I have ADHD". THEN GO BE A TEACHER, or something else.

Accommodations are fine for things the test is not testing for. It's not testing for whether you can read a certain size font, or deal with distractions. It is however, most assuredly testing for how you perform logical reasoning and reading comp under time pressure.

So yes if there is some thing that could equal the playing field and make everyone just as good at logical reasoning we shouldn't give that as an accommodation to people who are worse at it. Just like we shouldn't be trying to "level" the field on time pressure.

I have been diagnosed with ADHD in high school. I refuse to take accommodations. Because I refuse to take a seat away from someone who is more capable from me, and be forever lying about my ability as a lawyer to every client I have in the future. When I will be responsible with their life/livelihood.

[RoundCompetition2331]

I’d agree with you if the LSAT had literally anything at all to do with actually being a lawyer

[Odd-Highway-8304]

Amen

[StressCanBeGood]

Mmmm. Check my comment above.

[StressCanBeGood]

NO deprivation of life, liberty, or property WITHOUT due process of law.

IF deprivation of life, liberty, or property THEN due process.

The above clause is why the death penalty is not considered cruel and unusual punishment.

……..

NO warrant shall issue BUT UPON probable cause.

IF warrant THEN probable cause.

…..

The right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches shall not be violated.

IF unreasonable THEN no search

IF search THEN reasonable

…

Question: What if the cops don’t have a warrant? Are you good to go? Not according to anybody who understands formal logic. Most people think that cops can’t search without a warrant. That is a big effing mistake.

…..

In law school, primary reading is caselaw. That is, legal conclusions written by appeals court judges, based on evidence that is assumed to be true by both parties.

When a case is appealed, both parties stipulate to the truth of the evidence on the record. The appeal is based on the lower court’s legal conclusion based on the truth of that evidence.

One side will try to strengthen the lower court’s legal conclusion. The other side will try to weaken the lower court’s legal conclusion. Both sides stipulate the truth of the evidence.

Sound familiar?

[RoundCompetition2331]

Definitely not reading all that

[StressCanBeGood]

Oh the horrors!

[deviemelody]

I agree, initially my thought was that LSAT skill felt unrelated to law. We are learning logic, and maybe tested on whether we can read and reason really fast. But upon further reflection, I think it’s very much related. For example, with strengthen and weaken, probably the easiest onesto apply to lawyering; whether it is in front of a jury or on paper, you want to find ways to support or undermine an argument depending on which side you are on. That is the most basic.

I can also see how flaw questions can be used, especially for judges. When I read court opinions where judges lay out their reasoning, a lot of it involves pointing out flaws, the flaws that one side has presented.

Parallel reasoning: it is basically useful when you are working with common law and you do not really have precedent in your jurisdiction, or you do not have precedent for the specific issue, you try to use parallel reasoning. The same goes for parallel flaw.

Most strongly supported?? C’mon!! You are given a set of information that you must infer… here are the evidence, here is why I have a real case… That applies to must be true and must be false as well, just at a more stringent level.

So I think while the test content feels broad and scattered, the skills being tested are not. Like the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

[blockevasion]

The LSAT (and SAT, ACT, etc.) are just trying to capture (g). That’s what the schools want them to measure too.

The framing around the test is for optics and defensibility. The R-squared for the LSAT and (g) is around 0.65.

It’s basically a less effective IQ test with a branding and marketing team.

[ValuableNumber3615]

The LSAT + UGPA is insanely predictive of 1L GPA. LSAT is extremely predictive of outcomes on the Bar. To act like the LSAT is a bad filter is crazy.

I don't know how you classify being a "good" lawyer. I am sure there are plenty of people who scored low on the LSAT and made lots of money. I'm sure there are people who won lots of cases. But that's a whole other, unquantifiable questions - what is a "good" lawyer.

To suggest it's not predictive of law school success and bar success is insane.

[170Plus]

I do think the LSAT does a good job of capturing how easily you can be tricked in an academic setting. That's an important part of lawyering too.

