Accommodation Nation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

You know some of the most gifted litigators in the world have dyslexia and learning disabilities, right? Take a look at David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser.

They don’t get extra time from the courts based on their dyslexia….

They've both admitted to being slower readers and writers. That doesn't mean they can't make court deadlines, which are virtually always set with plenty of lead time, and at a minimum a day of lead time.

Nothing like timed tests in school...

So you're for getting rid of all timed tests, correct? Just across the board because they are so useless.

I'm not a fan of them, personally. I never said they need to be gotten rid of. I'm saying people who need extended time can be really successful in high-stress careers.

As a teacher, I don’t think some of you understand how many of my students would quite literally never complete an assignment if there wasn’t a deadline attached to it. And frankly I think the shorter deadlines are going them a favor. Just do it and be done. The kids with extra time drag it out a lot more and seem to stress more.

No one said no deadlines! No speeded test where it's designed to be a race. Give them a day or two days. Take home. Whatever.

And this is why a scary number of high schoolers don’t know what 6x9 is off the top of their head. Or can’t add 112+209 without a piece of paper.

Glad you brought this up. This discussion claiming that tests measuring recall and speed are totally irrelevant is absolutely reflective of the horrible pedagogical trend that posits that memorizing is bad and that kids don’t need to learn the fundamentals any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter has dysautonomia. She needs extra time on her exams so she can stand up and pump blood from her feet to her head (and not pass out from sitting in one position for too long). Unless you looked at her purple feet and her deadpan stare, she looks absolutely "normal". I am not wealthy at all. In fact, we spent tens of thousands of dollars when she was a teenager in search of a diagnosis. I'm sure she would happily pay not to have this disability.

She needs extra time to..stand up? C’mon. Teachers provide plenty of time for the average student to complete the exam with some time spare- or to stand up at intervals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience coming from a top private is that the top kids don't have academic accommodations unless they are legit and have been in place since elementary school for things like dyslexia or severe ADHD. The ones beneath the top20% scramble to get accommodations in place for anxiety in 10th/11th grade. However, by-in-large this doesn't work to catapult them into the top20s and they end up at colleges ranked above below the top20. And then their parents scramble to get accommodations in place in college--both for the classroom and for housing. A number of these parents I know contacted housing to get their kids private rooms, center-of-campus dorms, etc.

Meanwhile the kids aren't confident and they become increasingly anxious. Because all this hand holding and heavy-intervening by their parents doesn't go missed by the kids themselves. It tells them VERY loud and clearly: "We don't believe in you. You're not competent. We have to step in and help you. You're not like your peers. You have problems" Most suffer from imposter syndrome and their anxiety increases.

So really, it's not great. Stay in your own lane and don't look at these families or kids. It's not worth stressing over because it's nothing to envy.

as a professional who works with kids, i disagree completely with the second part of this. mental health issues and loss of confidence and negative self concept come when kids are not diagnosed and are being told they're not trying and it's their fault.

Agree with you 100% when the problems are legit. But the entire point is that the "anxiety" diagnosis is used by the parents to get extra time.
Because they believe that if the kid is not at the top of the class then there must be a diagnosis. Or because the kid's abilities do not align with the parent's aspirations for them. If these kids have debilitating anxiety to the degree that they can't take an exam beginning in 10th grade it's by-in-large because their parents made them anxious.

And invariably these kids don’t actually get treated in line with such purportedly severe anxiety requires. If they are not taking an SSRI and doing CBT/ACT then the parents are really just faking it essentially. Because if you have resources and your kid has a legit mental health issue it is pretty easy to research and find the gold star treatments, which are much better established and effective for anxiety than almost anything else in the DSM. And spoiler, none of these treatments involves giving a pass so a kid doesn’t have to face something anxiety provoking like a timed test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

You know some of the most gifted litigators in the world have dyslexia and learning disabilities, right? Take a look at David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser.

They don’t get extra time from the courts based on their dyslexia….

They've both admitted to being slower readers and writers. That doesn't mean they can't make court deadlines, which are virtually always set with plenty of lead time, and at a minimum a day of lead time.

Nothing like timed tests in school...

So you're for getting rid of all timed tests, correct? Just across the board because they are so useless.

I'm not a fan of them, personally. I never said they need to be gotten rid of. I'm saying people who need extended time can be really successful in high-stress careers.

