Top Law Schools

HaroldLee1982 wrote:

NYSprague wrote:

HaroldLee1982 wrote:Aren't they going to be de-facto flagged anyways with the lack of a percentile score? Anyways, what effect will this have on splitters?

The assumption is that either everyone will get a percentile score or no one will.
The effect is that more people will have scores that reflect their ability. I'm not sure what you mean. The number of people with accommodations is a tiny percentage of takers.

Hmm, interesting. So LSAC will have to modify their policy regarding percentile score reporting ? It is pretty clearly a de-facto flag if you think about it.
I guess what I was trying to get at is whether this will lower the predictive validity of the LSAT, and whether law schools will value GPA and "softs" over LSAT now..

Yes, the assumption is they change percentile reporting.

Schools care about LSAT scores because of rankings, that won't change.

I bet they just make changes to the test (gradually) so that time is less of an advantage.

lol I highly doubt adcomms look through a person's score sheets.

I found many of the comments in this thread pretty disgraceful overall. I am an accommodated test-taker from last cycle (pre-new law), and let me tell you, it was not an easy process, and LSAC were especially unhelpful in answering queries and concerns. I was provided an accommodation from them three years ago and they actually made me get retested in April and do all the extensive paperwork and filing, not to mention the financial costs.

^^^^^
This is very well said. Few people bothered to read the complaint or understand how dis functional LSAC was with their widespread discriminatory activity. This settlement should completely change the process.

You should apply for restitution under the class action once that fund is up and running.

yes...it is terrible what I had to go through to receive accommodations. After the 6th denial, I was finally given 8 extra minutes per section. People in my group got way more time than I did, even though my dr. recommend that I receive double time.

There are always people that are able to cheat the system, but with me that isn't the case. I didn't even hit a score in the 150's despite studying with a tutor and taking a prep course. I dream of getting accepted into University of Miami, and I don't know what else to do. The LSAC simply won't give me more time.

disappointing that extended time scores will not be flagged anymore.

gives an unfair advantage... and a huge advantage at that

gatesome wrote:disappointing that extended time scores will not be flagged anymore.

gives an unfair advantage... and a huge advantage at that

I think you may have it backwards. Flagged scores did not count in the past, so someone with a 160 and a 4.0 could get admitted to Harvard (I'm not saying that is right/wrong/fair or anything its just the case) Now that scores aren't flagged, that person will never be admitted at Harvard. (again I'm not commenting in the least). So that person had an advantage previously, they do not now.

Also, they are going to be MUCH more liberal on giving accommodations now, because I could tell at the conferences that I went to where their GC spoke they were not happy about being sued.

Perhaps it would be better to give individuals a learning disorder for the duration of the test and see how they do..

cotiger wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

cotiger wrote:Ultimately, I don't know what purpose is being served by this accommodation stuff.

If someone has trouble processing LG, isn't that what the test is testing for? Does it really matter if the cause has been officially diagnosed in the DSM? Both people have difficulty organizing information logically. Why should one get extra time to think it through?

I know I know ADA whatever, but does anyone agree with this on a policy level?

I'm still undecided, and that's why I appreciate papercut's and Graeme's posts. Part of the reason I'm not ready to ditch accommodations altogether is that I think the "time crunch" aspect of the LSAT is an artificiality that's not really necessary for testing what the LSAT purports to test.

If a person reads/processes a little slower and is given a little extra time as a result, I don't necessarily think that makes the LSAT worthless for measuring their reading comprehension, reasoning, or logical abilities. Now of course, if LSAT starts handing out "double time" waivers like they're candy, that's going to screw things up. But I'm not ready to jump straight to "fuck 'em all - no accommodations for anyone".

My point is that there are plenty of people who read or process slowly. Why should those who can identify a cause of their slowness in the DSM (and have the money/knowledge to get it officially diagnosed) be afforded extra time, while other slow processors not get extra time?

People who make comments to the effect of, “It doesn’t matter why you read slowly if you read slowly,” totally miss the point of the LSAT and law school: to identify and train people with the potential to be successful lawyers.

If you have problems reading because you lack the verbal intelligence and reasoning skills to absorb and process the information you need from the reading, no amount of accommodation or extra time is going to make you read well. If, however, you have the skills to get everything out of the reading that you need to get out of it, giving you extra time can allow you to perform at a high level. Billable hour requirements aside, law firms want the lawyer who’s going to read the contract right and find all the loopholes even if it takes him an extra hour. The lawyer who reads it an hour faster and misses everything is totally useless. Lawyers are OBSESSED with getting every detail right, not with speed.

What if it takes you three years to read a thread, but you really, really understand it because skills?

Savage.

Deardevil wrote:Savage.

Deserved for necroing a thread from 3 years ago.