Increase in 160s-170+ scorers! (2017-2018)

Sufficient Gumption

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?

NotMyName

@"Sufficient Gumption" 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.

goingfor99th

@zmeeker91 said:
@Mitchell-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?

...

Jndw4242

@zmeeker91 said:
@Mitchell-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://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2345/should-the-lsac-be-allowed-to-disclose-to-law-schools-extra-time-given-for-disabilities

Mitchell-1

@zmeeker91 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

westcoastbestcoast

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.

Seeking Perfection

@zmeeker91 said:
@Mitchell-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.

goingfor99th

@"Seeking Perfection" said:

@zmeeker91 said:
@Mitchell-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.

inactive

Thread is way off topic and is going down a path I really don't like. Locking this.