Accommodation Nation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have no idea how this generation of kids will cope in jobs with deadlines and noise and without parents to run interference. But I guess the workforce will adapt. Maybe everyone will get a week and a soundproof pod to write an email.

I’m a high achiever with neurological, learning, and anxiety issues who received accommodations in high school, college, and law school. No issues at my big law job or in my federal clerkship. The only accommodation I need is flexible work scheduling to accommodate my many doctors appointments.

The time constraints associated with school assignments, exams, and standardized tests do not reflect the real world at all. Even litigation, which has strict, inflexible deadlines imposed by egotistical judges are more generous than what I typically get in school. In my seven years of practice, I have encountered only one assignment remotely equivalent to an exam, and it was a mediator who gave us a set of questions at the beginning of the day to which he wanted answers by the end of the day. I had time to do it myself but could have brought in others if I needed it.

In other words, you grew up high income. Do you lack the self-awareness to know that you likely took the place in your prestigious law school (or you would not have gotten a federal clerkship, since law is so hierarchical) of someone who does not need accommodations and/or did not grow up high-income? Your justification is that, hey, I can do the job so everything is cool; but I think the person whose place you took likely is/wouls have been a better lawyer.

Uh, the question is whether people who can get testing accommodations in school can function in the workplace. Evidently this poster can, despite accommodations.

Function or excel? Sorry, not everyone has a right to elite jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have no idea how this generation of kids will cope in jobs with deadlines and noise and without parents to run interference. But I guess the workforce will adapt. Maybe everyone will get a week and a soundproof pod to write an email.

I’m a high achiever with neurological, learning, and anxiety issues who received accommodations in high school, college, and law school. No issues at my big law job or in my federal clerkship. The only accommodation I need is flexible work scheduling to accommodate my many doctors appointments.

The time constraints associated with school assignments, exams, and standardized tests do not reflect the real world at all. Even litigation, which has strict, inflexible deadlines imposed by egotistical judges are more generous than what I typically get in school. In my seven years of practice, I have encountered only one assignment remotely equivalent to an exam, and it was a mediator who gave us a set of questions at the beginning of the day to which he wanted answers by the end of the day. I had time to do it myself but could have brought in others if I needed it.

In other words, you grew up high income. Do you lack the self-awareness to know that you likely took the place in your prestigious law school (or you would not have gotten a federal clerkship, since law is so hierarchical) of someone who does not need accommodations and/or did not grow up high-income? Your justification is that, hey, I can do the job so everything is cool; but I think the person whose place you took likely is/wouls have been a better lawyer.

p

Wow. I grew up middle class attending Philadelphia parochial schools. I was diagnosed with epilepsy and an autoimmune disease at age six that wreaked havoc on my life. The meds damaged my brain because slowing synapse firing prevents seizures but also dramatically reduces processing speed. I was able to get on a better medication regimen in middle school, which allowed me to perform at a high level in high school. I got a full ride to my elite LAC that gives out a select few scholarships to local kids. I then turned down HYS for law school for a full merit ride at a “lower” T14. I graduated with honors, got a federal clerkship, and worked in big law.

I have been absolutely blessed with many opportunities, and much of my success is attributed to luck. But my disability is NOT an advantage (much less one obtained by being “rich”). My body is utterly broken. I actually feel lucky I have epilepsy, which most people consider a “real” disability, because it insulates me from so much of the hate disabled people get.

I appreciate your honesty. But would you have gotten into big law and a prestigious law school without your disability, or not? I am not being facetious; untimed LSATs are huge, huge, huge — even more so than untimed SATs. What were your LSATs? Only you know the newer to this; it might require soul-searching.

I have no idea. I don’t know the counterfactual. I never practiced the LSAT under my time constraints. I had a 3.73 and a 170 and got a full ride to a T14 plus multiple large merit scholarships to other schools, including University of Chicago. I was not rejected anywhere. In other words, I vastly outperformed my numbers regardless. And before anyone drops the racism assumption, I’m lily white. I have a very, very unique story, an interesting background, great letters of recommendation, etc.

