Last week, LSAC agreed to pay nearly $8 million to settle a lawsuit with the Justice Department over its notoriously strict LSAT accommodations policy.
2 big changes that will affect you:
1. LSAC will automatically grant most test accommodations if you've gotten them for another standardized test like the SAT or ACT.
2. LSAC will no longer flag the LSAT scores of test-takers who received extra time. In other words, law schools won't know whether you only got 35 minutes to complete a section or got twice as much time.
What do you think?
Was LSAC's existing policy on granting test accommodations like extra time been fair?
Should law schools know whether someone received accommodations when considering their application?
Leave your thoughts in the comments!
***
Further reading:
Law School Admission Council Agrees to Systemic Reforms and $7.73 Million Payment to Settle Justice Department’s Nationwide Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
LSAC Consent Decree from Justice Department
LSAT Board Learns Consent Decrees Have An Expiration Date
The LSAT Can’t Discriminate Against The Disabled: So, Time For Everybody To Get ADD
How Easy Is It To Fake Out LSAC? On The LSAT And Accommodations For Learning Disabilities
Photo by tonivc
Do individiuals who receive accomodations still have experimental section or no?
ReplyDeleteyup I believe so
DeleteOkay!
DeleteAccommodated testers do not take the experimental section.
DeleteAny word on when this will go into effect? Also, if you were previously denied accommodations under the current rules, would you be able to re-submit everything rather than go through the appeals process?
ReplyDeleteThanks!
The order should be signed any day. Flagging should not happen on the June exam.
DeleteThe new rules about accepting other exams should go into effect for September unless it is too late to apply for extended time.
I hate to sound heartless. But I'm with the LSAC on this. We all know that the clock can be our worst enemy on the LSAT. I'm a bit older than most other test-takers. Do I get extra time because of my aging brain? Unlikely. But those who do get those added minutes (now without a flagged report) could nudge the rest of us out of our chosen law schools. Each school has only so many slots. When others win, we lose. And now, the admissions officer won't know why our competitor scored higher than we did.
ReplyDeleteAwarding special accommodations to those with educational handicaps sounds compassionate, until you weigh the consequences. Remember, the LSAT's goal is to gauge future performance in law school. Unless that Harvard Con. Law professor grants a similar disability preference, the new rules won't accurately predict the candidates best able to compete. That's the cold, hard truth.
I like your post! You do not sound heartless to me. The LSAT is a tough test! You are right, it's to see well you can do under pressure and time to solve the problems. If we could have all day, we would all do a lot better on the test. That will flaw the scale in my opinion. I'm very scared to take the test because it can make or break my dreams of becoming an attorney. I also happened to notice that although the school I'm applying to claims to weigh the LSAT equally to GPA, the incoming glass last year has a (in my opinion) low GPA and pretty great LSAT scores. This test means a lot, if you can't do well, then you probably can't handle the coursework that comes after it. Nice Post Bob! http://realpoliticstodaypayattention.blogspot.com/
DeleteAs an individual who gets Accomodated Testing, you're ignorant as to what the issue is. No one is saying that an aging brain should be getting special treatment. I for one have a lower processing speed, severe ADHD, and terrible testing anxiety and therefore require extended time on exams. This issue does not affect me in real life situations, the problem is with testing situations. It's not about compassion or taking away from others. It's about granting people who's brains work differently than yours the proper and fair opportunity to prove their abilities. Some people aren't stupid they just need a little more time. That doesn't mean they are getting an unfair chance, it just levels the playing field for those of us that aren't able to perform in the manner that you can. It doesn't mean that I'd be any less capable in the practice of the law or in litigation/prosecution. It just means that my brain needs a little more time than yours to process the information, because of the way it is presented. So I'm sorry Bob and Rachel, but your reasoning is flawed because you assume that all brains must process information in the same way, this is absolutely wrong. Furthermore, that Harvard Con Law professor is legally required to grant similar disability preferences, otherwise he/she risks violating the very act this determination was based upon (ADA). So don't judge before you have the proper evidence and information to back up your claims. Good Day Sir and Madam.
