The LSAT accommodations process is a difficult one. LSAC requires test-takers to jump through a series of hoops, whether their disabilities are physical or mental. As a result, LSAC has faced a series of lawsuits.In the latest lawsuit, a test-taker with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) sues LSAC for denying her request for:
- double the typical amount of time per section (70 minutes/section, rather than the normal 35 minutes/section).
- 15-minute breaks between every section of the exam, rather than the typical exam schedule: completing 3 sections back-to-back, then a 15-minute break, then 2 more sections back-to-back.
(You can read more about the lawsuit in the ABA Journal and WSJ Law Blog.)
What do you think?
Does someone with a mental disability such as ADD deserve extra time on Test Day?
Can someone who needs extra time on the LSAT make it in the legal world, where there won't be such accommodations?
What should be done, if anything, to give those with ADD a level playing field?
Leave your thoughts in the comments!
Further reading from test-takers with ADD:
LSAT Diary: Studying With ADHD and Anxiety
LSAT Diaries: Struggling with Test Anxiety
LSAT Diary: My LSAT Prep Journey
LSAT Diary: Overcoming LSAT Test Anxiety | Tips
Photo by stealthtractor
The ADHDers already have the unfair advantage of Adderall.
ReplyDeleteNo...people with ADHD (not ADHDers) are given a fair chance with medication. ADHD puts test takers at a disadvantage..
DeleteSeriously dude. People, those with actual ADHD/ADD, do not take adderall to get a fix, or to be study focused for 6+hours, etc. It is digusting how now everyone is taking it, whether they got the 6 day, $2,000 diagnosis testing. This puts those who already do well, and who do not have true ADHD/ADD, again way above those that do and those that may not want to take a stimulant for which they do not actually need. Also, adderall and other similar medications do not affect people with ADHD/ADD the same as you per say. Finally, adderall is not a fix to ADHD/ADD, and many people don't want to take it, or at least take it anymore. Adderall calms a person with ADHD/ADD down, allows them to not fidget or have to leave there chair every five minutes. It helps them not blurt out, or act beyond impulsively. These characteristics are way more apparent and harmful to the ADHD/ADD student. And lets not forget that Adderall is a amphetamine. What is crystal myth ? A metha-amphetamine.
DeleteI was on it for 10 years, I am now 27 - and trying to get back into law school and I will but without Adderall. It has ruined me in every way possible and its been 3 1/2 months off of it, and let me tell you it aint fun. Next time don't open your mouth until you ignorant drug addicts who are priveledged and think that we are all the same, actually do your damn research. Peace the f out.
Will judges allow her 70 min breaks between arguments? I didn't think so.
ReplyDeleteLike the person mentioned, people who have ADD are already able to get medication which allows them to study longer hours and stay more focused than a normal student. In addition, law schools will not allow for such accommodations and even if they are able to sue their way to get such special treatment, what happens if and when they become a lawyer in the real world? Ask the judge for extra breaks between a hearing or try postponing a hearing to allow more time for them to prepare?
ReplyDeleteMedications don't affect people with ADD the same way as "normal" students. ADD can be a disadvantage for students and treatment is used to put them on an equal playing field. I also hope you realize that a lot of lawyers don't go to court...
DeleteThe judge should get a doctor to prescribe her aderol/ ritalin and have her take it under the conditions everyone else is required to. If she was a legal professional or any other profession requiring critical thinking and fast paced analytical reasoning I'm sure she wouldn't be telling her employers she has add and needs double the amount of time to do all her work.
ReplyDelete1. You know most lawyers don't go in front of judges right?
Delete2. You spelled Adderall wrong...idiot.
I would like a cup of coffee, fresh baked cookies and hug after each each section. I wouldn't mind a 20 minute nap after 3 sections either. This is to prevent ADD...just as important as accommodation.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more difficult (and expensive), suing LSAC to give you enough time to get your best score or actually studying and overcoming obstacles to get your best score?
ReplyDeleteIts multiple choice test, the difficulty of it is preciously the result of 35min per section, with 70min it would almost be impossible to score <175ish??????
ReplyDeleteAs long as we stop making accommodations for affirmative actions then it is perfectly fine to deny them for actual disability. Ask yourself if a judge is going to give special accommodations in the courtroom to the minority student who got into law school (or had their law school paid for) because of their skin color.
ReplyDelete70 minutes? I'll personally find her and slap her so hard with Logic Games she'll go running after a butterfly.
ReplyDeleteIf you cant sit through the test you probably wont make it through outlines or journals.. hope that individual isn't planning on applying at any accredited schools.