But I hope those who don’t need accommodations are soul searching and asking if they’re only getting into these top schools because they were lucky enough not be ruined by a disability that unfairly prejudices them in multiple areas of life.

[Anonymous]

I saw this article and wanted to post, but saw it was already here. It’s getting crazy. I’d rather a 3.3 student as an employee vs. a 3.8 student with accommodations. How is over 20% of the student population disabled at some of the best schools in the country? Puts a mockery of the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have no idea how this generation of kids will cope in jobs with deadlines and noise and without parents to run interference. But I guess the workforce will adapt. Maybe everyone will get a week and a soundproof pod to write an email.

I’m a high achiever with neurological, learning, and anxiety issues who received accommodations in high school, college, and law school. No issues at my big law job or in my federal clerkship. The only accommodation I need is flexible work scheduling to accommodate my many doctors appointments.

The time constraints associated with school assignments, exams, and standardized tests do not reflect the real world at all. Even litigation, which has strict, inflexible deadlines imposed by egotistical judges are more generous than what I typically get in school. In my seven years of practice, I have encountered only one assignment remotely equivalent to an exam, and it was a mediator who gave us a set of questions at the beginning of the day to which he wanted answers by the end of the day. I had time to do it myself but could have brought in others if I needed it.

In other words, you grew up high income. Do you lack the self-awareness to know that you likely took the place in your prestigious law school (or you would not have gotten a federal clerkship, since law is so hierarchical) of someone who does not need accommodations and/or did not grow up high-income? Your justification is that, hey, I can do the job so everything is cool; but I think the person whose place you took likely is/wouls have been a better lawyer.

p

Wow. I grew up middle class attending Philadelphia parochial schools. I was diagnosed with epilepsy and an autoimmune disease at age six that wreaked havoc on my life. The meds damaged my brain because slowing synapse firing prevents seizures but also dramatically reduces processing speed. I was able to get on a better medication regimen in middle school, which allowed me to perform at a high level in high school. I got a full ride to my elite LAC that gives out a select few scholarships to local kids. I then turned down HYS for law school for a full merit ride at a “lower” T14. I graduated with honors, got a federal clerkship, and worked in big law.

I have been absolutely blessed with many opportunities, and much of my success is attributed to luck. But my disability is NOT an advantage (much less one obtained by being “rich”). My body is utterly broken. I actually feel lucky I have epilepsy, which most people consider a “real” disability, because it insulates me from so much of the hate disabled people get.

I appreciate your honesty. But would you have gotten into big law and a prestigious law school without your disability, or not? I am not being facetious; untimed LSATs are huge, huge, huge — even more so than untimed SATs. What were your LSATs? Only you know the newer to this; it might require soul-searching.

I have no idea. I don’t know the counterfactual. I never practiced the LSAT under my time constraints. I had a 3.73 and a 170 and got a full ride to a T14 plus multiple large merit scholarships to other schools, including University of Chicago. I was not rejected anywhere. In other words, I vastly outperformed my numbers regardless. And before anyone drops the racism assumption, I’m lily white. I have a very, very unique story, an interesting background, great letters of recommendation, etc.

But I hope those who don’t need accommodations are soul searching and asking if they’re only getting into these top schools because they were lucky enough not be ruined by a disability that unfairly prejudices them in multiple areas of life.

OK, so you don’t know if the disability got you into big law. It might very well have. All I’m saying. By the way, I really appreciate your honesty and do not mean to imply you are “lucky” to have your disability. Sounds like you would have been successful no matter what - big law or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article and wanted to post, but saw it was already here. It’s getting crazy. I’d rather a 3.3 student as an employee vs. a 3.8 student with accommodations. How is over 20% of the student population disabled at some of the best schools in the country? Puts a mockery of the system.