DeleteFirstly, your initial premise is flawed. An aging mind, as you described it in your post, is not a physical or mental disability. You should know, as a result of your LSAT prep, that an argument by analogy is logical flawed by it very definition; no matter how alike to things may seem, they are none the less a different set of facts. On the other hand, I would certainly hope that if one felt that they were discriminated against due to a bias of age on the part of a law school administrator they could seek relief through the proper channels of recourse. Secondly, the central idea that these new testing accommodation regulations strive to embody is the equal treatment for persons with disabilities, the notion that all who wish to practice law will be afforded the opportunity to do so regardless of any handicaps they are forced to overcome- with obvious exceptions such as mental competence. The LSAT is designed around the principle of a bell curve or what an "average test taker"- referring to a non physically or mentally disabled person- would complete/answer correctly in an allotted time frame. In reference to the latter statement ask yourself this "would you expect a visually impaired person to read braille at the same speed as a visually capable one reads print?" This question is rhetorical but it justly serve to illustrate the point that the LSAT is designed to gauge how an "average college graduate/test taker" comprehends and interprets arguments and logical reasoning. It is in no way a totally inclusive representation of every skill needed to excel or even perform adequately in law school, failing to consider such vital attributes such as public speaking, social persuasion, or hard work. And since to my knowledge there are no accredited law schools that grant admission without an LSAT score, the testing conditions must be amended in order to facilitate individuals with disabilities. For if they were not the LSAC and ABA would be effectively implying that since persons with disabilities do not perform as well on a standardized test designed for the "average test taker" they are not good enough/intelligent enough/ capable enough to become lawyers. Thirdly, to address the allegation that these extended time accommodations somehow puts those who are not afforded the same extensions at a disadvantage I say welcome to the club. I did not wish to be burden by these ailments in which I am forced to overcome on a daily bases, they were given to me at birth. I have refused to make excuses for my situation and suggest that you do the same. Stop blaming the system for your failures and start putting in the hard work required to succeed. Fourthly, in reference to the "cold hard truth", as deemed by your colloquial jargon the notion that persons with disabilities will not be able to compete at top tier law school is preposterous. Throughout my entire life I have had to work twice as hard and twice as long as my fellow peers to get where I am today, sacrifices that your arrogance apparently cannot comprehend. But I've got another "cold hard truth" for you, I've been out competing pompous jackasses like you my entire academic career and I will continue to do so all the way up until I reach senior partner while your still pushing the mail cart. HOW DO YOU LIKE THOSE APPLES!
DeleteThanks for the information! Any idea when this will go into effect/will it be in effect for the June 2014 LSAT?
ReplyDeleteWas LSAC's existing policy on granting test accommodations like extra time been fair?
ReplyDeleteI agreed with Bods’ comment up to a certain point, when it comes to the issue of the aging brain situation. However, I disagreed in violating the Disability Act. Everyone deserves a chance in life to pursue their dream. If we are going to discriminate due to disabilities and let the LSAC dictate timing and other issues, what type of example are they giving to others for a person that has a disability? To me the timing of the LSAT hurts students with great GPA’s, students whom their first language is not English since they have to translate in their mind from one language to another, students that can’t afford to pay every time they take the LSAT test (and the LSAC claims they can waive the LSAT test fee, but it is 1 student in a 1000 students that get a fee waiver or none). If this LSAT Accommodations Policy is going to take place, they have to make other policies to other students with different issues such as students for whom their first language is not English and students that are over the age of 45+.
Should law schools know whether someone received accommodations when considering their application?
No. Law School should concentrate on making sure that when the student applies to their school to see what type of student he was during his years during his undergrad school years. By concentrating on such review, the school will get a better recognition of the type of students attending their school, not the timing (extra accommodation) and test score a student got at a the LSAT standardized test. I know students and have friends with some type of disability and they are extremely smart, compared to a student that got a 165-180 in the LSAT test because Mom or Dad pays for the prep course but the student has a 2.9 or lower GPA. The reality is that this type of student can’t even pass the first year of Law School. Eventually the student will be a drop-out, unless he comes from a wealthy family and gets private classes at home.
LSAC will automatically grant most test accommodations if you've gotten them for another standardized test like the SAT or ACT.