ReplyDeleteThe LSAT is designed to test only the pool of "able" test takers. As such, all "dis-able" test takers are at an insurmountable disadvantage - legally blind, deaf, ADD, ADHD, etc.
ReplyDeleteSince the LSAT is a prerequisite to become a lawyer, none of the "dis-able" people will be able to become one.
The LSAC should be broken into two or more parts, since, many would agree with this, it is a monopoly.
Ever heard of the ADA??
DeleteHey Steve! Can't believe this lawsuit hasn't happened before (has it?).
ReplyDeleteAs you know -since I've posted several times under ADD/Adderal posts- I "suffer" from this affliction, and I'll be the first to say that it is in no way a disability to begin with.
A quick google search will show you that there is no solid evidence linking ADHD with lowered learning potential or intelligence. In fact, anecdotal evidence (championed by yours truly) suggests the opposite.
Regardless, in true Steve form I thought I would plug a few holes in the reasoning of this suit. Ready?
1. Why would more time be an appropriate accommodation? What about her disability prohibits her from working in the same time constraints as everyone else? And isn't a large part of the LSAT about time management and speed? Why double the time? Does her disability make her exactly twice as slow as a normal test taker? Where's the evidence for that? Why not 40 minutes? 45?
2. What studies or evidence concerning ADHD show that more breaks would help her gain equal footing for each test section? If she took a week between each section, would she still be just as ADHD as if she had a 15 minute break? Does her ADHD rise and fall like the insulin level of a diabetic?
3. What other students with ADHD have successfully completed the LSAT? How do their scores measure against "normal" students? Is extra work or effort required of ADHD test takers to overcome their disability?
4. What are treatment and medication options for those with ADHD? When these measures are taken, are ADHD test takers on par with their peers?
5. What accommodations does the LSAC make for other disabilities? Similar disabilities? How is the LSAT weighted by law schools and what role does the LSAC have in that weighting?
Boom. Roasted. And yes, a lot of these questions have answers, and none support miss whiny-pants' case.
I suggest a reasonable compromise for this case and other similar suits filed against LSAC.
Create 2 tests. LSAT and LSAT lite. The regular LSAT is exactly the same and fair for everyone, while the LSAT lite has different conditions.
1. You get as long as you want to take the test.
2. Take home test! Yay- you get to keep it at home for a week but have to promise to do the work yourself.
3. Logic games are replaced with "find the difference between these 2 picture" games. And one Sudoku puzzle with all but two of the numbers filled in.
4. 50% of questions are true/false.
5. Every question has an answer letter F, which states: "I so know the answer to this question, but I just can't think of it right now. But I totally know it." and is scored at full credit.
Also, instead of a score you either get a gold, silver, or red star (note- only gold stars will be used).
Schools will have the discretion to weigh the LSAT and the LSAT lite however they deem appropriate.
Sound good? Good. Glad I could help!
Caleb
It's All about the money people! In this economy, if you had the chance to have a law suit and win a lot of money, well HELLO!
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has ADHD I understand why someone may want accommodations. I do, on the other hand, see the point of not applying for them in terms of the LSAT since the same accommodations won't be available in the legal field. I'm personally not requesting any accommodations.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, what really disturbs me is the disrespect towards disabilities from those who've commented so far. ADD/ADHD is a real disability. Medication is NOT taken to have more concentration than other students, it's taken so we have AS much. There may be people who abuse it, there may be those who don't really have it. But people need to stop treating those with learning disabilities as if they were a joke or idiots. Usually those with learning disabilities have above average IQs and perform very well once they understand their barriers and take a different approach to learning that works for their particular conditions.
If those who've comment plan on going to law school they need to grow up and be aware of all the different people there are in this world and get their information straight before they disrespect an entire community.
@Caleb,
ReplyDeleteI love you. Question: I have ADD, too, and I think it's a great thing overall, but I've never been prescribed anything. Do you take anything to help you concentrate? I'm pre-testing around 174 now, so not too worried but wondering if it'd help me in law school stay on task (as opposed to getting distracted by one of my many "hobbies").
Does someone with a low intelligence level also deserve extra time? Intelligence is, after all, determined mostly by genes and is therefore beyond one's control.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I don't believe that someone with ADD deserves extra time, for the same reason that someone genetically predisposed to be stupid doesn't deserve extra time: the LSAT is supposed to be an objective measure of one's logic reasoning ability, and any factors that may affect that ability -- from ADD to a low IQ to poor reading ability -- are precisely what the LSAT is designed to expose.
