Subscription pricing
According to Spivey's data, there has been an overall increase in the number of applicants, specifically those scoring in the 160s to 170s, notably with a 262% increase in those who scored a 175! Does this mean that the cycle is going to be more competitive going forward, with the unlimited retake policy? How will schools treat splitters and reverse-splitters?
Heres the link: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/december-2017-data/
0
59 comments
Thread is way off topic and is going down a path I really don't like. Locking this.
@stepharizona288 said:
@zmeeker91389 said:
@merdjunk372-1
Where do I assume causation exactly? By pointing to an unfair advantage I'm merely pointing to an objective outcome and judging the merit of that outcome. I'm not even really speculating about causation. One simple question: Would this group receive the scores they do without the extra time? I can say with high degree of certainty that no, the group probably wouldn't. Moreover, these scores are objectively better outcomes, which constitutes an advantaged position. Therefore, extra time contributes to an advantage over the normal population. Never claimed this was the sole factor.
If you want, I could design an experiment where (a) people were tested under normal conditions and (b) people were given more time. I can guarantee I could create a predictive model that uses time as one of the primary inputs. I just thought for the sake of argument we could assume this to be the case.
Anyways, didn't mean to create a big debate over this, and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone. I believe that people should seek accommodations if they believe/know they need them. But, I also think that out of respect for those individuals and everyone who takes the LSAT, we should take gaming of accommodations seriously. It does happen.
When you attribute accomodated testers recieving slightly higher than average scores to an unfair advantage you are assuming causation. You are assuming that rather than the accomodation enabling accomodated testers to perform at their true ability (which would not be an unfair advantage) it is allowing them to exceed their true ability (an unfair advantage).
It is absurd to say you are not judging the merit of an outcome that you just called unfair. If I said an election was not fair, but that I was not judging whether or not that was a good thing, that a football game wasn't being called fairly but that I wasn't claiming that was right or wrong, or any similar claim you would recognize it was absurd.
Yes, if you take away time accomodations from a group of disabled testers who have proven to LSAT that they need those accomodations, they will do worse. That doesn't mean they had an unfair advantage. If we provided appropriate accomodations to all disabled people and they tested above the average you might have a point that the accomodations were giving them an unfair advantage because they recieved higher than average scores. But that is not what happens. They have to request accomodations, prove in some way their need for accomodations, wait for a response from LSAC, and then they take the test. We reasonably would expect someone who does those things to study more too. If they studied more, then(assuming studying works to improve LSAT score, which it does) they ought to score higher on average if the accomodation controls for their disability. If the population of accomodated testers scored the same on average as non-accoomodated testers while studying more it would, other things equal, be evidence that they had been insufficiently accomodated.
You say gaming accomodations does happen. I'm confident that it has happened. But, like with voter fraud, if you don't provide some evidence of it happening on a meaningful scale, I think we have to assume that it is happening on a small enough scale that trying to stop it is not worth making it harder for the large number of people who need accomodations to get them.
Anyways you say you didn't mean to offend anyone. I do want to offend a few people, but hope you are not one of them. I want to offend anyone who doesn't need accomodations, but seeks them out or cheats in any other way because they are too intelllectual lazy, weak willed, or unconfident in themselves to compete with all of us on a level playing field. I also want to offend anyone who would advocate making it harder for those who do need accomodations to obtain them because they are similarly unconfident of their ability to compete on a freshly leveled playing field against appropriately accomodated testers.
I like it.
@zmeeker91389 said:
@merdjunk372-1
Where do I assume causation exactly? By pointing to an unfair advantage I'm merely pointing to an objective outcome and judging the merit of that outcome. I'm not even really speculating about causation. One simple question: Would this group receive the scores they do without the extra time? I can say with high degree of certainty that no, the group probably wouldn't. Moreover, these scores are objectively better outcomes, which constitutes an advantaged position. Therefore, extra time contributes to an advantage over the normal population. Never claimed this was the sole factor.