As a teacher, I don’t think some of you understand how many of my students would quite literally never complete an assignment if there wasn’t a deadline attached to it. And frankly I think the shorter deadlines are going them a favor. Just do it and be done. The kids with extra time drag it out a lot more and seem to stress more.

No one said no deadlines! No speeded test where it's designed to be a race. Give them a day or two days. Take home. Whatever.

And this is why a scary number of high schoolers don’t know what 6x9 is off the top of their head. Or can’t add 112+209 without a piece of paper.

Glad you brought this up. This discussion claiming that tests measuring recall and speed are totally irrelevant is absolutely reflective of the horrible pedagogical trend that posits that memorizing is bad and that kids don’t need to learn the fundamentals any more.

Worst generations to be hiring right now. Seriously, they are either incompetent or want a ton of time off and “mental health” days for even low stress jobs. They just can’t deal with any difficulty whatsoever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I explained I'm fine with doing away with them, as I've explained! But that's not the purpose of the discussion, and I'm not taking a position on whether they should be done away with. The discussion is whether kids getting accommodations on tests that exist to day can be successful in high-pressure work places. They can be.
I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

I'm fine doing away with speeded tests. I've said that earlier. I'm not taking a position on whether timed tests should be done away with because that's not the purpose of this discussion. This discussion is about whether students who are receiving accommodations on timed exams as they currently exist can be successful in stressful, elite work environments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

Great. Then their grades should reflect that they are slower than average on some skills but higher than average on others

Not sure why there is this continued denial that what times tests measure (processing speed) has nothing at all to do with skills and intelligence.

When did I ever say that? Others on the thread have explained that processing speed is a component, but a relatively modest component, of FSIQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

I'm fine doing away with speeded tests. I've said that earlier. I'm not taking a position on whether timed tests should be done away with because that's not the purpose of this discussion. This discussion is about whether students who are receiving accommodations on timed exams as they currently exist can be successful in stressful, elite work environments.

There is no way that you were ever hired by Big Law with these writing skills. Also, you are hilarious if you think BigLaw deadlines have a several day lead in. I can't tell you how many last minute all nighters I pulled. I generally didn't even know what I had to do that day until around 5pm as the deadlines came late and hard. You are not qualified to give advice.

[Anonymous]

How is a Biglaw attorney posting on DCUM all day long? Don't you bill in 6 minute intervals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is a Biglaw attorney posting on DCUM all day long? Don't you bill in 6 minute intervals?

Hit billable target for the year and don't have anything pressing. Just showing up to dumb meetings. How are you posting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

I'm fine doing away with speeded tests. I've said that earlier. I'm not taking a position on whether timed tests should be done away with because that's not the purpose of this discussion. This discussion is about whether students who are receiving accommodations on timed exams as they currently exist can be successful in stressful, elite work environments.

And who says they can? It's been said they will wash out if they can't. Because you haven't washed out you are the proof? How does anyone know you are actually in a stressful elite work environment, because you say so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

I'm fine doing away with speeded tests. I've said that earlier. I'm not taking a position on whether timed tests should be done away with because that's not the purpose of this discussion. This discussion is about whether students who are receiving accommodations on timed exams as they currently exist can be successful in stressful, elite work environments.

There is no way that you were ever hired by Big Law with these writing skills. Also, you are hilarious if you think BigLaw deadlines have a several day lead in. I can't tell you how many last minute all nighters I pulled. I generally didn't even know what I had to do that day until around 5pm as the deadlines came late and hard. You are not qualified to give advice.

If you're pulling an all nighter to meet a deadline, it's not like a timed exam..................

And don't worry, I was on law review (made it via blind reviewed writing competition only), published my note reviewed blind (one of 10ish at my T14), got honors in legal writing (top 3 in the class), did a federal clerkship, have worked at two biglaw firms, and am a senior associate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

I'm fine doing away with speeded tests. I've said that earlier. I'm not taking a position on whether timed tests should be done away with because that's not the purpose of this discussion. This discussion is about whether students who are receiving accommodations on timed exams as they currently exist can be successful in stressful, elite work environments.

And who says they can? It's been said they will wash out if they can't. Because you haven't washed out you are the proof? How does anyone know you are actually in a stressful elite work environment, because you say so?