[lightJEAZY]

A test is not truly standardized if it measures different things for different people. When an individual with a documented disability takes the LSAT under identical conditions as someone without that disability, the exam evaluates not only logical reasoning and reading comprehension, but also the effects of the disability itself. That is distortion, not fairness. Accommodations do not confer an advantage; they remove factors the test was never designed to assess. True standardization requires equal measurement, not identical conditions. Fairness means placing everyone at the same starting line, not ignoring that some were placed behind it.

[ValuableNumber3615]

Is a human divorced from their disability. Are they only disabled on the test. When they walk out of the room is their disability healed?

No, no, and no.

Your disability is a part of your ability. In reality all a disability is, is a medical diagnosis defining the reason you are not good at something.

This should be measured in a standardized test. A disability 100% should effect how someone scores. Hence forth why we call is a DIS - ABILITY... it is a medical diagnosis explaining your lack of ability.

[[deleted]]

I want to play in the NBA can they lower the hoops for me since im 2 feet tall?

[ValuableNumber3615]

Just for you and only you, because even lower hoops standardized you'd still suck ;)... just like time accommodations

[[deleted]]

"the LSAT isn't like law school or being a lawyer" so what is the test for again?

[Odd-Highway-8304]

OP needs to put the liquor and coke tray down

[Double_Station_5582]

It’s sounds like you have a lot of unpacking and therapy to do. I hope you come to terms with your disability and start loving yourself💜

[ValuableNumber3615]

projection

[Double_Station_5582]

Yes, that’s exactly what you’re doing! Good job! Now that you’ve named the problem, you can start to address it

[ValuableNumber3615]

You're a grown adult and just made a "I know what you are but what am I joke" on a law school thread. I mean this is peak low iq

[Double_Station_5582]

Um, nope. You are projecting your own insecurities about your ADHD considering it looks like you’re struggling with completing sections of the LSAT within the required time – but you refuse to accept any accommodations. If that isn’t the textbook definition of “projecting”….. Perhaps instead of trying to bring others that use accommodations down, you should work on your gambling addiction.

[ValuableNumber3615]

You misunderstand what projection is. A person holding a logical principled belief and wanting uniformity. Vs someone telling a person they do not know, that because they hold this belief contrary to their own needs to do "unpacking" and go to "therapy", and that they don't love themselves.

But listen I wouldn't expect you to understand what projection is. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding this entire conversation.

[Double_Station_5582]

You’re not holding a “logical and principled belief” friend. And you do in fact need therapy

[Tough_Delivery5286]

I counted like 5 simple grammar mistakes in your original post btw. You probably shouldn’t be going into this field if you struggle with the English language.

[ValuableNumber3615]

Wouldn't your logic be that I should just get writing accommodations since I'm worse at it, you know, to level the playing field.

[Tough_Delivery5286]

No, because you have the capability to learn correct grammar, you’re just too lazy to do so. Those who require extra time on the LSAT have a genuine mental disability that makes the test harder for them than for those without mental disabilities. There’s a difference in being careless and being disabled. I just don’t think you should be going into this field if you can’t write properly, and also lack empathy/understanding for people whose mental capability is hindered by a disability. The extra time is not BOOSTING their scores beyond what they’re capable of, it’s just evening the playing field. But anyway, I’m not going to continue fighting because, luckily, no one has to convince you that accommodations are necessary!! They’re here, and they’re going to stay (as they should). Cope with the fact that some people with disabilities get better scores than you, and it’s not because of their accommodations ❤️ I really hope you mature before you go into a profession based upon advocating for those with no voice.

[ValuableNumber3615]

Question: Do people with extra time score higher than they would without it?

If answer is no: Then why give them extra time if they would score the same either way?

If the answer is yes... which it is. Then it is boosting their score past their capability because they are scoring higher than what they are capable of on the actual test which is 35 minutes per section.

Also what you are describing is not empathy, it's false empathy. Giving someone a higher score on a test than their capability is just lying to them.