If you want, I could design an experiment where (a) people were tested under normal conditions and (b) people were given more time. I can guarantee I could create a predictive model that uses time as one of the primary inputs. I just thought for the sake of argument we could assume this to be the case.
Anyways, didn't mean to create a big debate over this, and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone. I believe that people should seek accommodations if they believe/know they need them. But, I also think that out of respect for those individuals and everyone who takes the LSAT, we should take gaming of accommodations seriously. It does happen.
When you attribute accomodated testers recieving slightly higher than average scores to an unfair advantage you are assuming causation. You are assuming that rather than the accomodation enabling accomodated testers to perform at their true ability (which would not be an unfair advantage) it is allowing them to exceed their true ability (an unfair advantage).
It is absurd to say you are not judging the merit of an outcome that you just called unfair. If I said an election was not fair, but that I was not judging whether or not that was a good thing, that a football game wasn't being called fairly but that I wasn't claiming that was right or wrong, or any similar claim you would recognize it was absurd.
Yes, if you take away time accomodations from a group of disabled testers who have proven to LSAT that they need those accomodations, they will do worse. That doesn't mean they had an unfair advantage. If we provided appropriate accomodations to all disabled people and they tested above the average you might have a point that the accomodations were giving them an unfair advantage because they recieved higher than average scores. But that is not what happens. They have to request accomodations, prove in some way their need for accomodations, wait for a response from LSAC, and then they take the test. We reasonably would expect someone who does those things to study more too. If they studied more, then(assuming studying works to improve LSAT score, which it does) they ought to score higher on average if the accomodation controls for their disability. If the population of accomodated testers scored the same on average as non-accoomodated testers while studying more it would, other things equal, be evidence that they had been insufficiently accomodated.
You say gaming accomodations does happen. I'm confident that it has happened. But, like with voter fraud, if you don't provide some evidence of it happening on a meaningful scale, I think we have to assume that it is happening on a small enough scale that trying to stop it is not worth making it harder for the large number of people who need accomodations to get them.
Anyways you say you didn't mean to offend anyone. I do want to offend a few people, but hope you are not one of them. I want to offend anyone who doesn't need accomodations, but seeks them out or cheats in any other way because they are too intelllectual lazy, weak willed, or unconfident in themselves to compete with all of us on a level playing field. I also want to offend anyone who would advocate making it harder for those who do need accomodations to obtain them because they are similarly unconfident of their ability to compete on a freshly leveled playing field against appropriately accomodated testers.
I remember there was another post on TLS that had an eerily similar tone as the comment posted here, attributing cause of 170 scorers to the accomodations. Pitting the blame on the accomodations policy is counter productive and appears to be speculative. That mental capital could be better spent improving your own score and working on your apps.
@zmeeker91389 said:
Where do I assume causation exactly?
I'm going to check out after addressing this (I'm sure to no one's displeasure):
Correlation: the population of accommodated testers getting more time also have slightly higher average scores
Causation: for the population of accommodated testers the (substitute 'a' if you'd like, doesn't matter) reason they have slightly higher average scores is because they get more time
@zmeeker91389 said:
@merdjunk372-1
Where do I assume causation exactly? By pointing to an unfair advantage I'm merely pointing to an objective outcome and judging the merit of that outcome. I'm not even really speculating about causation. One simple question: Would this group receive the scores they do without the extra time? I can say with high degree of certainty that no, the group probably wouldn't. Moreover, these scores are objectively better outcomes, which constitutes an advantaged position. Therefore, extra time contributes to an advantage over the normal population. Never claimed this was the sole factor.
If you want, I could design an experiment where (a) people were tested under normal conditions and (b) people were given more time. I can guarantee I could create a predictive model that uses time as one of the primary inputs. I just thought for the sake of argument we could assume this to be the case.
Anyways, didn't mean to create a big debate over this, and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone. I believe that people should seek accommodations if they believe/know they need them. But, I also think that out of respect for those individuals and everyone who takes the LSAT, we should take gaming of accommodations seriously. It does happen.
