Accommodation Nation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t “gaming” and “abusing” the system.

They can afford the testing.

Most people have no insurance or bad insurance. Most of the people who do these assessments without a 12 month wait list don’t take insurance at all.

So the people who get tested are people who can pay $4,000 out of pocket to get an evaluation.

The answer isn’t a class war, it’s a health care issue. Fix our healthcare system.

Cheaper and easier is to just scrap timed tests.

That’s a start. But there are other needs too.

My kid with a near genius IQ, ADHD and Autism needs seating and noise support too.

I’m so happy he can get it. I remember as a kid once, the teacher made me feel like a horrible person for discreetly telling her that I was distracted by the girl sitting at my table who was an unusually loud breather. Poor girl surely had her own health issues too, but it was big distraction to an 8 year old with undiagnosed ADHD. I was told to be nice.

[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:

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.

Yes, this is a realistic situation. But you have *checks notes* 16 hours to write that brief. That’s a stressful assignment, absolutely. But that’s not the 45 min, 90 min, or 4 hour exam time limit. It’s more akin to a 24 hour take home, where you don’t get extended time as an accommodation. This is my point.

Briefs don't just get written like an essay. You must set many internal deadlines in order to get a brief written. Do you actually have any idea how law works? First I would arrange my info, then create an outline, then internal deadlines for each section that I would send in chunks to be reviewed, then time for checking all the citations, then creating appendices and getting things into the proper format. Then review. Then sit and wait for client comments. Then probably 20 minutes to incorporate any changes. It isn't a single 16 hour assignment. It is about 30 30 minute assignments that need to be done in a row. Please do not send anyone to help who needed extra time.

Be sure to let your colleagues know you refuse to participate in any joint defense group with David Boies.

Why do you keep bringing up Boies? He didn’t get extra time on tests, yet he succeeded anyway.

“Boies learned to compensate for his disability by developing outstanding powers of concentration and a keen memory.”

“The way Boies processes written information is by first skimming a text to pick out the salient points. Then, by slowing down and focusing exclusively on these, he is able to analyze them critically and grasp the essence of the text. It is this unique ability that enables Boies to handle the large volume of reading required for his work, and that helped him excel in college and law school, despite his poor performance on timed tests.”

https://dyslexia.yale.edu/story/david-boies/

Because he's almost universally recognized as one of the best litigators of the modern day, he struggled in school, and continues to struggle to read quickly to this day. The ADA and IDEA didn't exist when he was a kid because he's too old. He has obvious deficits and extraordinary strengths. You think people who need accommodations (for which he would have qualified had been born a few decades later) would mean he couldn't possibly be a great lawyer.

Feel free to check out younger folks on the success stories page who were identified at earlier ages.

Yet he didn’t need extra time to succeed. You are no Boies.

I never said I was David Boies? You're just being an a**hole.

If David Boies got accommodations (to which he would be entitled) would you refuse to work with him? There are plenty of successful doctors, lawyers, and business executives with disabilities that impose real deficits. As the ADA and IDEA get older, more have received accommodations and special education services. If they are competent professionals, they are competent professionals.

So your shining example is a man who overcame his disability to get where he is and now you want him to be the posterboy for people who need accommodations? Something he didn’t use or need to get where he is?

No need to repeat myself, but I'll do it again. He's an example of a person with serious deficits in particular areas, including in the present (he can't read notes passed to him in hearings with fluency), who manages to be one of the greatest litigators of all time. He's too old to have gotten accommodations in school but would've gotten them today. Had he gotten accommodations, he should not be looked down upon a lesser lawyer.

There are other litigators of a younger generation who have been getting accommodations from a young age because of the ADA and IDEA. Lawyers with the same brilliance at Boies. They should not be discounted because they have deficits in a particular area when they can have compensatory levels of brilliance that make them uniquely outstanding.

+1 I don't know why there are people on this thread who are incapable of understanding that brains that work differently can also have success, even if accomodations are needed. I also don't understand why there appears to be a lawyer on this thread who thinks all jobs are exactly like his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly I think the assumptions people make is based on how some families try to get an anxiety or other such designation to confer an advantage to their kid. In some higher level STEM classes, all kids are struggling to work against the clock. It can be annoying to see a classmate get time and a half when it then blows the curve for the whole class. In so many of these classes, the curve is the difference between a C+ and and an A- which is why perceived “unfairness” is a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a kid with LDs, this thread surely did not disappoint. Same old tropes about kids that need extra time. For what it is worth, my kid is at an excellent public college. She gets extra time on tests but not assignments and that works out just fine for her. She is dyslexic and dysgraphic, so her extra time is used making sure she actually understands what she read in the questions and that her answers (which are harder to formulate because of dysgraphia) make sense, not for whatever magic thing you all think extra time is getting her. And she's not getting a 4.0 so your lucky neurotypical kids should not feel threatened.

