Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
The Tuesday July 24th, 2018 Accommodated Test was NOT the Feb 14 LSAT!
Powerscore reports
" Getting early reports that accommodated test takers yesterday did NOT receive the same test as those who took the regular administration on Monday the 23rd. So they didn't see those two tough games, or that comp passage on sports, or any of the other stand-out elements...and thus had no advantage by prepping for the Feb 14 exam. This is a first for LSAC in several years: they've consistently given the exact same LSAT to accommodated people even 6-7 days later, which is what was expected to occur here. My guess is that since this is a nondisclosed test anyway offering different test forms on different days was more acceptable than it would be otherwise, since no one was going to get a copy (giving a disclosed test on the regular day and a nondisclosed for accommodations would be problematic, so they've avoided creating that discrepancy, but here it's a non-issue).
So the upside for Monday's folks: these people couldn't game the system by reviewing the 7/23 test info (and if anything were likely distracted/confused by doing so).
The downside is that the accommodated test yesterday was, by all reports, a friendlier test than Feb 14...the scale will be adjusted accordingly, but yesterday's exam presented none of the oddities that Monday's did. That perhaps feels more fair than offering the same, well-understood test, but it's hardly a perfectly-level playing field."
For those who took the Tuesday with accommodations, is this true?
https://old.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/91vutt/the_tuesday_july_24th_2018_accommodated_test_was/
Admin note: added link
Comments
I'm confused by this. Why would people with accommodations get a different test if they tested on the same day?
I wasn't aware that they got a different day.
If they end up curving accommodated test takers independently, I think that'll be controversial.
edit: turns out they've done this before. Not sure how they end up curving it though.
Hey @Mosquickb, Can you post a link to the article if you are quoting from it? Thanks!
@akistotle I'll link the reddit post from Powerscore.
https://old.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/91vutt/the_tuesday_july_24th_2018_accommodated_test_was/
@10000019 They've done it in the past but now those with accommodations get different test than each other opposed to where it was that they had different tests than those without accommodations. Unless, I'm wrong about this
Where in that post does it suggest that within the group of accommodated test takers there were different exams?
All I gathered was accommodated and non-accommodated got different exams.
Accommodated have recently been given the same test. Those with accommodations who took the test Monday got the Feb 14 while those who took it yesterday got an international test.
Thanks @Mosquickb!
"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.
@lemmegetuhhhh well there are accommodations that have nothing to do with the amount of time someone takes to complete a test, such as books with larger print, being able to have access to food/water outside of the standard break, and testing in a smaller group room. Also, I think it's pretty unfair of you to judge someone's situation without knowing what is happening. How could you expect someone with dyslexia to work as efficiently through logic games as you do? How could you expect someone with a motor deficit affecting his/her hand to write as quickly as you can? I'm not trying to come off as rude, but you should really think about making judgments like that before saying them on a public forum. It could be really hurtful to someone who needs accommodations, and could possibly discourage someone from asking for them.
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.
Also, it's just specifically time accommodations which I think are problematic.
@lemmegetuhhhh 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
you were inherently disadvantaged if you had to test in the same amount of time as most people do?
My feelings are somewhere between @lemmegetuhhhh and yours. The fact that, on average, accommodated extra-time test takers significantly outperform non-accommodated test takers makes me think that the system needs to be tweaked.
i always thought accommodated test takers took the same test on the same day, at the same time, except was just put in different rooms at the test center. i was chatting with a proctor once and she told me she was still supervising an accommodated exam with visually impaired takers, even though i had gotten out already.
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?
@lemmegetuhhhh well you can choose to not hire someone with a disability and then be involved in an ADA-related lawsuit. So I hope you never choose to do that. But if you hire someone who needs extra time to write a bulletproof contract or change a law, I don't see the problem. Personally, I would rather someone stay in the office an hour or two after everyone leaves than hire someone who wasn't as good.
And to answer your question, I think it's totally fair to offer extended time to everyone who truly needs it. To say otherwise comes from a place of privilege. I'm going to stop talking about this, in hopes that you will, too. Considering how this discussion has shifted from the original topic, I personally feel like this thread should be closed. It is no longer benefitting anyone. You can always share your opinions privately with people who agree with you. Btw, it absolutely is bullying people who are reading this and do need accommodations.
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
But they don’t significantly. LSAT has a study that shows that retakers that first took without accommodations and retook with them only score 2 points higher on average.. this is the same for all retakers and within their original score band.
