"JY got me into law School" T-Shirts incoming

7sage should merch up

@ Thanks for the input, as someone with a pretty mashed up foot, thats all very interesting to hear!

@ said:

@ no, that makes sense. I was thinking about hiring in terms of you hiring someone for a law firm or something, not being a defendant/plaintiff. I would want to hire a more efficient person, too. I guess I just took what you said personally because I have a close friend who has dyslexia and an auditory processing disorder. As a kid, her parents were told that she would never be able to have a mainstream education or hold down a real job. She recently graduated with her Masters from Penn and just opened up her third successful business. So you can never really know what people are capable of without giving them a level playing field. Personally, I have a motor disorder that I chose to not ask for accommodations for. I would really only need an extra 2ish minutes per section to feel like I was given an equal chance, and that's not an option for LSAT accommodations. I would never get approved for 50% extra time for it, because it's clear I don't need that much. But it really does suck that I'm getting minutes cut off of my time because I randomly physically cannot write, and the only options LSAC offers are 50% and 100% extra time. But I'm sure that some people get approved for 50% extra time and really only need 25%, giving them an unfair disadvantage. Until the LSAC gets its shit together, this is only going to keep happening.

I'm honestly really sympathetic. I'm very happy for your friend, and I'm sure you're gonna kill the LSAT. I totally want a level playing field for you and your friend, I think the biggest issue comes from the fact that a timed test is just a terrible way to actually explore a persons potential in the legal field, for 16 different reasons, this being one of them. I take more issue with LSAC avoiding the issue at hand by offering accommodations, instead of offering a test that is actually able to account for the fact that people think in different ways, and that their test essentially bars people from the legal field who don't fit into that narrow stream of what they're testing. I feel that time accommodations (in certain cases) are a band-aid solution that let them avoid the legal responsibilities they have to people with documented disabilities, while still administering their lazy crock of shit test that they've been administering for decades.

My goal isn't to attack people who don't fit into that narrow stream, but rather to point out the current method of testing/accommodating is somewhat arbitrary.

It's a topic I haven't thought about or written about to a huge degree, and I see my points are kind of scattershot, but I actually learn best when discussing with other people, so thanks for hearing me out. I have a better idea of what it is with the current system that bothers me because of this thread. Sorry if I caused any offense, and I appreciate that you spoke up for your friend and other like her who deserve a fair shot.

@ said:

@ to clarify (because I'm really not trying to be an asshole), what I meant was that saying that you wouldn't hire someone who has a disability is bullying. Also, I do believe that the LSAC is a huge part of the problem here because the only options for extended time are +50% and +100%. Why not 25%, 5 minutes per section, etc?

I don't want to be an asshole either, I wrote that in the middle of something else and should have expanded a bit farther.

I don't want to suggest i would avoid choosing someone because of a disability. There are some really high-functioning people out there, and I have no problem hiring any kind of person who can do the job effectively. But If I'm looking to hire someone, and I have a choice between someone who can do the job in an hour, and someone who needs an hour and 15 minutes to do the same quality work, and I'm paying by the hour, of course I'm going to prefer hiring the person who can do the job in an hour. I'm skeptical the LSAT translates to actual work, however, so it's probably not a fair comparison. LSAC might feel otherwise, however.

@ What do you see as a fair basis for granting extra time? If its something related to a physical need, say shaking hands requiring more time to fill the bubbles, that makes sense (even though i feel like there can be better ways to accommodate those people. Someone to assist them?)

I just feel that time is so deeply ingrained in what the LSAT is trying to test.

it seems we have two options. First, the time restriction is a valid part of lawyerly requirements, and therefore should stand as a requirement to be met, such as a male or female firefighter having to meet the same requirements for physical strength - because its a part of the job and a needed skill - regardless of whether a disability impacts that. If the timed requirement is in fact needed, it shouldn't matter the reason for why you're unable to meet that requirement. It's a requirement.

To put it bluntly:

"The proper purpose of accommodation is to facilitate participation, not to compensate for lack of ability that the test is about. Students who claim extra time for mental disabilities are already able to participate within the normally allotted period. They simply wish to increase their prospects for success at the expense of their peers."