Those worried about careers for kids that used extra time should know they largely self-select out of inappropriate careers because the demands are too taxing with their disabilities. I've already seen it in my kid. It's kind of sad, but it does not make sense to kill yourself trying to get a career that will also be a huge drain on your capacity for years to come. She chose something that fit with her strengths (like I hope most kids, with or without disabilities do).

I do not at all feel like my kid is "cheating." She has worked twice as hard as most kids since elementary school (well, before but she was not formally diagnosed then). She went through. years of speech therapy, occupational therapy, educational therapy, Orton-Gillingham tutoring, vision therapy, etc. while other kids were having fun playing sports or socializing. It was isolating and exhausting and took its toll own her confidence. It is still embarrassing (and a pain in the neck) to have to go to the disability center for tests. It can be stressful when professors fight you or forget to send over the test to the center, etc.

Do you see the cost of that extra half time for testing? Trust me, it's not worth it and she is not getting some great advantage considering the "cost."

Np here and I don’t begrudge your daughter her accomodations at all! I do think (and I think many pps have made this point) it’s not fair to other kids who also need accommodations that some kids are able to work around them to some extent bc their parents have the time (and often money) to pursue accomodations but most kids are go need them do not have that type of p at went.

Therefore either the tests should be changed or anyone should be able yo opt into time and a half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a kid with LDs, this thread surely did not disappoint. Same old tropes about kids that need extra time. For what it is worth, my kid is at an excellent public college. She gets extra time on tests but not assignments and that works out just fine for her. She is dyslexic and dysgraphic, so her extra time is used making sure she actually understands what she read in the questions and that her answers (which are harder to formulate because of dysgraphia) make sense, not for whatever magic thing you all think extra time is getting her. And she's not getting a 4.0 so your lucky neurotypical kids should not feel threatened.

Those worried about careers for kids that used extra time should know they largely self-select out of inappropriate careers because the demands are too taxing with their disabilities. I've already seen it in my kid. It's kind of sad, but it does not make sense to kill yourself trying to get a career that will also be a huge drain on your capacity for years to come. She chose something that fit with her strengths (like I hope most kids, with or without disabilities do).

I do not at all feel like my kid is "cheating." She has worked twice as hard as most kids since elementary school (well, before but she was not formally diagnosed then). She went through. years of speech therapy, occupational therapy, educational therapy, Orton-Gillingham tutoring, vision therapy, etc. while other kids were having fun playing sports or socializing. It was isolating and exhausting and took its toll own her confidence. It is still embarrassing (and a pain in the neck) to have to go to the disability center for tests. It can be stressful when professors fight you or forget to send over the test to the center, etc.

Do you see the cost of that extra half time for testing? Trust me, it's not worth it and she is not getting some great advantage considering the "cost."

Np here and I don’t begrudge your daughter her accomodations at all! I do think (and I think many pps have made this point) it’s not fair to other kids who also need accommodations that some kids are able to work around them to some extent bc their parents have the time (and often money) to pursue accomodations but most kids are go need them do not have that type of p at went.

Therefore either the tests should be changed or anyone should be able yo opt into time and a half.

I'm the parent you quote. I agree it is unfair. Arguably, the elementary schools should pick up LDs like dyslexia (although they generally won't call it that). In theory, testing form the school is free. In reality, they bend over backward to find that your child does not qualify for an IEP (but they tend to be freer with 504 accommodations). I was brushed off for about three years and discouraged from asking for testing (I was totally gaslit by the school district). I finally paid for private testing because I was just not sure. I then could take that testing to the school and advocate for my daughter. She got na IEP, which was never respected. The only way her reading improved was through the outside tutoring we paid for (one year, we stopped to give her a break and all of her academic progress stopped-- the IEP was literally doing nothing for her). My point is that it looks like testing is available to everyone in public school, but it's not the reality because IEPs are expensive so the schools play all kinds of games. Thee kids with disabilities that succeed have parents who can advocate well and afford outside intervention.