R-
ReplyDeleteThanks bro/chica! You just added to my amount of anecdotal evidence. "Yeah, and also this one random commenter on a website said he had ADD and was smart, too!" Ironclad.
When are you taking the test? If you're around 174 already I wouldn't mess with it. Unless you had a long time to test it out, of course. Most likely you won't find much- if any- benefit from medication. Your "concentration" (yes, I used quotes) goes up, but your speed will go down. You've obviously learned behavioral management techniques on your own to be able to kick this test's a&&, so medication will only make you more interested in the test, not smarter or faster. If you have time, try it out and see what I mean.
Regardless, definitely get some of the medicine to try for your own benefit. If nothing else it can give you a different look at what having ADD is all about anyway. You'll know what I mean.
And specifically- yes. For classes and such it's a great help. Especially boring classes that take too long. I used to use it in music history classes... man that was awesome. I could finally be like all those other kids, happily taking notes and "learning," not tapping my pencils, thinking of grand plans, and staring out the window (amongst other things).
"I would like a cup of coffee, fresh baked cookies and hug after each each section. I wouldn't mind a 20 minute nap after 3 sections either. This is to prevent ADD...just as important as accommodation. "
ReplyDeleteEpic
Many of the criticisms made against this case employed incredibly flawed reasoning. You're studying for the LSAT people, put your teachings into practice.
ReplyDeleteJust want to get my 2 cents in here: i don't think she should get extra time, but the "she can just take adderall" line doesn't fly. i have ADHD and am also a recovering drug addict. as much as i want to, i can't take adderall.
ReplyDeletenot whining, just saying.
PS - just finished the June 2011 LSAT. woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
70 minutes per section is ridiculous, but please don't make huge generalizations about learning disabled people and whether or not they are good enough to be lawyers. The comments on this article are absolutely unbelievable.
ReplyDelete"I would like a cup of coffee, fresh baked cookies and hug after each each section. I wouldn't mind a 20 minute nap after 3 sections either. This is to prevent ADD...just as important as accommodation" ------ THIS ROTFL!
ReplyDeleteCaleb you're funny. Your comments make my miserable LSAT life a bit more bearable.
ReplyDeleteThe imprecision in obtaining a diagnosis for ADHD makes this lawsuit almost a joke. Anyone can walk into a psychiatrist's office, honestly explain that they procrastinate, forget to do things, lose their keys on occasion and get bored and distracted when reading long novels or doing tedious work and walk away with an ADHD diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at some point you have to accept that if someone has ADHD this severe, giving them so much more time on the LSAT severely limits the diagnostic capabilities of the test- is she going to get double time on her law school exams and for doing work in her firm? If not, doesn't that mean the score she obtains under special conditions is a less accurate predictor than if she took it under regular conditions?
The accommodation for disabled people is just being abused here. Sure if you've got diabetes you can have an extra 10 minutes between sections to check your blood sugar or whatever.
Also, what if you aren't diagnosed with ADHD but are just dumb, but not diagnosable with any specific condition? It's probably a lot harder for you to interpret arguments and draw inferences, shouldn't you get extra time too?
You're an idiot. There are diagnostic tests for ADHD and specific tests for LSAT accommodations.
DeleteIf they have ADD and think that they need more time for LSAT may be they should consider a different career because they won't be given extra time in the court in fron of a judge just because they have a disease and can't focus on their current actiivty. We need to stop accomodating for people with certain disabilities since ADHD patients have medications to help them focus and if they want to accomodate them then what is our fault? Why don't we get extra time? Just because we are not diagnosed ADHD we suffer with half the time they get. I don't think so because Law schools will not consider the fact when giving out admissions that we only got regular amount of time and they got double the time. So it doesn't matter. If they are going to do well they will do it in the regular time if not too bad. I am sorry you are ADHD but it is not my fault that you are ADHD then why should I or everyone else for that matter who is not ADHD suffer?
ReplyDeleteI have ADHD, severe ADHD, all my life. Asking for handouts on the basis of it sickens me, and demeans people like my and some of the other posters who actually bothered to overcome their problem with therapy and medicine. This lawsuit should be tossed out of court immediately.
ReplyDeletePeople need to wake up and realize not everyone should be allowed to do everything! The only way I see this being allowed is if a student is diagnosed with ADD or ADHD this should be noted not just on their admittance into law school but should be part of their application to for jobs as well as be known to clients. The law schools can give it what ever weight they see fit towards admittance. It could work for or against them but they shouldn't be told. That is the only means I see towards working this out if they want their extra time.
