LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[TLSNerd]

It doesn't matter whether I think the test has value. Employers consistently select students from schools with high LSAT medians, thereby indicating that they think the test has value in predicting who will perform well in practice. Some of this value would be lost if some test takers were given extra time due to disabilities that would hamper them just as much in practice.

Yeah that's exactly what firms do, look for the school's LSAT medians. Lol. corr/cause bro.

What's your alternate explanation?

[A. Nony Mouse]

If you had to bet all of your money on who would become the more successful lawyer, and your choices were someone who had scored a 120 and someone who had scored a 180, and you had no other information about the candidates, you'd flip a coin?

My point is that anon mouse was wrong when she/he said "Practicing law is nothing like taking the LSAT."

I'm a practicing lawyer. I promise you my job is nothing like taking the LSAT. I certainly wouldn't ask a partner candidate for their LSAT because nothing would be more ludicrous than caring.

I also said "nothing like taking the LSAT." I didn't say it doesn't use any of the same skills. You just aren't demonstrating those skills on a multiple-choice test in 35 minutes.

Reading comprehension is a skill. Maintaining focus is a skill.

Sure. But in practice, no one's standing over you with a stopwatch checking how much you can read in 35 minutes. And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS. Fuck, I'm not sure half the attorneys in this courthouse can even read.

that's a joke. But criminal law doesn't entail a lot of reading of complex documents.

And employers don't invariably hire from schools with higher LSAT medians, but when they do, you don't think prestige-whoring has anything to do with it?

[TLSNerd]

If you had to bet all of your money on who would become the more successful lawyer, and your choices were someone who had scored a 120 and someone who had scored a 180, and you had no other information about the candidates, you'd flip a coin?

My point is that anon mouse was wrong when she/he said "Practicing law is nothing like taking the LSAT."

I'm a practicing lawyer. I promise you my job is nothing like taking the LSAT. I certainly wouldn't ask a partner candidate for their LSAT because nothing would be more ludicrous than caring.

I also said "nothing like taking the LSAT." I didn't say it doesn't use any of the same skills. You just aren't demonstrating those skills on a multiple-choice test in 35 minutes.

Reading comprehension is a skill. Maintaining focus is a skill.

Sure. But in practice, no one's standing over you with a stopwatch checking how much you can read in 35 minutes. And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS. Fuck, I'm not sure half the attorneys in this courthouse can even read.

that's a joke. But criminal law doesn't entail a lot of reading of complex documents.

And employers don't invariably hire from schools with higher LSAT medians, but when they do, you don't think prestige-whoring has anything to do with it?

Finally, thank you. All I was trying to get you to do was agree that the LSAT is not completely unrelated to the practice of law.

[Pneumonia]

It doesn't matter whether I think the test has value. Employers consistently select students from schools with high LSAT medians, thereby indicating that they think the test has value in predicting who will perform well in practice. Some of this value would be lost if some test takers were given extra time due to disabilities that would hamper them just as much in practice.

Yeah that's exactly what firms do, look for the school's LSAT medians. Lol. corr/cause bro.

What's your alternate explanation?

For what? Why people from top schools have an easier time getting jobs? You really want me to explain why the reason is not "because they have a higher LSAT?" Here is a hint: try to count with your hands what percentage of employers ask for your LSAT score. You will only need one hand. Use your other hand to write a sticky note that says "please think before asking dumb questions."

[Pneumonia]

You might as well conclude that "living East of the Mississippi for three years" is not completely unrelated to the practice of law since that is where most top schools are located.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law. I stand by that.

I also never denied some employers hire from schools with high LSAT medians, so I don't know what your bolding is about, but I don't think that's because they think the LSAT is some kind of infallible indicator of lawyering success. It's because those schools are HYS (or whatever) and employers are prestige whores.

[NYSprague]

It seems like the LSAT is a speed reading test disguised as a logical reasoning test.

[BillsFan9907]

Spoke with California fair housing. Consent decree should be approved by the court today.

[NYSprague]

Spoke with California fair housing. Consent decree should be approved by the court today.