I don’t know, but did the LSAC stop and think that in some other countries you don’t have to take a standardized test such as the SAT or ACT to enter a college or university? Or, is the issue here to make a profit?
Bob -
ReplyDeleteLSAC won't start handing out accommodations to everyone that applies. Applicants for accommodations will still need to meet certain requirements (i.e. a disability). Accommodations don't actually give test takers with disabilities a "leg up," but rather "level the playing field." In order to be diagnosed with a disability at any point, individuals must go through an intensive battery of tests, that doctors then analyze and decide whether or not the individual has a disability. LSAC will be placing high consideration onto whether or not individuals have received accommodations on past standardized tests (i.e. the SAT).
I guarantee you that people won't magically start getting 180s with the accommodations. They will just have better indicators of how they will actually perform in law school (i.e. the whole purpose of the test), as they will also receive accommodations during law school. To have them take the LSAT sans accommodations is not a good indicator of how they will actually perform in school, where they will have accommodations.
Can I ask you, in what world are you living? The LSAC does whatever they want, since they know many students wants to attend a law school. The LSAC is a money maker company, just as simple as that. Read the entire case online. This was the reason why the LSAC was taken to court, due to the violation of the Disability Act in our country.
DeleteAlso, if the law school doesn’t know about the students accommodations, how can they (law school) tell about it? Remember, any data between your doctor and you its private information. Any information the doctor gives to someone else without your knowledge can cost his license. (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ , https://health.state.tn.us/HIPAA/)
Failure to comply with HIPAA can result in civil and criminal penalties (42 USC § 1320d-5).
Can you describe what are the advantages for the student who will receive the accomodations? Is he/she will receive all 5 sections+ essays or they will receive a shorter exam?
ReplyDeleteI am assuming that the LSAT Test will consist of all 5 sections + 1 essay. The advantages for a student with some type of disability is that they will get more timing/ accommodation. But the LSAT Test most probably will remain with the same structure.
DeleteBob, to compare a learning disability such as dyslexia that requires accommodation to an aging brain is quite a stretch you must admit.
ReplyDeleteThe LSAT accommodation standards were extraordinarily high (to quote one professor who was had high enough certification "this is more testing than what I have to do when I'm acting as an expert witness in court.") and expensive (the cost of finding someone who is qualified to administer the tests is astronomical without financial aid so that many who qualified for disability throughout university could not afford it.
Criticize the change if you please but keep in mind that disability accommodations are meant to make an equal playing field, not provide an exceptional advantage. It's a shame that an institution like the LSAC would not abide by disabilities act to begin with. This suit was entirely justified, in my opinion.
Thoughtful comments, all. Perhaps we can agree on one point. Many law schools, especially the more selective ones, place far too much emphasis upon the LSAT as opposed to other quality factors in admissions. Read Ana G's comment (and my reply) to Steve's more recent post of June 10th. Many intelligent, otherwise qualified candidates are excluded from admission simply because they may have a tough time quickly organizing seven books on three shelves. An arbitrary standardized test makes a lazy admissions officer's job so much easier. Wouldn't a personal interview be far more telling? (Many top-tier schools deny that opportunity.) Or what about a really tough analytical essay that resembles a legal memo? Evaluation under such a standard would prove far more meaningful, but it would entail work.
ReplyDeleteMy whole point was (and is) that the admissions process works best with maximum sunlight. Grant special accommodations when necessary and appropriate. But provide law schools full disclosure that such accommodations were given. Secrecy breeds unwitting discrimination.
I think it is a good thing. Most of law school isn't timed, and the work of a real lawyer almost never is timed. Need more time to write a brief or prepare your case - ask for an adjournment. I'm an Aspie. I obsess over details and have difficulty managing my time. On my untimed practice tests I scored in the 170's, but on the official test I only got in the mid 150's. A law school admissions staffer suggested I should be able to get more time considering my ADHD and Asperger's diagnoses.
ReplyDelete"The work of a real lawyer is almost never timed." Is that so? Tell that to every law firm lawyer who accounts for every bit of their work in 6 minute increments. Then try asking one of us for a job. Good grief.
