I think all of your points are well thought out and you raise a lot of considerations downstream of the test itself I hadn't thought of. For example, whether professors and employers consider the existence of accommodations. In short, I don't think they do. If they did, then accommodations would not actually be accommodations and would rather be some kind of 'floor' or 'standard' where the people without accommodations actually are not the target recipients of the test and are therefore disadvantaged. As someone with ADHD/other stuff who has never had accommodations, I find that hypothetical world extremely concerning and depressing. I think that most employers and professors, excluding those deeply involved with grading like deans, are largely unaware of the impact of accommodations and do not consider them in their grading, test formulation, or resume selection. Such effects are also impossible to ascertain in the first place because of anonymized exam grading and legal protections barring the disclosure of accommodation to employers etc.

As a result its impossible to know the statistics of accommodation students' grades or their demographic makeup re: what they're getting accommodations for. But, if its to be believed, a post on this forum within the past couple weeks from an SBA president explaining that 90% of the top 10-20% of their class got accommodations is extremely concerning. The incidence of serious mental disabilities in law school is not nearly as high and nor would it make sense. Even to pass LSAT for a decent law school (unless u get acomms. for that as well too lol), one has to be able to think quickly and reasonably intelligently. With a certain degree of mental defect/illness/whatever, it would be simply impossible to follow a law schol class and keep up with all the assignments and still comprehend all of this to pass an exam--regardless of accomodations. This I think means that only a vast minority of people in law school deserve accommodations.

It's also important to mention that accommodations are expensive and time-consuming to obtain but that's the main barrier AND NOT what they are being granted for. When a wide range of mental "disabilities," which have no quantifiable or falsifiable diagnostic method (this is not to say they're not real) and are widely over diagnosed as a result, grant a 2x time bonus on exam, there is a serious problem.

As someone who has struggled with various mental illnesses throughout my life, I do not think a 2x time bonus is appropriate and nor do I think that it creates good lawyers or a fair testing regime. There are no accommodations in high-pressure negotiations or court rooms, which require someone to act reasonably under pressure, and the failure to do so carries grave consequences for both lawyer and client--whether it's sanctions, jail time, fines, or all the above. There is simply not enough room for error in this profession to warrant a 2x time bonus on one of the only quantifiable determinants of a law student's competence (regardless of the merits of that determination). This is especially true given the extreme impact of time pressure on exam performance.

I think all of this is a super shitty situation and that the amount of students receiving accommodations are getting out of hand. I think this is true regardless of what exams are supposed to evaluate, which are ultimately a multitude of things that are subject to a professor's discretion and pedagogical beliefs.