"retakers that first took without accommodations and retook with them only score 2 points higher on average"
I think 2 points is a big deal, but anyways I think you mixed up that number with a different group.
On page 20 (https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/research-(lsac-resources)/tr-17-03.pdf)
That wasn't what I was referring to in my original post though. I find it odd that accommodated extra-time score so much higher. This is what I was thinking of:
https://image.ibb.co/gLMWoo/Image_Statistics.png
Since J12 the highest that the non-accommodated group has scored is ≈ 52th percentile. Compared to ≈ 70th percentile for the extra-time group.
While I understand why this is a sensitive topic, empirically, lemegetuhhhh is 100% correct. Time-based accommodations for the LSAT are loony. For those who care about dispassionate, rational arguments, please read this study:
https://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/lawreview/article/view/102/102
In short: The idea that the ability to do the LSAT quickly is important is dubious, but the entire test is based on that premise. Insofar as it is important in predicting success in law school (the LSAT's entire claim to fame, dubious as that may be), it does not matter one whittle the reason why a person needs more time.
To clarify further: I personally think the LSAT is a bunch of bunk (the correlation factor to success in law school is laughable -- show the numbers to any scientist, and see if he can keep a straight face) but if we accept that the test is a good predictor of law school success, surely speed has a lot to do with that.
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.
I'm very sorry that @lemmegetuhhh was accused of bullying for simply bringing up solid arguments that he backed up with solid proofs. What a world we live in that almost everything has become a trigger phrase, and one is unable to argue different views, dispassionately and respectfully. Being exposed to views that one considers unorthodox and thus makes one uncomfortable used to be the hallmark of a university education -- its crowning glory actually, and the entire justification for tenure protection of professors -- but now . . .
I think that this has the ability to significantly impact the legitimacy and value placed on the LSAT. For comparison, look at the chart of test takers from J07-F12. This seems to be more what we would want to see.
I believe that people who need accommodations for standardized testing, even extra time, should be able to get them. But when it leads to results such as an average score of 7.57 points higher for accommodated vs. non-accommodated, something should be re-evaluated. Those without disabilities threatening lawsuits and claiming violations of ADA undermines the legitimacy of those who need protection. I see this consistently with service animals. I have a physical disability and have a mobility service dog. My dog has been attacked by another person's two "service dogs". I also get comments such as "I wish I could take my dog everywhere" or "I should get my dog a vest" or "I should get a service dog" and it's beyond frustrating.
To be protected under ADA one must have a SUBSTANTIAL impairment that SIGNIFICANTLY limits or restricts a major life activity such as hearing, seeing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, learning or working. People take advantage of the system and it delegitimizes the system.
@OlamHafuch 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?
@LivingThatLSATdream 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 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.
@lemmegetuhhhh 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 advantage. Until the LSAC gets its shit together, this is only going to keep happening.
They have other accommodations for those with something such as "shaky hands", I think its the options to not use a scantron. Not sure if they just get to circle the actual test and not bubble or if it's something else entirely. As for extra time for a physically disability, unrelated to any cognitive disability, I only really know what's related to my disability although I'm sure there are others I haven't thought about. Sitting or standing for over 30 minutes causes significant pain in my hip and lower abdomen. It also causes my knee and ankle to swell in one of my legs. There is an accommodation called "stop the clock", which essentially means you can take a break at any point to stand up or stretch and the proctor will pause the timer and restart whenever you are ready. One minute, for each stop, is then added to your testing time to account for the disruption in the test. I suppose a person could stop the clock after every question and then get an extra 23-27 minutes for each section.... I never really thought of it that way before. But, the thought of proctors timing starts and stops and being unsure about what time I had left and my brain "entering/leaving" the test seemed to be too much of an ambiguity for me to account for in my studies. This could also be an accommodation for someone who needs to pee frequently, if they had an IV pumping fluids into their system, like an antibiotic. Personally, I found the "stop the clock" accommodation to not be something I would want to use.
Instead, I was approved for the use of an orthopedic seating pad which I currently use at work. I was also approved for 5 minute breaks between each section to stand and alleviate some pain by walking around and stretching. I also do this at work. Which by your argument would make me less productive...theoretically what takes someone an hour to do could take me an hour and 5 or 10 minutes because I get up to walk or to apply ice/heat. It's something that I will continue to deal with in law school and in my career.