Nice. Thank you very much for following up!

[SecondWind]

Case in point.









Is it an outlier? Probably, but his accommodations got him a 180....

[snappysalmons]

I password-fucked my account for the exact purpose of not getting in endless arguments like these, but goddamn, anti-accommodations people, you're killing me. I argued against the current accommodations regime for like 8 pages, but you guys are making terrible arguments.

1. We have anti-discrimination laws which mandate that people with disabilities are entitled to be given a reasonable accommodation for that disability. LSAC's policy was that its accommodated testing (whether extra time or standard time) represented that reasonable accommodation. However, LSAC chose to deny a significantly large number of clearly entitled people access to that accommodation, flagrantly violating the law.

2. It's true that the accommodations that LSAC has decided on wrt those who get extra time are not fair in terms of being an equal predictor of how good a law student someone will be, which is ostensibly what adcomms use them for. On average, those with extra time accommodations do worse in school than a similarly scoring individual with no accommodations. It's also substantially less indicative of anything at all, only explaining 2% of grades instead of the normal 11%.

3. However, the fact that the present method of accommodating those determined to need extra time is not perfect is not an argument against those people getting accommodations (see point 1); it's an argument that we need to fix those accommodations to more accurately reflect ability.

4. Also, the fact that the current setup is unfair wrt implied law school ability doesn't mean that making those individuals take unaccommodated tests would increase fairness. Indeed, it's quite likely that without those accommodations, those groups would be scoring below their true abilities. While we don't have actual numbers for how far below that would be, there's a decent moral case to be made that it's more unjust to unfairly penalize a small segment of society than it is to unfairly help them out, especially when that segment will tend to have a harder time in life than the majority.

5. Lastly, the fact that making it easier to get accommodations for ADHD and LD will increase the number of "bought" accommodations is irrelevant. The fact that some financial firms engage in insider trading or other similarly shady acts is not an argument against capitalism; it's an argument for increased scrutiny and/or regulation. Yes, some people will abuse the system, but that doesn't mean that the system is fundamentally bullshit.

-cotiger

[Onomatopoeia]

Tldr: we need a new test

[NYSprague]

I password-fucked my account for the exact purpose of not getting in endless arguments like these, but goddamn, anti-accommodations people, you're killing me. I argued against the current accommodations regime for like 8 pages, but you guys are making terrible arguments.

1. We have anti-discrimination laws which mandate that people with disabilities are entitled to be given a reasonable accommodation for that disability. LSAC's policy was that its accommodated testing (whether extra time or standard time) represented that reasonable accommodation. However, LSAC chose to deny a significantly large number of clearly entitled people access to that accommodation, flagrantly violating the law.

2. It's true that the accommodations that LSAC has decided on wrt those who get extra time are not fair in terms of being an equal predictor of how good a law student someone will be, which is ostensibly what adcomms use them for. On average, those with extra time accommodations do worse in school than a similarly scoring individual with no accommodations. It's also substantially less indicative of anything at all, only explaining 2% of grades instead of the normal 11%.

3. However, the fact that the present method of accommodating those determined to need extra time is not perfect is not an argument against those people getting accommodations (see point 1); it's an argument that we need to fix those accommodations to more accurately reflect ability.

4. Also, the fact that the current setup is unfair wrt implied law school ability doesn't mean that making those individuals take unaccommodated tests would increase fairness. Indeed, it's quite likely that without those accommodations, those groups would be scoring below their true abilities. While we don't have actual numbers for how far below that would be, there's a decent moral case to be made that it's more unjust to unfairly penalize a small segment of society than it is to unfairly help them out, especially when that segment will tend to have a harder time in life than the majority.

5. Lastly, the fact that making it easier to get accommodations for ADHD and LD will increase the number of "bought" accommodations is irrelevant. The fact that some financial firms engage in insider trading or other similarly shady acts is not an argument against capitalism; it's an argument for increased scrutiny and/or regulation. Yes, some people will abuse the system, but that doesn't mean that the system is fundamentally bullshit.

-cotiger

I know that feel. Great post.