Congratulations on your prejudice! I'm sure your children would be very proud to hear what you think, and that your philosophy of disparaging people with disabilities is one that Hitler shared. Plenty of students and adults lead healthy productive lives with accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't have a grasp on the material, then no amount of extra time is going to change that . . . but be angry about extra time if it makes you feel better.

Wrong. Extra time students often get to come back to finish. That extra time in between testing gives them time to look up answers.

That is far less common. Most are 50% extra. 100% is next most common. Both of those are typically in one sitting. Splitting over multiple sessions, much less common.

Not in college because exams are 2-3 hours long. So they are generally split into 2 days.

Um, no, that is not how this works.
-university professor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article and wanted to post, but saw it was already here. It’s getting crazy. I’d rather a 3.3 student as an employee vs. a 3.8 student with accommodations. How is over 20% of the student population disabled at some of the best schools in the country? Puts a mockery of the system.

+1

The percentages at ivies were surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Accomodation Nation" article in the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/01/elite-university-student-accommodation/684946/

There's a paywall, but the main context is in the quotes below. Bottom line: a lot of UMC and wealthy families are misusing the testing accommodations process.

DCUMers rail on TO ( and ascribe it to URMs) but avoid this topic.

I wonder why?


"Accommodations in higher education were supposed to help disabled Americans enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else. No one should be kept from taking a class, for example, because they are physically unable to enter the building where it’s taught. Over the past decade and a half, however, the share of students at selective universities who qualify for accommodations—often, extra time on tests—has grown at a breathtaking pace…”

“The change has occurred disproportionately at the most prestigious and expensive institutions. At Brown and Harvard, more than 20 percent of undergraduates are registered as disabled. At Amherst, that figure is 34 percent.”

Said a professor at a selective university: “You hear ‘students with disabilities’ and it’s not kids in wheelchairs. It’s just not. It’s rich kids getting extra time on tests.”

Ok

[Anonymous]

what I wonder now is why if normal are having trouble finishing on time, we can't just have tests that aren't timed, you just mitigate access to outside material/Internet/etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have no idea how this generation of kids will cope in jobs with deadlines and noise and without parents to run interference. But I guess the workforce will adapt. Maybe everyone will get a week and a soundproof pod to write an email.

I’m a high achiever with neurological, learning, and anxiety issues who received accommodations in high school, college, and law school. No issues at my big law job or in my federal clerkship. The only accommodation I need is flexible work scheduling to accommodate my many doctors appointments.

The time constraints associated with school assignments, exams, and standardized tests do not reflect the real world at all. Even litigation, which has strict, inflexible deadlines imposed by egotistical judges are more generous than what I typically get in school. In my seven years of practice, I have encountered only one assignment remotely equivalent to an exam, and it was a mediator who gave us a set of questions at the beginning of the day to which he wanted answers by the end of the day. I had time to do it myself but could have brought in others if I needed it.

In other words, you grew up high income. Do you lack the self-awareness to know that you likely took the place in your prestigious law school (or you would not have gotten a federal clerkship, since law is so hierarchical) of someone who does not need accommodations and/or did not grow up high-income? Your justification is that, hey, I can do the job so everything is cool; but I think the person whose place you took likely is/wouls have been a better lawyer.

p

Wow. I grew up middle class attending Philadelphia parochial schools. I was diagnosed with epilepsy and an autoimmune disease at age six that wreaked havoc on my life. The meds damaged my brain because slowing synapse firing prevents seizures but also dramatically reduces processing speed. I was able to get on a better medication regimen in middle school, which allowed me to perform at a high level in high school. I got a full ride to my elite LAC that gives out a select few scholarships to local kids. I then turned down HYS for law school for a full merit ride at a “lower” T14. I graduated with honors, got a federal clerkship, and worked in big law.

I have been absolutely blessed with many opportunities, and much of my success is attributed to luck. But my disability is NOT an advantage (much less one obtained by being “rich”). My body is utterly broken. I actually feel lucky I have epilepsy, which most people consider a “real” disability, because it insulates me from so much of the hate disabled people get.