To jump in, I think saying you "didn't mean to offend anyone" is a cop-out. It's like saying "I don't mean this to be rude but..."
You obviously struck a nerve with someone and you can either choose to apologize or not. Or choose to remain defensive of your point.
Also, this is a LSAT forum. I'm actually shocked you didn't expect there to be a debate.
You can either decide to not take a position, or when you do, and ruffle up some feathers, I think you have to stand by your word and take responsibility for what has been said - even over the internet. Hello it's 2017.
Note: Apologies on not being able to use this comment section correctly. Not an active responder and new to the platform.
All, I wanted to share a helpful link to an actual 7sage thread (stumbled upon this as I was reading the forum rules to check myself if I was being "nice" or not)
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2345/should-the-lsac-be-allowed-to-disclose-to-law-schools-extra-time-given-for-disabilities
@zmeeker91389 said:
@merdjunk372-1
One simple question: Would this group receive the scores they do without the extra time? I can say with high degree of certainty that no, the group probably wouldn't.
Isn't that the whole point of an accommodation?
...
@stepharizona288 There are many different ways to practice. There are also many different reasons besides practicing law to attend law school. Let's not go down this road.
I just think: if you need accommodations to deal with the stress of the test, how on earth are you going to manage the demands of law practice day-to-day?
@merdjunk372-1
Where do I assume causation exactly? By pointing to an unfair advantage I'm merely pointing to an objective outcome and judging the merit of that outcome. I'm not even really speculating about causation. One simple question: Would this group receive the scores they do without the extra time? I can say with high degree of certainty that no, the group probably wouldn't. Moreover, these scores are objectively better outcomes, which constitutes an advantaged position. Therefore, extra time contributes to an advantage over the normal population. Never claimed this was the sole factor.
If you want, I could design an experiment where (a) people were tested under normal conditions and (b) people were given more time. I can guarantee I could create a predictive model that uses time as one of the primary inputs. I just thought for the sake of argument we could assume this to be the case.
Anyways, didn't mean to create a big debate over this, and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone. I believe that people should seek accommodations if they believe/know they need them. But, I also think that out of respect for those individuals and everyone who takes the LSAT, we should take gaming of accommodations seriously. It does happen.
Of course, accommodated test takers are a population that probably has distinctive properties as compared to the non-accommodated test taking population. It is reasonable to suppose that, on average, these folks prepare more than others. However, that doesn't do anything to the fact that there is a definite relation between the time available in taking a LSAT test and the accuracy on said test. The question seems to be whether these improvements are (a) in line with making the "playing field" even, and (b) whether the provision of accomodations under standard procedures facilitate (a).
I still do not get why this is such a big topic of debate without more though. It sounds like unwarranted speculation, and of a cynical, mean-spirited sort.--A.c.S
@zmeeker91389 said:
However the second part is a bit of a strawman. I'm not blaming anyone for the outcomes of my applications (didn't even bring that up). I was merely pointing out that there is data that might indicate there is an underlying problem.
That's fair. Though I don't think it's too large a leap to think the reason you are so attached to this particular answer is because you are worried about how this all will affect your chances at admittance/scholarship, and that's why you are ignoring the clear correlation/causation trap you've entered into. The report clearly states the need for caution due to self-selection and that it does not pretend to report cause. Your answer relies on one interpretation without any evidence as to why it's more likely than the others. But I apologize for attributing motive to you.
Again, maybe that report does show some slight advantage. Or maybe it shows that LSAC needs to do a better job of advertising the accommodations to a certain group of people who aren't currently using them. Or maybe it shows that their accommodation process is still too cumbersome and thus only those most likely to score high will follow through.
My reason for attacking your argument despite your hedging ("might indicate", "possible that", etc), is that just wildly speculating reasons can cause damage itself. Again with voter fraud. People speculate that voter fraud is possible. Sure, it's possible, but that doesn't mean it's happening. People start worrying about voter fraud. Voter fraud laws are passed to quell the fear. Those laws disenfranchise voters and cause actual harm despite solving a problem that only existed in people's heads.