ReplyDeleteI strongly suggest you look up the ADA and learn something. Also, a disability is something very personal. If you're considering law, I hope you realize you'll need to pass the ethics exam to practice.
DeleteYes, absolutely, a law degree means that one must be a trial lawyer or an attorney that bills by the hour? So much ignorance and hate.
ReplyDeleteOn behalf of adhd people, fuck you.
These kind of posts drive me crazy -- there is no need to disrespect someone who had to make the difficult and decision to engage in a lawsuit just to get a fair shake in the lawschool application process. I am sure the individual knew that people would doubt his/her disability clims, and the decision to sue must have been difficult. We all need to step back and realize how incredibly difficult the LSAC makes it to get disability accommodations, and realize this is not about giving anyone a leg-up, neither the law nor the LSAC allows that.
ReplyDeleteThere are some basic factual erors that one must correct. First, having the disorder of ADD is not the same thing as having a disorder severe enough to rise to the disability standards of the ADA (substantially impaired life function). While one person may have ADD but with treatment not have life-functions impaired enough to qualify as a disability, someone else may have ADD that is a disability because it is so severe -- think of it this way, some people may have a physical issue that affects the way they walk, and some may require a wheelchair, while others may be able to walk just like other people with the right training. Instead of saying offices don't require wheelchair ramps, so neither should schools, we require everyone to have them -- before you jump down my throat for saying people with ADD are different -- think long and hard about whether this is really part of a deep-seated belief that an inwardly-manifesting disability can never be real, and then think back on how we used to treat people with outwardly manifesting disabilities.
(cont...)
ReplyDeleteAs for medication, first of all, the LSAC requires that the neuropsychological test which form the basis for the accommodations request be administered while the test-taker is taking any medication, so any assessment of need for a longer-format exam is accurate under test-like conditions. Second, the LSAC puts a lot of stock in early diagnosis and treatment of disability. While I may take issue with that for other reasons, it does mean that someone who has not tried every available remedy (therapy, medication etc...) is extremely unlikely to qualify for any accommodations (in secondary school/college or on the LSAT). Next, while some (although far fewer than is rumored) docs pass out ADD drugs without much thought, most docs (and all responsible ones) will only give them to someone who truly has ADD. If you have the disorder, your brain works differently than a person without it, and thus responds to medication differently than someone without it. It is not an advantage. What is an unfair advantage (not to mention extremely unhealthy and illegal) is when people without ADD or a prescription pop stimulants to get in those extra study hours.
Next, law schools do grant accommodations, in fact they have to for the same reasons the LSAC must. If someone is blind they must provide readers and appropriate test formats, if someone breaks an arm, they accommodate, and if someone has an inwardly manifesting disability, they provide accommodations too, like a longer format test or a reduced distraction environment.
The hardest part of this to explain is that lawyers can accommodate in the "real world" -- no, they don't get extra time on assignments, but you do have a lot of choice (much more so than during 1L) about your type of work environment. Many people with ADD may chose a smaller firm, or a type of work where one does not bill by the hour so that s/he can spend extra hours completing difficult assignments. Still others look for legal careers where there is a collaborative environment so s/he can do tasks that come naturally and get help on assignments that do not.
I challenge each of you to take an LSAT exam and take it completely untimed, but with no aides. I bet you don't do as well as you think -- it is a very well-written test, and the time pressure is important but stop being so scared about the very few people who get accommodations and do what you need to do to get your won score up. At the end of the day, I promise that spending time studying and spending money on a good tutor will put you way farther ahead than the alternative for students with disabilities -- spending thousands of dollars on legal fees and neuropsychological evaluations and even more hours studying. At the end of the day, even if you get accommodations, you still have to live your life (and go through law school) with a disability, and I promise you, that is not the easy way out.
people should realize that adderall and other stimulate drugs used to treat ADD and ADHS are extremely ineffective for the LSAT. those drugs are terrible for your LSAT score.
ReplyDeleteThe law is much broader than "crime" and courts so the argument about judges allowing more time is not only crude, it demonstrates a shockingly narrow view of the legal profession. I'm a lawyer, a SC, or QC in the Westminster world. That means I'm senior in my profession and well regarded. I also suffer from ADHD.
ReplyDeleteADHD surfers make fantastic lawyers ...
Never would have guessed this was a thing. Coping skills for those of us with ADHD are very important for success. I find it harder to accomplish something but it just takes ( for me) extra determination. I got a 168 which I feel is pretty good but I can't imagine what I would get with accommodations. Still doesn't change the fact I'm not a great reader but I could certainly get a 175.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if this is a thing I've always wondered if pregnant chicks can get extra pee breaks.