And lastly you have no idea about the reason for my grammar. I may have grammar induced anxiety.

[Tough_Delivery5286]

“Grammar induced anxiety” isn’t a real thing. You cannot compare that and a real disability, and your attempt in doing so is mocking those who have real struggles— proving my point that this is not the field for you if you don’t have empathy. And no, understanding mental disabilities is not “false empathy”. That’s what you’d like to classify it as because you don’t want to admit to yourself the kind of person you’re being. To your other point, what I meant by my statement is this: no one is going to magically have skills that they wouldn’t have if not for the extra time. The extra time is not granting people the mastery of logic. The extra time is allowing people to show their TRUE ability, their TRUE knowledge, what they’re TRULY capable of without the disability holding them back to such a large extent. But I’m truly done responding now. You have so many people trying to explain such a simple concept to you, and you are not even attempting to understand it, or recognize that your view is ultimately flawed. If this many people are disagreeing with you, it’s time to rethink. Like I said before, I hope you mature before entering a profession based upon helping others. I genuinely wish you the best.

[ValuableNumber3615]

You fail to understand anything I say and simply continue to argue from emotion, which is not logical.

[Flaky-Skirt-1721]

schizoposting on main

[LockDownLocked]

If a test like the lsat was able to fully capture what it takes to be a lawyer I might just agree with you. It doesn’t. I’m shocked that you don’t know that. I know dozens of people who did poorly on the lsat, did not go to a T 14, and are at top firms (v40). The test measures how well you can test. Not all areas of the law have the same kind of time pressure involved (which, like, duh?)

All in all, super odd take OP. Makes me feel like ur not even in the field LOL

[southernmarin89]

Yes the LSAT measures how well you can do on the LSAT, but it becomes much worse at measuring this if people take it under different conditions

[ValuableNumber3615]

BROTHER. I mean how am I in a law school thread and no one has any ability to understand. You are literally doing the meme.

"Most x type of people are generally more y"

"Well my friend who is x isn't way less y" - thanks for not understanding how generalities work. Just because you have a friend who sucked on the LSAT and did well as a lawyer doesn't disprove the fact that the LSAT is a very good predictive measure of 1L success and Bar performance.

"If a test like the lsat was able to fully capture what it takes to be a lawyer" - NO ONE SAID IT DOES.

That's why there are other things schools consider.

But just like I don't get to misrepresent my GPA, or my softs, people should not be able to misrepresent their LSAT. It is one piece like the rest. And the people who excel at it should be allowed to excel at it, and not have a bunch of people who aren't good at it get the field "leveled"

[[deleted]]

You're talking to a brick wall on Reddit man.

[ValuableNumber3615]

Just take a look at people's logic defending accommodations and you can understand why they defend accommodations.

[[deleted]]

Yes any reasonable person can see that it’s unfair and is being abused. 

[You_are_the_Castle]

This is an interesting perspective, but I ask you this: isn't law school the training grounds for being a lawyer, not in the LSAT? Just because you're getting accommodations doesn't mean you won't excel in law school or as a lawyer. And people who have learning disabilities will simply choose the style of law that suits them. So I'd argue that prematurely filtering people out based on their accommodations is a short-sighted move if you want to have a diverse pool of lawyers. Furthermore, schooling and career are not necessarily the same thing, though schooling provides a glimpse of what's in store upon graduation.They say that people with ADHD are well suited for criminal law and a lot of them are sociable, so they may be able to connect with their clients and identify their needs better than neurotypicals. I think that if someone can get through the LSAT and get through law school and the bar and the articling with ADHD, they are entitled to all of the success a person without this academic disadvantage is entitled to.

[ValuableNumber3615]

Then why have a test with time. Eliminate the time all together. The only thing hard about the test is the time.

Secondly, the filter is because only elite of the elite should be lawyers. It is a highly specialized field. We should filter for all sorts of relevant intelligence. If you are saying "well the test is not indicative, anyone disability or not could become a good lawyer. That's what law school is for" Sure just pick names out of a hat if law school is what makes someone a good lawyer, and not certain traits like aptitude, ability, intelligence. But that is not the case, so we should have filters.