Had you just said, "there is this report that shows a difference we wouldn't expect from representative samples. We should probably look into this further to see if we can figure out a cause," I wouldn't have minded. What you did instead was say, "there is a difference and this could be because of X. This whole system is unjust and we are just making it worse," and implied that something needs to change to fix your hypothetical problem. All while relying on stereotypes about lawyers as further evidence you must be right.
@stepharizona288 said:
@zmeeker91389
This is a good point that I didn't initially consider. However, because I feel it necessary to defend my initial position, I think you make a lot more assumptions by saying that this group is significantly different from the general population in terms of their academic abilities, work habits and etc. It's possible this group is just harder working and more qualitied, but nothing indicates that is the case.
They had the time and knowledge to navigate the system to get an accomodation. Doesn't that imply at the very least a little additional knowledge of the LSAT compared to the average applicant? Isn't it probable that they also know other things about the test like that it is possible to better your performance through study?
I think if there is an argument that accommodated testers score higher than the general population, this is one of the most plausible explanations. We all know that at any given administration, there are a not insignificant number of folks who did not prepare at all and took it more or less on a whim. That will drive stats down to some degree. However, someone who takes the time to prepare documentation and work with professionals in order to received an accommodation has likely invested a lot of time in this process, and has probably also been studying. That alone would make the average score higher than that of the non-accommodated testers. This makes a lot of sense to me.
@zmeeker91389
This is a good point that I didn't initially consider. However, because I feel it necessary to defend my initial position, I think you make a lot more assumptions by saying that this group is significantly different from the general population in terms of their academic abilities, work habits and etc. It's possible this group is just harder working and more qualitied, but nothing indicates that is the case.
They had the time and knowledge to navigate the system to get an accomodation. Doesn't that imply at the very least a little additional knowledge of the LSAT compared to the average applicant? Isn't it probable that they also know other things about the test like that it is possible to better your performance through study?
@merdjunk372 said:
You are reading way too much into this sentence from the report. They tend to score slightly higher. This would make sense. Why would someone go through the trouble of requesting accommodations if they knew they were just going to score on the lower end even with more time. The larger the time accommodation's impact on your score the more likely you are to request and actually go through taking the test.
My point is that a fair outcome would be one where the outcomes for both populations would be on a par, not lower. No matter how "slight" (notice those are the LSAC's words who want the process to seem fair) the difference is, the fact there appears to be a statistically significant difference accross multiple tests points to an advantage (can't say for sure because I don't have the raw data). I'm not claiming that it is predictive, just in the past the outcomes of giving people extra time could be viewed as unfair from a distributive perspective.
@merdjunk372 said:
The point is there exist a lot of possible explanations for those numbers, so don't believe one just because that explanation gives you someone to blame other than yourself for your eventual outcomes in applying (which at this point in the cycle could still be really good!).
Totally agree with the first part. Perhaps I stated things too strongly. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought any one explanation was conclusive. However the second part is a bit of a strawman. I'm not blaming anyone for the outcomes of my applications (didn't even bring that up). I was merely pointing out that there is data that might indicate there is an underlying problem.
@anthonymahmud595
The influence of self-selected groups cannot be understated. An obvious example is Mylsn.info: the averages in their database are well above the national figures because the majority of people who use the tool and report their scores will be highly motivated, generally successful individuals.
This is a good point that I didn't initially consider. However, because I feel it necessary to defend my initial position, I think you make a lot more assumptions by saying that this group is significantly different from the general population in terms of their academic abilities, work habits and etc. It's possible this group is just harder working and more qualitied, but nothing indicates that is the case.
@zmeeker91389 said:
On the one hand, I'm not satisfied with the explanation that accommodations are significantly contributing to the 175-180 score range. We simply don't have the data to know whether or not this is true. However, I don't think think the analogy about voter fraud is appropriate considering we do have data that indicates there is a problem.