A Canadian law professor wrote that

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-mental-disabilities-shouldnt-be-accommodated-with-extra-time-on-exams

I think the LSAT is a crock of crap, to be fair, and I don't think the first option is the case. I think it's an arbitrary barrier. But if it really is a good indicator of a prospects potential to do well, I don't see why it shouldn't be applied evenly, except in cases where the accommodation is actually to facilitate participation, as said above.

I'd like to hear your response though, LSATdream, I'm open to hearing where I'm wrong

I agree with the above. I think this discussion is actually a starting point for conversations about how the LSAT is unfair not just in this way, but in general. Like I said, I'm not trying to be a bully, but I think that when this aspect of the test gets questioned, it really demonstrates why the test is flawed.

Why should the legal profession be inaccessible to people with ADHD, for example? I don't think it should be - I think we should have a test that lets them really demonstrate their abilities so we can get a real look at what they have to offer. What separates people with ADHD from someone who just needs a bit extra time to process the information, but doesn't have a diagnosed condition which can explain the extra need for processing time? Is that person just stupid, and therefore shouldn't get in? I don't think so either, I know quite a few really intelligent, thoughtful people who can contribute to the legal system, who just aren't tuned to crank out stupid irrelevant logic games in 5-10 minutes. And that doesn't even touch on the class or wealth barriers.

Like it says in the study above, we should be testing people on their abilities. I don't see the timed element of the LSAT as actually testing the abilities of a potential lawyer. I think it's a money making scheme, to be honest, but that's just a suspicion.

Having said all that, we're all in the same boat with this test as it stands, and I think attention should be paid to the issues I just mentioned. Saying "I got my accommodation, everyone else can just lump it, the system worked out fine for me" actually sounds somewhat privileged, ironically.

Thanks for the thoughtful contributions.

Well, you're arguing the legal reality and not the principle at that point. I'm obviously not going to get myself involved in a stupid lawsuit.

And I agree, we should probably just get rid of the time requirement. I don't think it's helpful in determining who can do the job effectively and who can't.

I don't see why this thread should be closed. Talking about tough ideas and principles dispassionately is a big part of the legal profession. Sorry you feel that way though

I'm not trying to be a bully about it, I don't like the LSAT any more than you do. And if it's a physical impairment that need accommodation, like someone with tremors for example, I think that's fine to accommodate.

Lawyering is a mental profession. If we accept that the LSAT structure is testing relevant skills, and one of those skills are time management, then it doesn't make sense to change that requirement for a small subset of testtakers with a mental disability. I understand some of those people really want to be lawyers, and it's very unfortunate that this arbitrary barrier stands in their way. But it's in everyone's way, and I don't see it as fair that a core element of the test have it's difficulty removed.

I also don't use the IQ comparison to be insulting, but it's also very unfortunate that people born with something they can't control (low IQ) disqualifies them from the legal profession. If anything, the comparison shows how the time factor is actually a flawed aspect of the LSAT. If you just remove or greatly expand the time given, everyone wins.

If extended time were offered to everyone who needed it, would you consider that fair? Presumably the barrier you're trying to address is something related to the ability to learn, process and apply knowledge on a short timespan. If we just remove time, that puts everyone on an even playing field, right? Or would those people need more accomodations- a playing field which always tilts in their favour based on their diagnoses?

@ said:

@ there is literally nothing you could say to convince me that everyone needs to test under the same conditions-- even time conditions. It doesn't even work that way in the real world. People can get disability accommodations in law school, and they can take extra time to get their work done irl. So... I'm not even going to argue this any further. I would just say to imagine that you had a learning disability that resulted in you reading slower. This was not a choice that you made; you have always had this obstacle. Wouldn't you think that you were inherently disadvantaged if you had to test in the same amount of time as most people do?

I really want to be a pro boxer, but I'm handicapped (this is true, it's not for the sake of argument). Should I get an extra 30 seconds to hit my opponent after the bell? I only want a level playing field?

If I'm a lawyer, I don't want to hire someone for my firm who takes and extra 15 minutes on every hour to get the same job done as anyone else.

Why don't we offer these accommodations for people with lower IQ? They could probably be great lawyers if we level the playing field for them by giving then extra time on everything they do

Also, it's just specifically time accommodations which I think are problematic.