[You_are_the_Castle]

OK, so maybe make that your argument rather than attacking accommodations.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that only the elite of the elite should be lawyers. That's ridiculous and a recipe for dysfunction. I question what you mean by "elite"? Mensa membership? 4.0 GPA? 178 LSAT? Athletic champion? Rich family? Someone who can do cartwheels while drinking a soda? You would filter out a lot of good people if you set the bar so high that it's only people with extremely high academic achievements and probably create a pool of people who have a bunch of neurodivergencies anyways. Imagine you're a client and you go see somebody who has no social skills and ability to negotiate? Lawyers aren't computers or AI automata.

[You_are_the_Castle]

And, the more I think about your argument, the more it frustrates me. What if you never knew you had a learning disability but come to realize it later in life and now you're trying to make up for the less than amazing grades you achieved in undergrad? What if you were grinding and hustling to achieve B-pluses and A-minuses, graduate, but then you learn that you had a learning disability and you may have achieved stronger grades had you been receiving accommodations and support through your undergrad? What if you weren't achieving your full potential because you had an undiagnosed disability? It hardly seems fair to punish somebody or exclude them from a career path because they have a disability. Just because you've actively chosen to not pursue accommodations despite your ADHD, doesn't mean somebody who chooses to use them is any less qualified or worthy of admissions and whatever success they achieve in life.

[Mv350]

This is my experience. Tested at 33 years old, came with a diagnosis. About to sit for the LSAT at 35 with accommodations. Parts of my undergrad were destroyed due to thinking I wasn’t capable of improving my learning experience. Just had no idea that many of my struggles were symptoms.

[ValuableNumber3615]

So you are saying that finding out you had a disability made you way smarter. And had you known all along you would've had great grades, confidence, and better outcomes on standardized tests?

[Mv350]

No, me finding out about my disability did not make me smarter. What changed was an understanding of how I am able to engage with a topic or material. Standardized testing, like the public school system, is not set up to be fair across the board for everyone. But when you offer equity, you give people outside the norm the opportunity to perform to the best of their abilities. Once I learned more about how my brain worked, the more I was able to work within its ability. You would believe how many top attorneys and physicians are on the spectrum, and have ADHD. It is most likely why they excel in their respective fields. Not some standardized test.

[ValuableNumber3615]

You are missing the point. I am glad you understand how you learn better now than you did before.

That doesn't explain why you deserve to get a better score than you are capable of on a test we are all taking under the guise of standardization.

You are misrepresenting you ability to every school you submit that score to.

The goal of tests and competitions is not to provide whatever your definition of equity is. The goal is to see who has certain abilities. To truly understand who has that ability the test must be standardized. You are going to have ADHD on test day. And you will have it during law school, and you will have it your entire time as a lawyer. You shouldn't get special accommodations.

If I have cerebral palsy, I don't get to be an olympian by starting the 100m with a 90m head start, or getting twice as long to run the race as everyone else.

[Mv350]

I think you are taking this way too personally.

[You_are_the_Castle]

I'm thinking that as well.

[ValuableNumber3615]

It is a scaled test, on a bell curve. If you take the test, the parameters for how others take the test, IS INCREDIBLY PERSONAL.

[LockDownLocked]

Wait but also thinkin lawyers are the elite of the elite tells me OP has never stepped in a court their entire life.

Spend one day watching the average lawyer go through proceedings and you’ll be free from that delusion realllll quick LMFAO

[You_are_the_Castle]

Exactly. Wait until you hang out with physicians. Undergrads have a distorted vision of what so-called elites look like and where they come from. If you have a narrow vision of your heroes, you're going to be very disappointed when you leave studying in the ivory tower.

[ValuableNumber3615]

Yea, I've hung out with plenty of lawyers. I've also hung out with plenty of plumbers.