The answer isn't just giving everyone unlimited time or eliminating tests. That doesn't help the kids with LDs. The answer is fixing our public schools so EVERY kid is screened for dyslexia and other LDs early (like K or 1st grade) and providing evidence based interventions to help remediate those kids so they don't necessarily need extra time later (although they may still). Give EVERY kid a chance to be identified, not just the ones with wealthy and/or persistent parents.

[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:

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.

Yes, this is a realistic situation. But you have *checks notes* 16 hours to write that brief. That’s a stressful assignment, absolutely. But that’s not the 45 min, 90 min, or 4 hour exam time limit. It’s more akin to a 24 hour take home, where you don’t get extended time as an accommodation. This is my point.

DP but how are you actually this dumb? It’s mind-boggling, truly.

A 45 minute timed exam has about 45 minutes worth of work involved. Her 10 page brief is undoubtedly MORE than 45 minutes worth of work. Giving her 45 minutes to do it would indeed be stupid. Giving student 45 minutes to answer 45 minutes worth of multiple choice questions is a completely sane and reasonable thing to do.

Are you just a troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a kid with LDs, this thread surely did not disappoint. Same old tropes about kids that need extra time. For what it is worth, my kid is at an excellent public college. She gets extra time on tests but not assignments and that works out just fine for her. She is dyslexic and dysgraphic, so her extra time is used making sure she actually understands what she read in the questions and that her answers (which are harder to formulate because of dysgraphia) make sense, not for whatever magic thing you all think extra time is getting her. And she's not getting a 4.0 so your lucky neurotypical kids should not feel threatened.

Those worried about careers for kids that used extra time should know they largely self-select out of inappropriate careers because the demands are too taxing with their disabilities. I've already seen it in my kid. It's kind of sad, but it does not make sense to kill yourself trying to get a career that will also be a huge drain on your capacity for years to come. She chose something that fit with her strengths (like I hope most kids, with or without disabilities do).

I do not at all feel like my kid is "cheating." She has worked twice as hard as most kids since elementary school (well, before but she was not formally diagnosed then). She went through. years of speech therapy, occupational therapy, educational therapy, Orton-Gillingham tutoring, vision therapy, etc. while other kids were having fun playing sports or socializing. It was isolating and exhausting and took its toll own her confidence. It is still embarrassing (and a pain in the neck) to have to go to the disability center for tests. It can be stressful when professors fight you or forget to send over the test to the center, etc.

Do you see the cost of that extra half time for testing? Trust me, it's not worth it and she is not getting some great advantage considering the "cost."

Np here and I don’t begrudge your daughter her accomodations at all! I do think (and I think many pps have made this point) it’s not fair to other kids who also need accommodations that some kids are able to work around them to some extent bc their parents have the time (and often money) to pursue accomodations but most kids are go need them do not have that type of p at went.

Therefore either the tests should be changed or anyone should be able yo opt into time and a half.

I'm the parent you quote. I agree it is unfair. Arguably, the elementary schools should pick up LDs like dyslexia (although they generally won't call it that). In theory, testing form the school is free. In reality, they bend over backward to find that your child does not qualify for an IEP (but they tend to be freer with 504 accommodations). I was brushed off for about three years and discouraged from asking for testing (I was totally gaslit by the school district). I finally paid for private testing because I was just not sure. I then could take that testing to the school and advocate for my daughter. She got na IEP, which was never respected. The only way her reading improved was through the outside tutoring we paid for (one year, we stopped to give her a break and all of her academic progress stopped-- the IEP was literally doing nothing for her). My point is that it looks like testing is available to everyone in public school, but it's not the reality because IEPs are expensive so the schools play all kinds of games. Thee kids with disabilities that succeed have parents who can advocate well and afford outside intervention.

The answer isn't just giving everyone unlimited time or eliminating tests. That doesn't help the kids with LDs. The answer is fixing our public schools so EVERY kid is screened for dyslexia and other LDs early (like K or 1st grade) and providing evidence based interventions to help remediate those kids so they don't necessarily need extra time later (although they may still). Give EVERY kid a chance to be identified, not just the ones with wealthy and/or persistent parents.

+1 early intervention should be accessible to everyone. Some kids’ parents may not have the time or money to address issues early on and some kids’ parents may not have the ability to advocate for their kids due to language barriers, unfamiliarity with the system, etc.

[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:

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.