I could participate in the exam without this accommodation, in fact I did take it already without accommodations. I thought that my score would be flagged and I had read how "impossible" it was to receive accommodations so I didn't consider requesting it. (I didn't really look into it much) However, I requested it for the upcoming September test. Those breaks will definitely decrease my pain and in turn hopefully increase my success, but I don't think at the expense of my peers.
I think the article that @OlamHafuch brought up is a great read. https://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/lawreview/article/view/102/102
As I mentioned, I'm not going to make an argument one way or the other in a general sense of who should or shouldn't get extra time. I don't think it's a black and white issue. But I hope the LSAC gets back to a point in which the average scores of accommodated and non-accommodated are relatively equal as it seemed to be between 2007 and 2012. That to me, seems like a good, although not perfect way to believe accommodations were being approved for appropriate needs. Maybe I'm completely wrong in that way of thinking though, cause LSAC did get sued during this time period. The whole law school admissions game is ridiculous.... any one know if its like this for medical schools? What's the process for accommodations for the MCAT?
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.
@LivingThatLSATdream Thanks for the input, as someone with a pretty mashed up foot, thats all very interesting to hear!
@LivingThatLSATdream I totally agree with you when you essentially said that you can be just as efficient as a lawyer. You can easily stand up while having a discussion at work/with a client. That doesn't make your time less valuable at all. And like I mentioned earlier, I'd rather hire a better lawyer with a disability than a subpar lawyer who doesn't have a disability. And we didn't even touch on temporary disabilities and their necessary accommodations. Like I had to delay my test from February to September because I had a serious concussion. If I had to have tested in February, because somehow it was my last chance for an admissions cycle or something, I sure as hell would've submitted documentation for my post-concussion syndrome. I couldn't even focus my eyes for 35 minutes without getting extreme nausea and pain!
@lemmegetuhhhh I think that we really are on the same page for the most part. (This is why online conversations are the worst haha.) The LSAC has a lot of work to do, and I don't think that the LSAT is the best way to measure one's ability to succeed in law school. For the MCAT, you actually have to take a test on math and science concepts. For the GMAT, you get tested on basic math and comprehension skills. I have been told that it is no harder than the SAT/ACT. But for some reason, the LSAT asks us to complete double-layered sequencing games with subcategories and find out if mannequin 1 is wearing a red or yellow skirt with its red tie. Ridiculous.
I was not really trying to get involved here but I wanted to throw in my two cents. I am personally someone who was medically diagnosed with ADD. No, not like I just say I have ADD because I tap my foot... like actually went through testing and have ADD. I just took July. I have NO accommodations and I took NO medicine for this exam (I was prescribed Ritalin in the past). I took it just as anyone here would have taken it.
With that being said, let me quickly defend extended time. The point of the LSAT is to measure your ability to make inferences. It is too look at a set of data, analyze it, and draw conclusions from it. The reason behind this is that these are the skills necessary to be a great lawyer. For someone with ADD and more effectively, dyslexia, this test under standard time does not do a good job at measuring this ability. I will give in instance of a learning disorder that may deserve extra time, dyslexia. For dyslexia, logic games are a nightmare. You have various variables that all look a like that come together in repetition. Someone with dyslexia might be very good at making inferences, understanding variables and how they react to each other but terrible at logic games as the variables run together. Of course, when one is a lawyer one isn't dealing with random variables, you are dealing with facts of cases. As a lawyer, you have to examine whether something is taxable for instance. Is it a gift? A tip? What cases would tell us? If it is not a tip what category do we put it in? Someone with dyslexia may be fantastic at performing under this scenario but awful at completing the exact same inferences on the LSAT logic game section with variables. As such, to accurately measure their ability to make inferences in the law, extended time is applicable.
From a very young age I chose not to pursue accommodations. I took the ACT in regular time, every college exam in regular time, and the LSAT in regular time. That was my decision for my reasons. However, I do not view people with accommodations as people who are trying to cheat the system or gain and advantage. For them, the LSAT does not do a great job of accurately measuring the potential they have for being a lawyer. Extra time is, in my opinion, justified.
On a completely different point, I actually think the LSAT generally does a better job at actually testing skills necessary for law than the GMAT does. A lot of people can memorize tort law. For law school, you need to know how to think. The process is more important than crystalized knowledge. Obviously that LSAT is not perfect. The fact that missing one question changes your score drastically is annoying lol.
