Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 11 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 2 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 276 Off-topic
Related Discussions
1 Like
LSAT day dreams
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5f0dd321222cec79e2240f6f65f81491?default=identicon&s=144)
[Deleted User]
Free Trial
I sometimes day dream of accidently getting the answer sheet on test day so I have all the answers.
This happened to me on my midterm exam once. The professor gave me the answer sheet on accident but of course he realized it before I could memorize any of the answers.
What is your LSAT fantasy/day dreams?
This happened to me on my midterm exam once. The professor gave me the answer sheet on accident but of course he realized it before I could memorize any of the answers.
What is your LSAT fantasy/day dreams?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e?default=identicon&s=144)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What I find extremely unfair is that they don't note if someone took it with learning disabilities. This is unfair to both law schools and students. Someone could take it with longer time and get a 178 and someone one else under normal time gets a 167. Obviously the chances of 178 getting in with more scholarship is higher. Schools wouldn't know who their admitting. They wouldn't know that 167 was acomplished under normal time and the 178 under extended time, which makes the 167 applicant more competitive but they won't ever know that.
That rule should be removed.
I mean a huge reason why so many people say to retake is because the amount of people who dont understand the test or how to know when they reached their potential is enormous! But people want to rush into LS bc they think they need to, the # of older people who go or # of people who dont go straight from UG, they're all underestimated by many when trying to justify a score wayyy below their potential.
eta: totally realized I read a lil too quickly #RCfail) and missed the disability part, tho above is still a bit relevant I think
IK this isnt the thread for this but figured id throw it out there... Topic related... waking up from an awesome sleep to look at my phone and see an email from LSAC with a 180 score
+1 @jdawg113 I want my score.
When we think about disability accommodations, we tend to think about it from our point of view. We think about it as "extra time" that an accommodated person gets that we, the "normal" test taker, doesn't. In reality, it's more akin to receiving a handicap in golf. They are getting the same amount of time that we, the "normal" test taker gets, but it's been adjusted to their needs not our own.
@blah170blah while LSAC is rigorous with the process of testing with accommodation, there are far too many wealthy students out there who will pay their way into bribing lsac and/or doctors to write them a diagnosis. This type of game with the system does not only happen with lsac but also other systems too such as PCAT or MCAT. I know of some people out there who scored high on one of those mentioned tests all thanks to their doctors who wrote a unnecessary diagnosis for them. They are the winners, and we and schools are victims of this bribery. So I'm glad that lsac is rigorous as they should be, but lets not forget lsac is not made up of robots, they are human being that are capable of being fooled by some students.
By flagging the disability sign on their scores, it will reduce such bribery because people are aware of the stigmas attached to disability.
I must say though, I hate the stigma attached to disability. While I was a TA I taught a bio chemistry class that was 75% disability students. I sometimes enjoyed grading them more than the non-disability people and found it easier to teach them because they were so excited to learn and so capable of doing better than non-disability students.
Not indicating to schools someone took it with extended time is just unblancing the scale even more.
though I can't say I agree. Yes LSAC is people and people are vulnerable but if it were that easy for the wealthy to bribe their way to extended time and disability treatment I have no doubt you would hear about it. Especially with everything that went on with the suits against LSAC about the disability treatment there is no way they could get away unnoticed doing such things. I think it is a hard argument to make for flagging without actually being in their shoes and experiencing how it is to truly need the extra time/treatment
For the rest of the people who sincerely work hard and request additional help to accommodate their physical and/or mental handicaps, having no notation means that they can be treated just like every other "normal" applicant. That, regardless of one's individual mental/physical situation, he/she overcame those barriers and succeeded on the LSAT. The fact that a few bad seeds are present doesn't necessarily mean that the entire fruit is bad. We do our best to get rid of the seeds and acknowledge that, though sometimes people who we don't want to benefit from such a system make it through, it more often benefits than not.
I argue that the LSAC's process of accommodating learning/physical disabilities is a necessary requirement in the same way people see affirmative action policies and social welfare programs as necessities. I choose to incorporate both AA and social welfare policies because a lot of people use the same line of argumentation to justify why we don't need such policies: namely, there are too many people gaming the system. The analogy that I want to present is this: race, poverty, and physical/mental handicaps are all characteristics that contribute to an individual's success that the individual has no control over (you could make an argument about poverty but typically the cycle of poverty is so devastating, it's hard to escape. I can provide necessary papers if you'd like).