To start, we know from a 2012 LSAC report on accommodations that people with extra time accommodations tend to have higher scores than the rest of the population. In other words, extra time does appear to give even those with documented disabilities a quantifiable advantage over the normal testing population. This fact is also true for accommodated extra time repeat test takers, who also show higher increases than average test takers. Note this is for individuals who take the test twice, both times with extra time.
Common sense would also dictate that if the system worked correctly, accommodations would (a) only be given to individuals who needed them and (b) would produce average outcomes on a par with the general population. In other words, while a few people might do significantly better or might game the system, on average the outcomes should be the same between accommodated test takers and the general population. This isn't the case which points to a systematic problem in either the documentation process, the accommodations themselves, or the approval process. Assuming that accomodations are appropriate, that means either (a) people are being overdiagnosed, (b) people are gaming the system, (c) LSAC isn't doing their job in acting as gatekeepers, or (d) some combination of the three.
Finally, I don't see how it is conceivable that setting the bar lower for approving accommodations would make an already unjust process (at least from a distributive perspective) have more equitable outcomes. It seems more conceivable that lowering the bar would make it easier for people to game the system or would give a higher percentage of the population an advantage.
Let's be real here... People taking the LSAT are going to be lawyers. We treat this popualtion like saints, but people game systems all the time (lawyers included).
You assume that those with disabilities don't perform better on the LSAT v. the average LSAT test-taking population for some legitimate reason. I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I wanted to point that out. Logical fallacies are a no-no.
I think the voter fraud analogy is a good one, personally.
@zmeeker91389 said:
On the one hand, I'm not satisfied with the explanation that accommodations are significantly contributing to the 175-180 score range. We simply don't have the data to know whether or not this is true. However, I don't think think the analogy about voter fraud is appropriate considering we do have data that indicates there is a problem.
To start, we know from a 2012 LSAC report on accommodations that people with extra time accommodations tend to have higher scores than the rest of the population. In other words, extra time does appear to give even those with documented disabilities a quantifiable advantage over the normal testing population. This fact is also true for accommodated extra time repeat test takers, who also show higher increases than average test takers. Note this is for individuals who take the test twice, both times with extra time.
Common sense would also dictate that if the system worked correctly, accommodations would (a) only be given to individuals who needed them and (b) would produce average outcomes on a par with the general population. In other words, while a few people might do significantly better or might game the system, on average the outcomes should be the same between accommodated test takers and the general population. This isn't the case which points to a systematic problem in either the documentation process, the accommodations themselves, or the approval process. Assuming that accomodations are appropriate, that means either (a) people are being overdiagnosed, (b) people are gaming the system, (c) LSAC isn't doing their job in acting as gatekeepers, or (d) some combination of the three.
Finally, I don't see how it is conceivable that setting the bar lower for approving accommodations would make an already unjust process (at least from a distributive perspective) have more equitable outcomes. It seems more conceivable that lowering the bar would make it easier for people to game the system or would give a higher percentage of the population an advantage.
Let's be real here... People taking the LSAT are going to be lawyers. We treat this popualtion like saints, but people game systems all the time (lawyers included).
This is a clear display of the distinction between causation and correlation. You have a correlation between slightly higher scores and accomodations.
From this you directly infer causation, that the time accomodations are giving accomodated testers an advantage over unaccomodated testers.
What if we instead were to assume the following very reasonable assumptions? It is costly in time and money to request accomodations. It is costly in terms of time and money to prepare for the LSAT. The ability and willingness to pay the time and monetary cost of requesting an accomodation and to pay the time and monetary cost of studying effectively for the test are positively correlated. Perhaps people with money, time, or determination are more likely to both study extensively for the LSAT and request accomodations. In that case, wouldn't we expect accomodated testers to study more on average? Further, if studying has a positive return in terms of LSAT score, wouldn't we expect accomodated testers to score at least slightly above average if their accomodation were to neutralize the effect of their disability?