I think the real reason they are against making LSAC comply with the law is that they know they would do better with extra time so they don't want anyone else, or at least anyone with disabilities they don't judge worthy, to get extra time.

Somehow they feel that DOJ forcing LSAC to completely revise its system, so that LSAC complies with the law, will hurt their own individual admissions chances because now disabled people will be on a level playing field, and perhaps even beat them. (I can't blame them for not grasping the landmark nature of this agreement because they have no experience and nothing to compare it with.)

My solace in this is that their inability to understand basic legal concepts means they don't have a chance in hell of doing well in law school. This may be future idiotic gunners at work, practicing their craft.

It takes a special kind of idiot to oppose other potential law students getting the protections guaranteed them by law and to utterly fail to grasp even 4th grade level constitutional law concepts.

[Onomatopoeia]

The capitalist system fails if regulation is no longer possible. Lsacs hands are tied and that is what a lot of people are worried about

[NYC-WVU]

And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS.

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law.

You seem to be recognizing, on the one hand, that not all legal jobs are the same (specifically pointing out that your job doesn't entail billable hours). And then on the other hand, you make a generalized statement that the practice of law is not like the LSAT. And presumably you're talking about the time-crunch aspect of the LSAT, since time is what people keep talking about ITT. I think you should at least recognize that a huge portion of lawyers bill time and are working under a budget.

[A. Nony Mouse]

And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS.

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law.

You seem to be recognizing, on the one hand, that not all legal jobs are the same (specifically pointing out that your job doesn't entail billable hours). And then on the other hand, you make a generalized statement that the practice of law is not like the LSAT. And presumably you're talking about the time-crunch aspect of the LSAT, since time is what people keep talking about ITT. I think you should at least recognize that a huge portion of lawyers bill time and are working under a budget.

Yeah, still don't think your performance on the LSAT determines how well you'll do that. Even if it did, I don't think that justifies excluding people from taking the exam when you don't even know what kind of legal job they're aiming for.

[NYSprague]

And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS.

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law.

You seem to be recognizing, on the one hand, that not all legal jobs are the same (specifically pointing out that your job doesn't entail billable hours). And then on the other hand, you make a generalized statement that the practice of law is not like the LSAT. And presumably you're talking about the time-crunch aspect of the LSAT, since time is what people keep talking about ITT. I think you should at least recognize that a huge portion of lawyers bill time and are working under a budget.

If the LSAT was truly related to law practice, then everyone without a disability who can't break a 165 should give up now.

[Onomatopoeia]

And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS.

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law.

You seem to be recognizing, on the one hand, that not all legal jobs are the same (specifically pointing out that your job doesn't entail billable hours). And then on the other hand, you make a generalized statement that the practice of law is not like the LSAT. And presumably you're talking about the time-crunch aspect of the LSAT, since time is what people keep talking about ITT. I think you should at least recognize that a huge portion of lawyers bill time and are working under a budget.

If the LSAT was truly related to law practice, then everyone without a disability who can't break a 165 should give up now.

define truly related bruh

[NYC-WVU]

5. Lastly, the fact that making it easier to get accommodations for ADHD and LD will increase the number of "bought" accommodations is irrelevant. The fact that some financial firms engage in insider trading or other similarly shady acts is not an argument against capitalism; it's an argument for increased scrutiny and/or regulation. Yes, some people will abuse the system, but that doesn't mean that the system is fundamentally bullshit.

It's hard to say it's irrelevant if 20% of high-school-aged boys are being diagnosed with ADHD. The likelihood of a high percentage of over-diagnosis with that number seems to be a given. And I think people's concern is that this settlement removes "scrutiny and/or regulation." I think LSAC severely dropped the ball by denying accommodations to people who were justified in having them, and as a result will now have no ability to make their own determinations. It seems reasonable to think that the LSAT should have a higher standard for giving out extra time than other tests, since time is so much more important on the LSAT. But they messed up by being unreasonable, and now are beholden to whatever the SAT or ACT people decide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/healt ... d=all&_r=0

[NYC-WVU]

And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS.