I can explain my reasoning a bit more if you like, I think it's a pretty strong argument. I don't want to upset anyone or derail the thread though.

"they've consistently given the exact same LSAT to accommodated people even 6-7 days later, which is what was expected to occur here."

Accommodations for time on a test which is fundamentally about time management is unfair to begin with. I didn't know this is the case. Crazy. At least they fixed this aspect of it... kind of.

I've never heard anything good about Kaplan, I have heard it called Craplan at least 5 times from people who have used it. So I'd say it's not the best bet

Work in sequence

Do the latest ones you can get your hands on, they ramp up in difficulty and have a slightly different feel.

I also vote Mission Admission

I've heard prep tests in that area are a bit different from others (this is second hand knowledge I've gleaned from the forums, don't know specifics). So you're not alone at least.

I don't think it's anxiety, you sound like you've come a really long way and I think that should do more for your confidence than a couple of off tests.

I always just try in have faith in my skill set. Brought me this far, and if I go down, I go down swinging. Keep the faith, do your best. A few days off probably isn't the worst thing in the world, come back with a fresh attitude and kill it.

Is it true that bird law in this country isn't governed by reason?

I know diet advice sounds like something that someone with zero experience with depression would advocate for, but I've heard some pretty amazing benefits.

Take it with a grain of salt, but who knows. Before you totally write it off, that girl has an auto-immune disorder triggered by certain foods (carbs, mostly), manifesting as arthritis and depression. The arthritis was serious enough to require hip and ankle replacements by about age 20, so it was a physical and mental thing. Cutting down to a meat and greens diet cured them both. Couldn't hurt trying. You can google her name for more info if you're interested.

This thread be like

"Hey, why don't we go to the ball game this weekend, that could be fun. Do you have any pros or cons about why we should do this?"

"Not everyone has the money to do that, so how can you even ask that question?"

@ said:

I don’t think anyone is scoffing at the idea of taking time off, but rather at OP’s seeming inability to understand why everyone doesn’t take the time off. As I’ve said, if you have savings or parents to pay for your time off, that is absolutely fantastic!! But that can’t be a consideration for everyone, which is why I’m confused about the purpose of the thread. I just don’t even know what it’s accomplishing.

He's obviously not implying you should starve to death or be evicted if you don't have the needed funds. It also doesn't help answer the obvious point of the thread, which actually is relevant to my interests, which is "What are some of the benefits, and some of the downfalls, if you do in fact have this opportunity?" I see plenty of people who have this opportunity who don't even consider taking it. Maybe it's worth putting the idea in their mind, presenting them with another option? He even did some math to explain why it may be beneficial.

@ said:

This post just feels like conservatives yelling at poor people to just save money. In the US we don’t get free healthcare or education so idk why anyone would assume that the average person can just quit their job to study...on a basis of a possible way far future financial gain.

Doesn't sound like he's making that assumption at all. He's asking why people who have that chance may not. It's literally in the first sentence of his post. And within three posts, we had people playing class warfare. Doesn't sound like conservatives saying anything, but it's telling that that is where you take it.

Shout out to people getting offended by a legitimate strategy to do better, cash in those economic victimhood points on an anonymous forum

I got a little bit lucky, and was able to take the summer off. Took some planning. I took a summer course to qualify for government loans as a part of it, giving me a bit more freedom for a small return of time with one course. It's obviously not an option for everyone, but if it is something you can work out, I'd recommend it.

Sounds like you need to train for endurance and focus. Set time limits for goals, ie, 2 straight hours no distractions. It's like cardio, ya gotta build it up.

When I make a silly mistake, I just make certain that I really DO understand the principle at play. If you find you consistently understand the principles, then you're probably just going too fast. Walk before you can run! You need to take more time to properly understand the question. As you improve, you'll be able to get through the questions faster, without making those mistakes. But you need to slow down first.

It could also be an attitude thing. Every question is a threat. Treat them with the respect they deserve. Don't assume any question is a gimme. Be very careful, and build up your ability to maintain a high level of focus for the duration of the test, on every single question.

Don't lose faith in your ability to answer the question. Just realize that this is related to your attitude/strategy, and those are very malleable. You got this