Finally, if we raise the cost of applying for an accomodation further to stop fraud, we would expect the accomodated score to increase further(since only those disabled people with even more time, money, and determination would be able to go through the process and therefore would likely prepare better and score even higher on average) providing more "evidence" of fraud to justify our continued actions.
I'm not assuming that anyone is a saint. I'm assuming that the burden of proof rests on people who claim a system is being defrauded to provide proof of a substantial problem before asking to impose an ill defined, vague, and costly solution that will have the inevitable effect of denying underprivledged disabled people access to law school.
How about instead of raising the standard for proof of a disability, you pursue an alternative solution which doesn't have appaling distributional consequences? For example, you could go to your state bar and get them to announce that their policy is to disbar anyone discovered to lie in the admission's process including on an application for extra time on a standardized test. If you want, you could even ask them to invest money into these investigations/witch hunts. That would discourage cheating and wouldn't primarilly disadvantage poor disabled people. Alternatively, you could just study for the LSAT, confident that you can outcompete anyone on a level playing field and beat the tiny handful of people with such an enormous inferiority complex that they felt provoked to cheat on a standardized test which can be perfected through studying.
I think the comments regarding accommodations may be overlooking a lot of salient circumstances. Without the raw data on which to run statistical analysis, we have little reason to believe that score differences between the accommodated testing population, or any other testing population for that matter, is due to unfair advantage.
The influence of self-selected groups cannot be understated. An obvious example is Mylsn.info: the averages in their database are well above the national figures because the majority of people who use the tool and report their scores will be highly motivated, generally successful individuals.
When looking at students given accommodations, we have to consider that individuals who end up taking the LSAT with accommodations are an exclusive subset of people who could potentially take the LSAT with accommodations. The process for requesting accommodations is said to be long and effort-intensive. Such a barrier likely weeds out a large portion of the subset that isn't strongly intent on taking the LSAT/going to law school. One also has to consider that accommodation-warranting students are less likely than the general population to pursue graduate school in the first place; students who are good candidates for grad school in spite of their disabilities are going to be skewed slightly towards the higher end of aptitude.
I think a decent (albeit potentially controversial) comparison is that of first and second generation immigrant students. In particular, Asian-American students are stereotyped as being 'smart,' and many pools of data are congruent with that sentiment. Does that mean that Asians just have superior intellectual DNA? Of course not.
Because of barriers such as immigration laws and financial requirements, people who immigrate to the US often do not represent the population distribution of their homelands. They skew towards being wealthier and more educated since otherwise they may not have had the opportunity to emigrate. Consequently, only a select subgroup of individuals are reflected in data about the ethnicity as a whole.
Likewise, students who test with accommodations are a curated group of the greater accommodation-warranting population. Is it still possible that accommodated testers are scoring disproportionately higher than the skew of their self-selected populace would merit? Sure. But to jump to that conclusion without supporting data is unfounded and dangerous.
I would just say that there is a major difference between this and the voter fraud analogy: the payoff distributions are totally different. I can see why someone might be more incentivized to lie about accommodations, but I'm unsure why anyone would try to explain the rise in scores in terms of it. Given the way the test is, widespread fraud wouldn't effect the percentiles tied to each raw score.
Anyways, it would be difficult to study the fraud in this case, but I also think that there are antecedent reasons to believe that it isn't at all widespread. So even independent worries (independent of the rise in scores, that is) seem misplaced.--A.c.S
I know a number of folks like myself who weren't quite happy last cycle that decided to delay in order to retake once the rules were changed to allow for unlimited takes. My 176 is definitely a score that would not be in the applicant pool this cycle without that. My guess is that's a lot of it. Sorry! The other thing to keep in mind is that 175+ scores were way down last year. So a bit of that jump is just going to be self correction.