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law.

You seem to be recognizing, on the one hand, that not all legal jobs are the same (specifically pointing out that your job doesn't entail billable hours). And then on the other hand, you make a generalized statement that the practice of law is not like the LSAT. And presumably you're talking about the time-crunch aspect of the LSAT, since time is what people keep talking about ITT. I think you should at least recognize that a huge portion of lawyers bill time and are working under a budget.

If the LSAT was truly related to law practice, then everyone without a disability who can't break a 165 should give up now.

Why does everything have to be so black and white. If I was choosing a lawyer and could know the lawyers LSAT score, I would have no problem with someone with a 155 assisting me with purchasing a house or tailoring a lease for a tenant in my basement apartment. But I would probably ask for someone else if I was going up against Bank of America in a contract dispute worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

[NYSprague]

And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS.

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law.

You seem to be recognizing, on the one hand, that not all legal jobs are the same (specifically pointing out that your job doesn't entail billable hours). And then on the other hand, you make a generalized statement that the practice of law is not like the LSAT. And presumably you're talking about the time-crunch aspect of the LSAT, since time is what people keep talking about ITT. I think you should at least recognize that a huge portion of lawyers bill time and are working under a budget.

If the LSAT was truly related to law practice, then everyone without a disability who can't break a 165 should give up now.

define truly related bruh

I'm not the one saying there is a correlation.But since some people insist there is a correlation, maybe a low score that they can't improve should be a hint. Plenty of people do well on this exam under the current time constraints. By your thinking, the people who can't do as well in the same constraints will be unsuccessful lawyers. So give up now.

[Onomatopoeia]

I'm not the one saying there is a correlation.But since some people insist there is a correlation, maybe a low score that they can't improve should be a hint. Plenty of people do well on this exam under the current time constraints. By your thinking, the people who can't do as well in the same constraints will be unsuccessful lawyers. So give up now.

correlation does not equal causation bro. you can say a correlation exists but also realize that there is a lot of room for people to be the within the sample set that defy the correlative trend. no one is telling anyone to give up. all that is being said, based on factual proof, is that the lsat is a useful tool to measure certain skills that are important for law school success when taken under strictly timed conditions. you cannot say that a correlation does not exist in the face of proof that it does. the weaker the correlation, the more likely it is that people within the sample set can defy the trend, for better or for worse. the correlation is very weak for extra-time accommodated scores -- and lsac has found data suggesting that performance is often for worse for those accommodated on the lsat with extra time

[NYC-WVU]

And before you bring up the all-holy billable hour (as have many before you in this thread), NOT ALL LEGAL JOBS ENTAIL BILLABLE HOURS.

I never said LSAT skills and practice were unrelated. I said that taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law.

You seem to be recognizing, on the one hand, that not all legal jobs are the same (specifically pointing out that your job doesn't entail billable hours). And then on the other hand, you make a generalized statement that the practice of law is not like the LSAT. And presumably you're talking about the time-crunch aspect of the LSAT, since time is what people keep talking about ITT. I think you should at least recognize that a huge portion of lawyers bill time and are working under a budget.

Yeah, still don't think your performance on the LSAT determines how well you'll do that. Even if it did, I don't think that justifies excluding people from taking the exam when you don't even know what kind of legal job they're aiming for.

I agree with this. I just don't agree with the concept of "severe, short time crunches don't happen when you're an actual lawyer."

[haus]

I agree with this. I just don't agree with the concept of "severe, short time crunches don't happen when you're an actual lawyer."

Sure, as a lawyer, as in life in general, real situations of importance will occur that are extremely critical and time crunched. Yet they will seldom, if ever, involve a scantron form.

[NYC-WVU]

I agree with this. I just don't agree with the concept of "severe, short time crunches don't happen when you're an actual lawyer."

Sure, as a lawyer, as in life in general, real situations of importance will occur that are extremely critical and time crunched. Yet they will seldom, if ever, involve a scantron form.

Yep, that's definitely true, and nowhere near the same as saying "taking the LSAT is nothing like practicing law."