I appreciate your honesty. But would you have gotten into big law and a prestigious law school without your disability, or not? I am not being facetious; untimed LSATs are huge, huge, huge — even more so than untimed SATs. What were your LSATs? Only you know the newer to this; it might require soul-searching.

I have no idea. I don’t know the counterfactual. I never practiced the LSAT under my time constraints. I had a 3.73 and a 170 and got a full ride to a T14 plus multiple large merit scholarships to other schools, including University of Chicago. I was not rejected anywhere. In other words, I vastly outperformed my numbers regardless. And before anyone drops the racism assumption, I’m lily white. I have a very, very unique story, an interesting background, great letters of recommendation, etc.

But I hope those who don’t need accommodations are soul searching and asking if they’re only getting into these top schools because they were lucky enough not be ruined by a disability that unfairly prejudices them in multiple areas of life.

OK, so you don’t know if the disability got you into big law. It might very well have. All I’m saying. By the way, I really appreciate your honesty and do not mean to imply you are “lucky” to have your disability. Sounds like you would have been successful no matter what - big law or not.

Nobody knows what got them any job or admission? Unless they’re privy to files.

One thing I’ll add, since it really sucks to have your capabilities doubted like this simply because you hav seizures, is that I made it onto law review with zero accommodations. My grades weren’t high enough to “grade on,” so I was invited solely on the basis of my performance on a two-week writing competition. My note was also selected for publication (one of my 5-10 in my class) despite not being accommodated.

I’d really think hard about the assumptions you make about disabled people and the harm those assumptions can cause others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't have a grasp on the material, then no amount of extra time is going to change that . . . but be angry about extra time if it makes you feel better.

Wrong. Extra time students often get to come back to finish. That extra time in between testing gives them time to look up answers.

That is far less common. Most are 50% extra. 100% is next most common. Both of those are typically in one sitting. Splitting over multiple sessions, much less common.

Eh. So give them the test in two parts so they don't have the opportunity to cheat like you assume they will.

Solutions should be up to the colleges. If not requiring a single sitting (which our HS does require), it does make sense to have a test part 1 and part 2 given on separate days. Or colleges could make exams 3 hours for time and a half kids and 2 hours for no accommodations. This is similar to what our high school has done - made it so extra time kids can finish during allotted class time and non accommodated kids have to finish earlier. I have one of each type of kid and neither has issues with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article and wanted to post, but saw it was already here. It’s getting crazy. I’d rather a 3.3 student as an employee vs. a 3.8 student with accommodations. How is over 20% of the student population disabled at some of the best schools in the country? Puts a mockery of the system.

Congratulations on your prejudice! I'm sure your children would be very proud to hear what you think, and that your philosophy of disparaging people with disabilities is one that Hitler shared. Plenty of students and adults lead healthy productive lives with accommodations.

I actually have ADHD and had to learn to cope with it in academia and the workplace. That meant struggling a lot in college and sometimes getting poor grades.

Sure the ADA exists for employers, but ask for accommodations for neurodiversity and you will definitely be on the layoff list within the first few rounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have no idea how this generation of kids will cope in jobs with deadlines and noise and without parents to run interference. But I guess the workforce will adapt. Maybe everyone will get a week and a soundproof pod to write an email.

I’m a high achiever with neurological, learning, and anxiety issues who received accommodations in high school, college, and law school. No issues at my big law job or in my federal clerkship. The only accommodation I need is flexible work scheduling to accommodate my many doctors appointments.

The time constraints associated with school assignments, exams, and standardized tests do not reflect the real world at all. Even litigation, which has strict, inflexible deadlines imposed by egotistical judges are more generous than what I typically get in school. In my seven years of practice, I have encountered only one assignment remotely equivalent to an exam, and it was a mediator who gave us a set of questions at the beginning of the day to which he wanted answers by the end of the day. I had time to do it myself but could have brought in others if I needed it.