You're not forced to believe me, but I'm not outing myself more than already have (if you're in my pretty niche field, you could probably deduce who I am, especially since I do disability advocacy in the ABA). Continue to believe whatever you want, but I'm just sharing my experience of being a disabled person with testing accommodations in biglaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work as an attorney and it’s shocking (and getting worse every year) how many new employees come in that don’t seem to understand that when I say I need something by noon on Thursday, that isn’t a guideline or a suggestion or a wish. I’m sure I’m not very popular with the young ones. They either figure it out after the first couple assignments or they find other employment.

I’m an attorney too and I’m seeing younger employees come in with that mindset too. Constant requests for time off, constant sick days, not planning ahead, not taking initiative, disregarding instructions. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic, the economy, accommodations, helicopter parenting, or some combination of everything.

More attorneys sharing parenting responsibilities across gender lines, worse childcare options, and fewer people thinking their employers will love them back for making their entire life work.

In the law firm world, the client does not care about those things. Especially not at the rates we charge. If that’s not for you, totally understand. But if you want big law pay, you’ll have to get up to speed or be pushed out. When we tell a client we will get them something by a deadline, we do it barring truly extenuating circumstances. And if you are a litigator, the deadlines are truly firm and imposed by the court/the statute.

I say this as an attorney (one of maybe the majority of this board), but maybe you should staff cases/deals better? Your employees are human beings with human needs. And they have legal entitlement to things like paid sick leave, parental leave, FMLA, etc. You need to structure your staffing to be able to accommodate these inevitabilities, especially when so many firms makes (bullshit) promises about supporting working parents and valuing employee health and wellbeing.

Being a big law attorney is a demanding job. It’s not the kind of job for someone who needs a soft workplace. If we have a filing deadline, we have to get it done whether your kid is sick or not. And no we don’t just keep extra staff on hand just in case. If you let a senior attorney down enough times they will stop bringing work to you. Again, it’s not for everyone.

Exactly. Nobody who has ever had to have extra time to accomplish tasks is cut out for big law. Acknowledge the disability and that it isn't compatible with all jobs. Or just teach the kids how to handle their time and cut out the disability completely.

Extended time big law senior associate checking in! We do fine!

And I’m sure you accept that sometimes you have to work nights and weekends and that’s just how it goes.

I sure do! Working late and longer than most people is how I'm successful in biglaw. That has nothing to do with whether I'm unable to do my job because I got extended time on exams in school.

I completely agree and would have no trouble with someone like this at our firm who met deadlines. We were objecting to a poster who said they “never” in their entire career had to meet timed deadlines.

I don't think they said they never had to meet timed deadlines. I think they said they didn't have deadlines that were short that it approximated a timed test. Virtually all substantive assignments, in my experience, have multi-day lead time.

There are very, very few areas of the law where you can just hole up and write a brief for days with no interaction. Eventually there are questions and matters you need to be able to handle quickly. Even appellate lawyers need to think quickly at oral argument (which is basically a test).

Holing up and writing a brief for multiple days isn’t remotely what I described. Oral arguments aren’t like timed exams, but also most lawyers suck at them, including big law partners. And people don’t just need extended time for slow processing speed. Dyslexics like David Boies and Elizabeth Cabraser excel at oral argument, which doesn’t involve reading for them, but are slow readers and writers.

For a lawyer, you're pretty weak at making convincing arguments. You've given no reason for timed tests and have argued why they don't relate to the real world, but also can't articulate why we still need them, just that we shouldn't do away with them. Why?

I'm fine doing away with speeded tests. I've said that earlier. I'm not taking a position on whether timed tests should be done away with because that's not the purpose of this discussion. This discussion is about whether students who are receiving accommodations on timed exams as they currently exist can be successful in stressful, elite work environments.

There is no way that you were ever hired by Big Law with these writing skills. Also, you are hilarious if you think BigLaw deadlines have a several day lead in. I can't tell you how many last minute all nighters I pulled. I generally didn't even know what I had to do that day until around 5pm as the deadlines came late and hard. You are not qualified to give advice.

If you're pulling an all nighter to meet a deadline, it's not like a timed exam..................

And don't worry, I was on law review (made it via blind reviewed writing competition only), published my note reviewed blind (one of 10ish at my T14), got honors in legal writing (top 3 in the class), did a federal clerkship, have worked at two biglaw firms, and am a senior associate.

If I'm told at 5pm that I need to write a 10 page brief by morning, it very much is like a timed exam. This happened many times. Litigation. If we found something, we weren't waiting to file. We would jump. Higher than we thought possible. Several times, I would actually have to be in NYC by morning also in order to have my own eyes on the final product being filed. This is why clients paid so much.