I think it’s very strange that it was mentioned that when you’re a lawyer you won’t get “extra time.” As long as the work gets finished by the due date, it does not matter. [Usually] attorneys are not being micromanaged. It’s just get X ready for review/filing by Y date. You’re not necessarily being checked on every hour to confirm that the amount of work you’ve done is comparable to a coworkers. Maybe in some circumstances it could lead to a coworker getting a raise over you or something if your billables seem way high for the amount of work you’ve done. If clients pay on a contingency then the hours worked per case likely aren’t being tracked at all.
I think the time comment is just based on a lack of understanding of what an attorney job actually is. I don’t see how attorney work compares to fire fighters or boxers or anything like that. You don’t have to be a super fast reader, physically-abled, or even super intelligent to just get a job as an attorney. There are probably some traits that might prevent you from excelling and being the best attorney ever, but just being an attorney at a lot of firms can be a lot of just filling in the blanks on pleading templates. Or just a lot of client interaction while your paralegal does the bulk of the writing. It’s not necessarily this high level thinking creative theoretical job (at every firm in every field).
I do think it is odd if the norm is to score 7.5 points higher accommodated, but I’m not sure that enough people get accommodations for it to really be a detriment to non-accommodated test takers?
Either way, you do get “extra time” in real life as an attorney, just as you do as a paralegal. It’s not a typical 9-5 job. Some/a lot of people work until 8pm and then go home and work some more. Nobody assumes that those people have a disability, and maybe some of them do, doesn’t matter.
TL;dr — wtf does working over time at an exempt salary job matter if you get your work done by the due date
I never really gave this issue much thought. I want to thank those who stated their position. I think this is one of those occasions on the internet where as an onlooker, disagreement amongst others lead to me coming away from this conversation more informed about the issue than before. It was stated earlier that a segment of this conversation should be conducted in private and confined to those that a priori agree with that segment's precepts. I'm glad that this did not occur because what was hashed out here (or started being hashed out) actually taught me (someone not informed on the issue) something. In principle, the position that difficult or complex topics should be closed or closeted often deprives people who don't know much about an issue a chance to learn from the dialogue.
This is literally an argument out of "On Liberty"
David
The views expressed above are my own and are limited in their application to me.
So I'm going to limit my discussion to the prized Big Law 1st Year Associate. Yes I know that is a very small portion of legal jobs, but I'm more concerned about where the graduates of top law schools go.
Say you need to hit 2000 billable hours. It takes the average associate, who faces zero distractions, 2746 hours to hit that.
Those numbers are based on this post: https://law.yale.edu/student-life/career-development/students/career-guides-advice/truth-about-billable-hour
That is a ton of work. Now imagine if you need 50% or 100% extra time to complete that work. Is that feasible?
It's fair to say that they probably don't need all that extra time to complete their work. In that case, I wonder do they need all that time to complete their exams during law school? Of course they aren't the same task and can't be scaled linearly.
PS
I have no idea how the ADA comes into play. I'm sure firms are willing to work with associates that have disabilities.
I think you hit the mark clearly when you stated they can't be scaled linearly. A person may need 50% or 100% (for simplicity) more time to read and fully understand a brief/case/document due to their disability. So while someone without a cognitive disorder could read this main document, a majority of which their work will focus on for that week or month, in a hour, a person with a cognitive disorder may need 1.5, and then maybe they need to reference it more times or make additional notes, or charts or create some other system that works for them. But then once that time and a half or double time is completed, they are able to do the work just as quickly and efficiently as someone without any disability.
This is a simplistic idea and one that not every person would fall within. You can understand though that it wouldn't be the case someone that who needs extra time would need extra time on all aspects of their work. The difference between this and the LSAT is that the LSAT forces you to read and comprehend new information with every passage/stimuli. This isn't a requirement of every attorney.
It may very well be true that someone who needs extra time would not make a good attorney whose job entails multiple new cases daily and must be prepared for each of them that same day. As someone with a disability, I look for careers, jobs, and activities I can excel at despite my disability. There are many different types of work an attorney can do. People with disabilities have to consider their goals and ambitions in regards to their limitations. We aren't trying to set ourselves up for failure.
EDIT: I just re-read that your statement is in regards to law school exams and not the LSAT. I don't know much about the way in which those exams are laid out. But I imagine that the concept is similar in the sense that the way they test won't be similar to how your actual job will be.