Yes, this is a realistic situation. But you have *checks notes* 16 hours to write that brief. That’s a stressful assignment, absolutely. But that’s not the 45 min, 90 min, or 4 hour exam time limit. It’s more akin to a 24 hour take home, where you don’t get extended time as an accommodation. This is my point.

So, if it's not realistic we shouldn't do it?

Yet again, the question is whether accommodated test takers can succeed in stressful work environments. If the time limits and other constraints imposed by these exams aren’t good reflections of actual work demands, then there’s no reason to think an accommodated test taker will be unable to succeed at the job.

What exams or assessments *should* look like is an entirely separate issue.

Just in case every job isn’t exactly like yours, accommodated test takers diplomas should come with an asterisk so that future employer who may have different work demands know what they are getting.

+1

I certainly want my pilot to be able to make quick decisions should the situation call first it, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a kid with LDs, this thread surely did not disappoint. Same old tropes about kids that need extra time. For what it is worth, my kid is at an excellent public college. She gets extra time on tests but not assignments and that works out just fine for her. She is dyslexic and dysgraphic, so her extra time is used making sure she actually understands what she read in the questions and that her answers (which are harder to formulate because of dysgraphia) make sense, not for whatever magic thing you all think extra time is getting her. And she's not getting a 4.0 so your lucky neurotypical kids should not feel threatened.

Those worried about careers for kids that used extra time should know they largely self-select out of inappropriate careers because the demands are too taxing with their disabilities. I've already seen it in my kid. It's kind of sad, but it does not make sense to kill yourself trying to get a career that will also be a huge drain on your capacity for years to come. She chose something that fit with her strengths (like I hope most kids, with or without disabilities do).

I do not at all feel like my kid is "cheating." She has worked twice as hard as most kids since elementary school (well, before but she was not formally diagnosed then). She went through. years of speech therapy, occupational therapy, educational therapy, Orton-Gillingham tutoring, vision therapy, etc. while other kids were having fun playing sports or socializing. It was isolating and exhausting and took its toll own her confidence. It is still embarrassing (and a pain in the neck) to have to go to the disability center for tests. It can be stressful when professors fight you or forget to send over the test to the center, etc.

Do you see the cost of that extra half time for testing? Trust me, it's not worth it and she is not getting some great advantage considering the "cost."

Np here and I don’t begrudge your daughter her accomodations at all! I do think (and I think many pps have made this point) it’s not fair to other kids who also need accommodations that some kids are able to work around them to some extent bc their parents have the time (and often money) to pursue accomodations but most kids are go need them do not have that type of p at went.

Therefore either the tests should be changed or anyone should be able yo opt into time and a half.

I'm the parent you quote. I agree it is unfair. Arguably, the elementary schools should pick up LDs like dyslexia (although they generally won't call it that). In theory, testing form the school is free. In reality, they bend over backward to find that your child does not qualify for an IEP (but they tend to be freer with 504 accommodations). I was brushed off for about three years and discouraged from asking for testing (I was totally gaslit by the school district). I finally paid for private testing because I was just not sure. I then could take that testing to the school and advocate for my daughter. She got na IEP, which was never respected. The only way her reading improved was through the outside tutoring we paid for (one year, we stopped to give her a break and all of her academic progress stopped-- the IEP was literally doing nothing for her). My point is that it looks like testing is available to everyone in public school, but it's not the reality because IEPs are expensive so the schools play all kinds of games. Thee kids with disabilities that succeed have parents who can advocate well and afford outside intervention.

The answer isn't just giving everyone unlimited time or eliminating tests. That doesn't help the kids with LDs. The answer is fixing our public schools so EVERY kid is screened for dyslexia and other LDs early (like K or 1st grade) and providing evidence based interventions to help remediate those kids so they don't necessarily need extra time later (although they may still). Give EVERY kid a chance to be identified, not just the ones with wealthy and/or persistent parents.

That’s just not the world we live in. In the meantime, it would be MUCH more fair for profs etc to have an expected time for kids to take test and then let kids opt into extended time if they believe they need it.

The kids who don’t will mostly not opt into it-it’s boring to sit around for another hour and a half after you’ve finished a test. But waiting for the public schools to identify all kids in all schools who have learning differences, anxiety, or adhd is a fool’s errand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My freshman Ivy child has two roommates and both have extra time. They each are given 2-3 days to take exams that the rest of the kids are given 2-3 hours to complete. Both attended private schools. Both are very bright and very wealthy. Both have the extra time for "anxiety."