In other words, you grew up high income. Do you lack the self-awareness to know that you likely took the place in your prestigious law school (or you would not have gotten a federal clerkship, since law is so hierarchical) of someone who does not need accommodations and/or did not grow up high-income? Your justification is that, hey, I can do the job so everything is cool; but I think the person whose place you took likely is/wouls have been a better lawyer.

p

Wow. I grew up middle class attending Philadelphia parochial schools. I was diagnosed with epilepsy and an autoimmune disease at age six that wreaked havoc on my life. The meds damaged my brain because slowing synapse firing prevents seizures but also dramatically reduces processing speed. I was able to get on a better medication regimen in middle school, which allowed me to perform at a high level in high school. I got a full ride to my elite LAC that gives out a select few scholarships to local kids. I then turned down HYS for law school for a full merit ride at a “lower” T14. I graduated with honors, got a federal clerkship, and worked in big law.

I have been absolutely blessed with many opportunities, and much of my success is attributed to luck. But my disability is NOT an advantage (much less one obtained by being “rich”). My body is utterly broken. I actually feel lucky I have epilepsy, which most people consider a “real” disability, because it insulates me from so much of the hate disabled people get.

I appreciate your honesty. But would you have gotten into big law and a prestigious law school without your disability, or not? I am not being facetious; untimed LSATs are huge, huge, huge — even more so than untimed SATs. What were your LSATs? Only you know the newer to this; it might require soul-searching.

I have no idea. I don’t know the counterfactual. I never practiced the LSAT under my time constraints. I had a 3.73 and a 170 and got a full ride to a T14 plus multiple large merit scholarships to other schools, including University of Chicago. I was not rejected anywhere. In other words, I vastly outperformed my numbers regardless. And before anyone drops the racism assumption, I’m lily white. I have a very, very unique story, an interesting background, great letters of recommendation, etc.

But I hope those who don’t need accommodations are soul searching and asking if they’re only getting into these top schools because they were lucky enough not be ruined by a disability that unfairly prejudices them in multiple areas of life.

OK, so you don’t know if the disability got you into big law. It might very well have. All I’m saying. By the way, I really appreciate your honesty and do not mean to imply you are “lucky” to have your disability. Sounds like you would have been successful no matter what - big law or not.

I should be clear that part of the problem is big law and their only hiring from “top” law schools to begin with, many of which have 80% graduating with “honors” and many of which do not do give class rank. The top 5% at almost any law school is better than the bottom 25% at a T14 — maybe more like the bottom 50%. Big law is partly responsible for the abuse of accommodations both in law school and law school admissions….kids do whatever they need to in order to enter a ridiculously hierarchical profession…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is, as anyone who has looked into this well knows, anyone can get these extra time accommodations. They are for sale.

Yep.

Hence why they are primarily found among the rich and UMC.

Right. It couldn’t possibly be that it costs us $4000-$6000 in tests every 4 years that insurance doesn’t cover. When DC was first diagnosed (at age 5, we are confident they weren’t faking), one of the teachers asked us — specifically prefacing the conversation that she was asking “as a parent” — where we did the testing and how much it cost, and she visibly blanched when we told her. Her son (a classmate of DC) absolutely had something undiagnosed, but she could not afford that testing.

You can go through public schools, but the waiting time is a year and a half.

I absolutely recognize our privilege in being able to afford the testing for DC, and the resultant years of private school (we had intended to go public, but Ffx Co doesn’t handle 2e students well — they can support (ish) OR challenge, but not both).

The fact that there are more diagnoses among UMC/UC families is because we can afford testing — real testing, not paying for a fake label for extra time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't have a grasp on the material, then no amount of extra time is going to change that . . . but be angry about extra time if it makes you feel better.

Wrong. Extra time students often get to come back to finish. That extra time in between testing gives them time to look up answers.

That is far less common. Most are 50% extra. 100% is next most common. Both of those are typically in one sitting. Splitting over multiple sessions, much less common.

Not in college because exams are 2-3 hours long. So they are generally split into 2 days.

Um, no, that is not how this works.
-university professor

It is at the school where I teach.