Many of our social and academic institutions have invisible barriers that may seem uniform and nondiscriminatory but actually are not. In our case, we are all required to take the LSAT. For everyone, success on the test is determined by some number of hours of study and preexisting knowledge (e.g., knowledge of formal logic). At this point, disabled and non-disabled alike are in the same boat. You need to study to get a high score. Come test day, however, non-disabled and disabled students are not. The time constraints of the test unfairly penalize disabled students because their neurology necessitates longer processing time. The font size of the test unfairly penalizes students who are legally blind because they cannot see the test and therefore can't answer the questions pertinent to the test. These are some institutional disadvantages that adversely affect disabled students and say nothing about those students' potential. All LSAC does by providing for accommodations is placing disabled and non-disabled students in the same boat, starting at the same starting line.
I believe the practice of bringing all students to the same starting point doesn't require additional notation on a file. Conceding to your point that some students acquire accommodations when it's undeserved, I still hold that the practice helps more students than harms and as such should be upheld. The fact that you recognize there are stigmas associated with disabilities, so much so that it could serve as a disincentive for people who would otherwise cheat the system for personal gain, is exactly why LSAC should not note it.
But I do like to point out that if these people have problem with flagging their scores to indicate disability, are they not going to discuss their disability at all to the law schools? I think there is a question regarding disability on the application. If you are going to be discussing that on the application then I don't see why a big problem with score flagging. If there not going to discuss it on their application, then that just being dishonest.
Good luck to you all.
I hope to read other people's day dreams about lsat.
You mean their robbed of the opportunity to be dishonest? I don't consider that as being robbed , I consider that as taking precautions to make sure people are honest. After all, your going to law school where dishonesty is unethical.
Anyways I didn't mean for this topic to be discussed in great length because I really don't have time to address everybody. Let's all agree to disagree.
Personally, I think they do a great job in weeding out the the fakers. Possibly to the detriment of somebody who deserves extra time.
It's a tough hurdle to clear...as it should be. But there are cases where it is the obvious right thing to do. Let me ask you this: would you rather have a 167 with a strong mind and body or higher but be disabled?
That's and easy question answer in my opinion. I do not see a need for JY to diagram an explanation. You want higher than a 167 then go earn it. And be thankful they do not deduct for misusing their/there/they're.
My 2 cents. Although I believe your (see how bad that looks) busy talking to real lawyers.
1) There is no requirement that people with disabilities disclose this information to universities (or prospective employers, for that matter). How can applicants be "dishonest" about an issue if law schools do not even ask them about it?
2) In any event, what is the relevance of such a disclosure? After all, it is illegal for a university to discriminate against applicants with disabilities. The only reason to provide information in an application is to help the committee assess your viability as a candidate. By suggesting that people with disabilities proactively disclose this information, you are supporting the idea that disabilities should be a factor in adjudicating applications. You may believe this to be the case, but it is nevertheless illegal.
*NB that I'm referring to Canadian anti-discrimination laws - I assume things are similar in the U.S., but I'm not entirely sure.
This post is about lsat day dreams. I made one controversial comment and everyone is going off (even copying other lawyers arguments without making citations - idk what part of that is honest) and talking about Canadian laws when we are talking about US.
While you people are going off about disable people, you should understand others have feelings too (not just disabled people) and if your going to debate with them on a controversial topic, do it nicely. Getting angry is not going to get you through law school.
From what I can see, there was never any specific mention of the U.S. as the context for this discussion. We're an international group here at 7Sage, and I think we Canadians should be able to participate in these discussions freely and with reference to the context we know best. I welcome others to jump in with information about other countries and contexts!
Finally, I don't really think it's up to you to tell others to shut up, no matter how politely. Your comments clearly touched a nerve for some, and they've led to an interesting discussion. If you don't care to participate, you certainly don't have to.
You might want to brush up on the forum rules too:
http://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/discussion-forum-rules