DeleteWhen you take the LSAT with extended time, the LSAT removes the experimental section and they ad more questions into the four sections that are left. This does not help if you need extra time.
ReplyDeleteViolating the ADA isn't the only law lsac violates! Sending information about a student from one school to the next without written consent is against the law. Say for example, if an application mistates an issue to a school, has a disagreement with a school, has a disagreement with a law school official of a school you've applied too, that school, in violation of federal ferpa laws, transmits that information to lsac and every law school which one has applied. Lsac then keeps an unlawfully transmitted record to every law school which you have applied to or will apply to without your consent. You don't even have to be a student at the school you have the disagreement with, and they transmit this info. They dont allow you to address the issue and if you do address the issue, even if cleared, they still transmit that issue labeling you with every law school forever. This is unlawful under ferpa. Also, lsac violates federal privacy law by requiring students to state which law schools they have applied to on their applications and then transmitting that information to other schools. This is huge violations under the law. Furthermore, lsac requiring applicants to divulge arrest that have been vacated, expunged, and happened underage is against the law, both state and federal. It's unlawful for anyone to ask these questions and demand that information. Lsac and law schools are bullying everyone contrary to law, civil rights, privacy,
ReplyDeleteI think everyone who is agreeing with the lsac is ridiculous. For people who have disabilities It is not fair to give them the same amount of time as everyone else. People who cant think like everyone else who dont have a disability, whos brains work slower or people that have dyslexia. For all you people complaining about people with disabilities getting extra time you should re think because if you were in our shoes, and had a disability you would be fighting for your extra time. Its not like we are going to exceed everyone else. This is just making it fair for us. You might finish 10/12 questions in the 35min section while us, people with disabilities can only finish 5/6 questions because our brains don't work like yours and your saying that's fair? Because im pretty sure there are a lot of people that have disabilities that are very intelligent and would make great lawyers but take longer on tests in reading it and comprehending it. I didn't ask to be born with a disability. And I try to cope every day with my disability and for someone to take my rights away and not give me a chance to succeed is stupid.
ReplyDeleteIf you accidentally hit and killed someone with your car, would you want your Attorney to be cognitively disabled?
ReplyDeleteThe LSAT, probably more than any other grad school standardized test, becomes far easier when given 50% more time; likely because of no dedicated math section, or need to know facts, vocabulary, course subject matter, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe LSAT was designed to test the ability to read, analyze and draw conclusions from dense and confusing material in stressful circumstances (the time limits), so 50% more time changes the test entirely. For example, I scored 160 on my first cold diagnostic LSAT practice test. Subsequently, I studied 1-2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week for 6 months, and focused on timed sections and thoroughly reviewing my mistakes. After 6 months, my practice test range was 164-176, with a 169 average. I officially scored 170 when I took the test for Law School, which puts me in an elite group of test takers, but admittedly not in the super-elite 174+ group. I had never previously completed an untimed section; however, after hearing about accommodated testing, I decided to take a practice test with 50% more time. I made a silly mistake on just one Logical Reasoning question and scored a remarkably stress-free 180.
With 50% more time, the Reading Comp and Logic Games sections are a joke because the answers are literally included in the question set-up. Time is the only barrier to finding the answers. Make no mistake, an increasing number of ruthless aspiring future lawyers are learning that getting 50% more time is not that hard to do. As more good test-takers join the time-and-a-half club, the scoring scale will become meaningless because too many people will enter the upper tiers.
As elite law schools have too many high scoring applicants to choose from, and no way to know which applicants received 50% more time, because the LSAC is legally forbidden from disclosing, elite schools will likely abandon the LSAT as a reliable way to sort applicants. Make no mistake here either, law schools know scores with time-and-a-half are not as predictive of law school success as a standard time scores.
Going forward, elite law school admissions committees will likely find other ways to judge applicants than a LSAT/GPA index. Things like the competitiveness/rank of the undergraduate institution attended, the rigor of the courses/majors taken, challenging interviews, or even requiring a portfolio of work examples (papers, projects, tests, etc), like the way top schools evaluate applicants for architecture, music, and art, will be better predictors of success than LSATs taken with time-and-a-half.