@margaretannefarrell995 said:
@leahbeuk911 said:
Ugh... knowing that I didn’t score my ultimate potential, feeling more and more like I might delay a cycle. :(
Yeah I'm delaying too :( I have a high GPA and low ish score so I decided to take it again in Feb and apply once the 2019 app opens next September. Which will be easy because I already compiled my entire application...
Now this is a good comment! So a plausible reason for the increase in scores at the beginning of this period very well might be because of people thinking like you. They all decided to hold off on applying until the very beginning of the next cycle when their opportunities for admittance/scholarship money would be at their highest. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers all shake out by the end of this cycle and if the increase holds or if it starts to taper off.
@zmeeker91389 said:
To start, we know from a 2012 LSAC report on accommodations that people with extra time accommodations tend to have higher scores than the rest of the population. In other words, extra time does appear to give even those with documented disabilities a quantifiable advantage over the normal testing population. This fact is also true for accommodated extra time repeat test takers, who also show higher increases than average test takers. Note this is for individuals who take the test twice, both times with extra time.
Let's take a look at that report
From that report:
Accommodated/Extra Time test takers tended to have slightly higher LSAT scores than the standard test-taking population, while Accommodated/Standard Time test takers tended to have lower LSAT scores than the standard test-taking population.
You are reading way too much into this sentence from the report. They tend to score slightly higher. This would make sense. Why would someone go through the trouble of requesting accommodations if they knew they were just going to score on the lower end even with more time. The larger the time accommodation's impact on your score the more likely you are to request and actually go through taking the test.
Also from that report:
Test takers who tested twice under Accommodated/Extra Time testing conditions exhibited slightly higher score gains on average than is typically observed for the standard test-taking population, while those who switched from standard to Accommodated/Extra Time testing conditions exhibited very high score gains on average.
Again, this would make sense if the population in question have the ability to be higher scorers as speculated above. Having extra time doesn't mean they are immune from first time nerves like everyone else. So if you take a population of people who have the ability to score higher than average and give them a second chance, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to have slightly higher gains than the average on a repeat take.
Wouldn't it also make sense that people who take studying for the lsat more seriously will also be more aware of accommodation opportunities and thus more likely to take advantage if they need them?
You are falling into a common logical trap, seeing a correlation and assuming causation because you can talk yourself into a believable scenario. That report itself even states it's not making any attempt to claim what you do. It is complete conjecture as are all my explanations above!
And again, from the report:
Note that the trends presented in this report are purely descriptive in nature. While trends with regard to the accommodated test-taking population have been described and compared to the standard test-taking population, the explanation of the underlying causes of any differences observed is beyond the scope of this report.
The point is there exist a lot of possible explanations for those numbers, so don't believe one just because that explanation gives you someone to blame other than yourself for your eventual outcomes in applying (which at this point in the cycle could still be really good!).
Link to the report for anyone else who wants to take a gander
LSAC Report
@leahbeuk911 said:
Ugh... knowing that I didn’t score my ultimate potential, feeling more and more like I might delay a cycle. :(
Yeah I'm delaying too :( I have a high GPA and low ish score so I decided to take it again in Feb and apply once the 2019 app opens next September. Which will be easy because I already compiled my entire application...
On the one hand, I'm not satisfied with the explanation that accommodations are significantly contributing to the 175-180 score range. We simply don't have the data to know whether or not this is true. However, I don't think think the analogy about voter fraud is appropriate considering we do have data that indicates there is a problem.
To start, we know from a 2012 LSAC report on accommodations that people with extra time accommodations tend to have higher scores than the rest of the population. In other words, extra time does appear to give even those with documented disabilities a quantifiable advantage over the normal testing population. This fact is also true for accommodated extra time repeat test takers, who also show higher increases than average test takers. Note this is for individuals who take the test twice, both times with extra time.
Common sense would also dictate that if the system worked correctly, accommodations would (a) only be given to individuals who needed them and (b) would produce average outcomes on a par with the general population. In other words, while a few people might do significantly better or might game the system, on average the outcomes should be the same between accommodated test takers and the general population. This isn't the case which points to a systematic problem in either the documentation process, the accommodations themselves, or the approval process. Assuming that accomodations are appropriate, that means either (a) people are being overdiagnosed, (b) people are gaming the system, (c) LSAC isn't doing their job in acting as gatekeepers, or (d) some combination of the three.