I'd be pissed if I was a professor or a person who had a kid with dyslexia or significant ADHD or a learning difference. It's apparently a huge difficulty to get these exams proctored, especially if the student also needs a quiet study pod because there are not enough pods for the onslaught of students who now require them.

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.

Easy. You find a job that doesn’t have deadlines. There are lots of jobs like that out there.

When was the last time you sat for a timed test at your job? The lack of understanding here is unreal.

Most times your boss tells you "I need this today" it doesn't mean you get to nitpick and say "well, if you gave Legal 3 days to respond instead of 5, I could turn it in tomorrow, right? My reasonable accommodation says I get more time!"

How often does your boss say, “I need you answer three unrelated questions in 500 words each concerning topics discussed over the last 4 months in exactly 90 minutes”?

Since the PP seems to think that all jobs have the same requirements, my guess is that they’ve never been employed.

Let's see: I've run my own business, worked as a cashier, worked as a swimming lessons instructor, freelanced as a writer, worked as a fed, worked at a nonprofit organization, taught elementary school, taught middle school, drove a van, clerked for a federal judge, and worked for two biglaw firms (one of which I'm still employed by). My jobs have run the gamut. I've had one work assignment in my life that came close to approximating a timed exam.

Sounds like you have trouble keeping a job. This tracks.

Yeah, I had to work through high school, undergrad, and law school. Guess I'm a loser.

I can’t speak to whether or not you’re a loser, but you’re obviously not nearly as bright as you think you are. You have been engaging with more than one person in this thread and your inability to grasp an extremely simple point that multiple folks have tried to explain to you is embarrassing.

Dude, let it go. You two just disagree on something. No need for all the personal attacks.

Why don’t you try parenting your actual kids and not grown adults on an anonymous message board?

[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:

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.

Yes, this is a realistic situation. But you have *checks notes* 16 hours to write that brief. That’s a stressful assignment, absolutely. But that’s not the 45 min, 90 min, or 4 hour exam time limit. It’s more akin to a 24 hour take home, where you don’t get extended time as an accommodation. This is my point.

DP but how are you actually this dumb? It’s mind-boggling, truly.

A 45 minute timed exam has about 45 minutes worth of work involved. Her 10 page brief is undoubtedly MORE than 45 minutes worth of work. Giving her 45 minutes to do it would indeed be stupid. Giving student 45 minutes to answer 45 minutes worth of multiple choice questions is a completely sane and reasonable thing to do.

Are you just a troll?

Do you understand that people who get 50% extended time on exams typically don't get those on much longer 24-hour take homes where they're expected to produce much more content? They also don't get extended time on projects and papers? They only get extended time on these time-compressed exams, like a 45 minute test.

Having 16 hours to write a ten-page brief is a huge assignment. But it's not nearly as time-pressured as, say, answering six short-answer questions in 4 hours without breaks. Or answering 45 multiple choice questions in an hour. The work is incredibly different.

I don't think you understand how disabilities work. I don't think you understand how accommodations work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Basketball analogy. I have bad knees, lack coordination, and am under six feet. Do I get a step-stool and 10 seconds extar with no interference from other players when I'm under the net?

A more accurate example would be, if you need glasses to see the test, do you have to test without them to be fair to kids who don’t need glasses to see the test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basketball analogy. I have bad knees, lack coordination, and am under six feet. Do I get a step-stool and 10 seconds extar with no interference from other players when I'm under the net?

A more accurate example would be, if you need glasses to see the test, do you have to test without them to be fair to kids who don’t need glasses to see the test?

The actual analogy is taking a vision test with glasses because it’s unfair that you don’t have 20/20 vision.

[Anonymous]

Maybe they should cap the grades for those with non-physical accommodations so they can’t achieve an A. An A should be only for those who can do the work correctly under the designated conditions. Then at least if people cheat they’ll only get a B and won’t affect the curve for the entire class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basketball analogy. I have bad knees, lack coordination, and am under six feet. Do I get a step-stool and 10 seconds extar with no interference from other players when I'm under the net?

A more accurate example would be, if you need glasses to see the test, do you have to test without them to be fair to kids who don’t need glasses to see the test?

The actual analogy is taking a vision test with glasses because it’s unfair that you don’t have 20/20 vision.

The analogy only works if you assume that the purpose of the academic test is getting the answers within the time limit (not actually testing that you understand the content of the material). The time limit is often just a practical consideration and the fact that it takes you twice as long to read the material in thee test does not impact whether you actually understand it.