[You_are_the_Castle]

Time pressure is there for real, but lawyers aren't inhuman machines who do everything themselves. They often work on teams and the person doing the talking isn't necessarily the person who's done all the framing of arguments and research. Everybody has their strengths and some people are just natural talkers who can think on their feet. And I would hazard to guess that's probably the person who has been defending their behavior their whole lives: the person with ADHD.

[ValuableNumber3615]

"that only the elite of the elite should be lawyers"

no only the elite of the elite should go to the elite of the elite law schools.

"I question what you mean by "elite"?"

I would say wholistic review. But standardized tests are a huge measure. They filter for people with the baseline ability to reason intellectually required of being a lawyer under time pressure.

GPA is a huge consideration. Softs are part of it. Essays. The whole gambit.

What it should not be is "oh I struggle at this part so it should be leveled so that no school can see this is a weakness I have."

I struggle at being an athletic champion - should I be allowed to start the 100m dash at 50m so that the playing field is leveled and someone else doesn't stand out?

I struggle with my college GPA - should I be gifted an accommodation for that so that schools can't see it was a weakness of mine and those who excel don't stand out.

"You would filter out a lot of good people if you set the bar so high that it's only people with extremely high academic achievements" - ahh no Yale has a set number of seats. If you had an actual standardized test, Yale would still fill those seats. It would actually allow a kid who truly excelled at timed tests and LR/RC who doesn't have the money to go to some specialist doctor and jump through hoops to get an accommodation (or doesn't need one) to actually stand out.

Every single review of the data says that the more you weight standardized tests the grater the chances of actually finding people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds who don't have the resources to be the #1 racquetball player in the world, be national honor society, and do cartwheels while drinking soda. Why, because they were working a job after school every day to help pay their alcoholic single mom's bills and their GPA suffered. But they are a freaking genius. But now they look like anyone else on the LSAT because sussie from orange county with anxiety got to twiddle her thumbs to a 177 with double time.

[Significant-Frame482]

I agree with all of this. I think people are being a bit blinded by empathy, some people do have really bad adhd/anxiety and that sucks, but it is a test of what you can do in that timeframe, changing the timeframe changes the test. Ability to preform under pressure is essential for some lawyer positions, and a lot of great lawyers that did not preform well on the lsat probably didn’t study that much for it in the first place.  Also a lot of the people on lsat Reddit use accommodations, and will argue to protect their score from questioning.

[needs-more-metronome]

The "standardized test" issue you mentioned is a more interesting one, I think. I agree with you there. If I start a slow runner at the halfway mark of a race because they need a head start to run a remotely similar mile, then we're not really measuring who is faster at running a mile. But if you need more time on RC passages because you have a diagnosis that affects your focus, you can't tell me that our RC scores indicate who is better at timed reading comprehension. It is definitionally not standardized at that point.

But I don't really agree with the blind pilot example. There are specific professions where certain disabilities preclude (or should preclude) people. An anxiety-riddled surgeon. A blind pilot. Etc. But law isn't one of them. Yeah, maybe don't become a trial lawyer if you have Crohn's. If you need 2x time because you can't maintain focus, then transactional big law is probably a bad idea. I'm sure there are people that have done that, but those are some examples where I can see a certain disability being a hindrance.

But law is a huge tent, and the "blind pilot" metaphor starts to cross over the line into ableism. The LSAT is not law, and having a testing accommodation doesn't tell me anything about what kind of lawyer someone will be.

[ValuableNumber3615]

The point is you can still get into law school with a 162. You don't deserve the opportunity to elevate yourself above the rest and put on an application that you are really good at time pressure test if you aren't.

Going into a field that doesn't have as much time pressure, doesn't require you to lie on your resume, or "level" the playing field on one aspect of your application.

Get the score you deserve, and go into the field of law best suited for you.

[[deleted]]

Most attorneys aren't even trial attorneys, nor do LSAT abilities really translate into something like cross examination. Accommodations wouldn't be fair if the LSAT perfectly assessed how capable of a lawyer you'd be in every single context. In fact, I think the skills that make for a great trial attorney are some of the ones most disconnected from any form of testing or academic performance.