Finally, I don't see how it is conceivable that setting the bar lower for approving accommodations would make an already unjust process (at least from a distributive perspective) have more equitable outcomes. It seems more conceivable that lowering the bar would make it easier for people to game the system or would give a higher percentage of the population an advantage.
Let's be real here... People taking the LSAT are going to be lawyers. We treat this popualtion like saints, but people game systems all the time (lawyers included).
@merdjunk372 said:
@anonclsstudent104 said:
@merdjunk372 said:
@oberdysz231 said:
I'm not dissing on people with disabilities... only the ones who fake it. And anxiety can be very fake-able...don't you think. I'm 100% behind honest disability suffering testers to get accommodations.
Ooof, ok...Let's dive into this type of comment/argument with a timely analogy, sexual assault. One of the most common attacks on people claiming to have been assaulted is that it's so easy for anyone to just say they've been assaulted since in most instances is nigh impossible to prove one way or the other. Because of that those being accused have long used the defense, they are just faking it to attack me (this can be clearly seen in the Roy Moore scandal playing out right now). This has, unfortunately, proved quite a successful strategy leading to an environment where people don't come forward for fear of not being believed and opening themselves up to attack all over again.
In this instance, claiming that anxiety is something that is easily "fake-able" produces the potential for a similar environment. Creating a social stigma associated with anxiety accommodations means that people with legitimate disabilities might not seek them out for fear of being labeled a "faker" by an admissions committee (or by their friends/future classmates). This means that they are being punished for something they cannot control because some people might possibly abuse the only recourse they have to level the playing field.
You say you are 100% behind honest disability suffering testers getting accommodations, and yet you just made fun of a girl you've never met and assumed her faking her disability (or need for accommodation) because the one she claimed is potentially "fake-able". Don't you see how that's not ok and potentially damaging to everyone that shares that disability?
You didn't address the point -- that it's an easily fakable disability. You argued that that type of argument produces a social stigma, which may or may not be true, but isn't it possible that that argument is both valid AND produces a social stigma? I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's not as simple an issue as you seem to believe.
I would argue that it's not actually that fake able when diagnosed by a professional. Again, an anxiety disorder is not something people who don't suffer one can really understand well enough to fake (proven by the misconception that leads people to dismissing it as a real issue because they too get anxious about things in normal anxiety producing situations). The truth will out, as it were, but this doesn't matter.
As a medical professional, shit disturber, and devil's advocate, I'm not going to take a stance on the issue here, but I do understand both sides. One comment I will make though is that being diagnosed by a professional is not much of a hurdle to cross, especially when a high LSAT can be life changing. Over-diagnosis may be a real thing, just look at the autism case. There may be plenty of folks who are on prescribed stimulants or anti-anxiety meds when just a 10 min meditation would be just as beneficial. Not trying to bring up a big pharma debate, but knowing motives can be beneficial to understanding trends.
Also just because there are real folks with disabilities does not exclude the possibility of fakers. The questions that may be of benefit is how many fakers are there? Perhaps it's so small that it's irrelevant. It's not like these people take the test and then announce to the world that they didn't really have a disability. Trying to go after these people, in my opinion, is a futile endeavor. Your time will be better spent improving your own score.
THE BIGGER PICTURE:
Lets look to other countries that have similar trends in standardized tests. When so many people are brilliant, as in this case, eventually there is just less opportunity, even if you "Deserve" it. What do you do in that case? You go somewhere that has opportunity and openings. This is a problem with a rise in population plain and simple. Schools just have to increase class sizes or new schools will have to be created. Demand increases with relatively slow increase in supply probably means higher tuition costs.
I don't know the solution to this but I would bet that this trend is here to stay and will only get worse.