I have ADHD, and a very severe case to be quite honest. I took several years off from school and have spent my whole life learning alternate coping mechanisms to medications which never worked in pinch situations. Extra time would easily place me into 175+ territory, but the process of gaining accommodations was just too expensive for me to deal with. I'll be getting into a tier one or tier two school without modifications, but with them I'd be in full ride territory at tier two schools.
ReplyDeleteSome people may find my frustration with being top 5% instead of top 1% absurd, but penalizing me for a disability is a direct violation of my rights. I am a top 1% student, and my disability gives weaker students an advantage over me. Some may argue that this is how the courtroom or a deadline works, but that in and of itself is an absurd argument. ADHD is largely situation specific, and TESTS are one of the situations which the disorder rears the full force of it's ugly head.
I'm already an assistant for a law firm, and I can run every morning and again on my lunch break. In the courtroom, I have rarely had issues with ADHD which biofeedback and medication were insufficient for; the courtroom is such a multifaceted arena that I have never had problems paying attention.
The LSAC needs to grow up and quit judging those whom they deem unfit. Their biases are incredibly apparent in the very wording of the test itself, and this is just another way the LSAC is trying to shape who becomes an attorney in the US. Hopefully, they'll lose this suit, and hopefully this young student becomes a member of the bar.
I couldn't agree more!
DeleteUnless you've had ADHD, I don't think you can really understand why this person might need accommodations in the first place. Also, most lawyers don't go to court or deal with judges. Sounds like some of you have been watching a little too much Law and Order. If you know what ADHD, you should at least understand that it doesn't affect you the same way at work as it does during the LSAT. Medications can make a huge difference, but they don't completely take away the problem and they help some more than others. There are also different degrees of ADHD. But the forms you fill out don't prove your diagnosis. They show that testing suggests the person should have accommodations. And the LSAC never gives accommodations. Who would've thought they'd be in the middle of another similar lawsuit right now?! But dear God, I hope none of you are considering becoming lawyers because any good lawyer knows that you should learn both sides before making an argument. By the way, I have ADHD and another disability but have given up on accommodations because applying would cost me a lot of money and probably be a waste of time. I'm willing to work hard anyway. But even though I've gotten good scores on my practice tests, but my actual LSAT score was significantly lower. I'm going to take it again, and i know I'm going to law school. I can only hope none of you will be there with me.
ReplyDeleteI made the decision not to ask for accommodations on the LSAT, because I did not want to be profiled by the LSAC. By the time I decided to ask for accommodations it really did not matter, because they did not even bother looking at 42 years of documented paper work. They make it virtually impossible, while they might not deny you, however they sure will defer you indefinitely. It is sad to think that we still live in a world where castration is the amusement of imperialistic idealism of a select few. The ignorance of individuals should not have an opinion on something that they have no concept of, it is the same as these individuals saying that they understand what it feels like to be a dog, when their only a cat. For individuals who want to practice law, but do not want to understand why certain laws exist is the exact reason why testing does not measure ones ability or even predict what they can achieve. For the exact reason these individuals fear what they do not understand and without understanding how can they reason what can’t always be understood.
ReplyDeleteI am blown away by the ignorance of the majority of people who are commenting on this topic. Any sort of statement or thought that giving test takers with disabilities accommodations is in any way an advantage is absurd, and I'd like to bet that those who do not believe these accommodations are necessary do not suffer from any sort of disability. I unfortunately suffer from several learning disabilities stemming from a severe brain injury at birth and was denied for accommodations twice by LSAC. Now, despite four months of intense tutoring and prep I received a score so low that I cannot even apply to any of the schools I have been dreaming of for years.
ReplyDeleteYes accommodations should be given only to those who deserve them, and trust me as someone with a legitimate disability I find it both unfair and appalling that someone without a disability would even try to get the unfair advantage of an accommodations; but the issue here is that LSAC is NOT giving accommodations to those who do truly deserve them. They have completely ruined my chance at a future that I know I am more than capable of being successful in and have done the same to thousands of other students.
According to the latests version of the Americans with Disabilities Act and judgements by now supreme court justice Sonya Sotomeyer it is LSAC's responsibility to defer to the judgement of the diagnosing physician when dealing with these sorts of issues regarding those who get accommodations. They are not abiding by the act, as the last time I checked nobody at LSAC is a diagnosing physician of any of the students petitioning for accommodations.
How dare any of you make a judgement on a matter you know nothing about. I highly suggest rather than cast judgement on those trying to get a fair shot in life you take a moment to be thankful that you do not suffer from a disability and educate yourself on the matter.