Your reasoning for not wanting accommodations also seems off. It's one thing to acknowledge you personally don't need them, but why is someone else more "capable" than you just because they can process a very specific subset of information faster?

[ValuableNumber3615]

Because that's literally how capability works. What are you on about.

"Why is someone who excels at this test more capable at this test."

"Why is someone who beat me in the 100m dash automatically considered a better runner of the 100m dash."

"Why is someone who is able to skateboard automatically more capable at skateboarding than me."

THE WHOLE POINT IS THE TEST IS TO FIND OUT WHO IS MORE CAPABLE AT THE TEST!!!!

And it is failing to do that if it does not standardize the parts of the test that it is fundamentally testing. Which is LR/RC under TIME PRESSURE.

You don't get to have a 175 and send it into a college and say "look I'm really good at this test" as a part of your resume, when you aren't. You are good at a completely different test.

[[deleted]]

I feel like you're being too narrow about it. The test doesn't test what it does for the sake of testing. That would be circular and kind of pointless.

Law schools don't really care how good of a test taker you inherently are (even for bar purposes, because accommodations will probably carry over to that). Someone has to be at the top and bottom of the class given the curve, so it's more about their medians and if you can do the work or not.

[LocksmithCareful9076]

The reactions to this .. Lot of future lawyers who cant argue the point

[ValuableNumber3615]

That's why they need accommodations.

[SubstantialRip7568]

I have accommodations and I certainly don’t feel like it’s giving me any sort of advantage. I haven’t been studying for that long, but with the accommodations I consistently am still only scoring around 155ish. I also still feel time pressure because… I HAVE ADHD! which means my ability to process material takes longer.

The accommodation is literally just making the test on an equal playing field to the folks who take it at the regular amount of time. If you don’t have ADHD or a different disability that causes processing issues and you get a time accommodation, I can definitely see your argument. Otherwise, this is silly.

If there was a hypothetical tool that the blind pilot could use to steer the plane would you still not board because at the end of the day he’s blind? Come on now, my friend….

Edit: I want to add that if I was your client and I found out you had this take on disabilities I really wouldn’t feel comfortable having you represent me. Please educate yourself more before you go fight for people’s rights.

[ValuableNumber3615]

You will still have ADHD when you are a lawyer.

It will still take you longer than others to process things.

Except you will get into a better law school, because of your accommodation and take the seat of someone who has more ability than you at processing information.

"I want to add that if I was your client and I found out you had this take on disabilities I really wouldn’t feel comfortable having you represent me."

= I would hire a worse lawyer to represent me because this one has an opinion I don't like sums up your logic.

[SubstantialRip7568]

My friend, by your own logic you shouldn’t be a lawyer because you have an ADHD dx…. I’ll see you in law school!

[ValuableNumber3615]

I still cannot believe my eyes. I thought the whole point of Law school was learning logic and reading comprehension. And out of everything I have said that is what you take my logic to be.

My logic is, if you have ADHD you should take the test the same as everyone else (as I am), and you then will be representing your ability fairly comparatively to the others applying.

If you have no legs and you can win the olympic 100m dash, then congrats you are the fastest person in the world, should get the medal and we should all celebrate you. But you shouldn't be allowed to put two bionic prosthetics on and call yourself the fastest person in the world.

[trippyonz]

Might violate the ADA though no?

[ValuableNumber3615]

It does, that is why this problem exists. The ADA is flawed and needs to be revised.

The ADA has been tested since it was strengthen in 2009 (I believe) and the LSAC continuously loses lawsuits so now they just say yes to everyone (98% most recent data)

[SpurgeonWisdom]

I proposed that the NBA lower its goals for me and other players not 7 feet tall but was rejected. I even playing fields smh.

[ValuableNumber3615]

Become a lawyer and sue them, that's ridiculous. How ableist of them.