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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
You think you deserve to have been admitted. That is black and white. I say “maybe, maybe not.” That is gray. What am I missing?
I was fully qualified to have been admitted and demonstrated that I belonged at my school over and over through my performance and other contributions. My admission was not undeserved, though I have trouble saying I "deserved" to be admitted because it's entitled, and I don't think I'm inherently entitled to admission.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
You think you deserve to have been admitted. That is black and white. I say “maybe, maybe not.” That is gray. What am I missing?
I was fully qualified to have been admitted and demonstrated that I belonged at my school over and over through my performance and other contributions. My admission was not undeserved, though I have trouble saying I "deserved" to be admitted because it's entitled, and I don't think I'm inherently entitled to admission.
Ok, “not undeserved.” Whatever. You see that “not undeserved” in black and white: you have probably never been challenged on this before and, I dare say, for that reason you have never thought about it much, either…
I think the only fair solution is that people can opt into time and a half. Otherwise it’s never going to be fair both because some people will game it but even more than that because of the people who need it/would benefit but because of their background and resources haven’t gone through the hoops of getting it.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
No, you are revealing to much. You revealed processing speed before. That is' at least in part, the reason for the 50% extra time. As you well know.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
You think you deserve to have been admitted. That is black and white. I say “maybe, maybe not.” That is gray. What am I missing?
I was fully qualified to have been admitted and demonstrated that I belonged at my school over and over through my performance and other contributions. My admission was not undeserved, though I have trouble saying I "deserved" to be admitted because it's entitled, and I don't think I'm inherently entitled to admission.
Ok, “not undeserved.” Whatever. You see that “not undeserved” in black and white: you have probably never been challenged on this before and, I dare say, for that reason you have never thought about it much, either…
You seriously think no one in my life has ever suggested that my accommodations were an unfair advantage? Give me a break. Your arguments aren't special. They're just infuriating.
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.
From the beginning, I explained epilepsy, learning disabilities, and psychiatric issues. I explained that the epilepsy treatments cause terrible processing speed issues, which is true? Sorry I didn't fully capture the complexity of my neuropsych history with you on this Internet forum.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
No, you are revealing to much. You revealed processing speed before. That is' at least in part, the reason for the 50% extra time. As you well know.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
No, you are revealing to much. You revealed processing speed before. That is' at least in part, the reason for the 50% extra time. As you well know.
Huh? I explained from the beginning that I had epilepsy, learning disabilities, and psychiatric issues. I explained that the seizure disorder treatments caused delayed processing speed because the medications slow synapse firing to prevent seizures. But accuse me of being dishonest becuase my forum posts don't fully capture my neuropsych complexities.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
I am really not trying to make you mad. I just think that if there is a question (only a question; I don’t really know) whether your admission was deserved (given the messed up reliance on LSATs and the weird hierarchy of biglaw generally), then imagine the degree to which this is abused (not by you' but by others). As I stated before, I do not think you are “lucky” by any stretch.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
I am really not trying to make you mad. I just think that if there is a question (only a question; I don’t really know) whether your admission was deserved (given the messed up reliance on LSATs and the weird hierarchy of biglaw generally), then imagine the degree to which this is abused (not by you' but by others). As I stated before, I do not think you are “lucky” by any stretch.
I appreciate that. Hopefully you can understand that I (and people in my situation) are used to having our disabilities questioned constantly and whether we really deserve to be in the places we are questioned as well.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
You think you deserve to have been admitted. That is black and white. I say “maybe, maybe not.” That is gray. What am I missing?
I was fully qualified to have been admitted and demonstrated that I belonged at my school over and over through my performance and other contributions. My admission was not undeserved, though I have trouble saying I "deserved" to be admitted because it's entitled, and I don't think I'm inherently entitled to admission.
Ok, “not undeserved.” Whatever. You see that “not undeserved” in black and white: you have probably never been challenged on this before and, I dare say, for that reason you have never thought about it much, either…
You seriously think no one in my life has ever suggested that my accommodations were an unfair advantage? Give me a break. Your arguments aren't special. They're just infuriating.
Then we can agree to disagree. We know law. No T14, no big law. You don’t want to question your admission to a T14; it was “not undeserved.” There is a chance it was. So what? Take what you can get…
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
I am really not trying to make you mad. I just think that if there is a question (only a question; I don’t really know) whether your admission was deserved (given the messed up reliance on LSATs and the weird hierarchy of biglaw generally), then imagine the degree to which this is abused (not by you' but by others). As I stated before, I do not think you are “lucky” by any stretch.
I appreciate that. Hopefully you can understand that I (and people in my situation) are used to having our disabilities questioned constantly and whether we really deserve to be in the places we are questioned as well.
I do want you to know that I do appreciate you - though it might not seem that way - and do see what your recommenders saw in you.
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.
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.
I am not making assumptions. You got an untimed LSAT 170. I am not assuming that: you told me. Without it, your LSAT would have been much lower. Yes, that’s an assumption - a valid one supported by statistical evidence. Without that LSAT (which is even more important than grades for law school admissions), you would have been unlikely to get in to every school you applied to, let alone to one top school. Law school does not do holistic admissions in the same way as undergrad (certainly not 10 years ago), as you should know.
You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not. Have some self-awareness.
Are you not the person who assumed that I grew up rich because I had the privilege of being diagnosed with epilepsy and related disorders?
You assume I took an "untimed" LSAT (I didn't, and nobody does, to the best of my knowledge). And I didn't tell you that because it's not true. I goto 50% extra time, and that's only because my requested accommodation of unlimited "stop the clock" breaks for medical incidents was not approved because it was deemed not administratively feasible. You can blame LSAC for that one. Without accommodations, my testing performance would not have measured my ability to answer LSAT questions. It would have measured my ability to avoid out-of-control medical issues in the moment.
So from my accommodated LSAT, you say I "took" the place of someone apparently more deserving of a seat at my law school who doesn't have a disability. You base that on the fact that you assume my LSAT would've been lower absent accommodations (probably true). But you incorrectly state that law schools don't do holistic admissions. I had median or below median on grades and LSAT for virtually every top school and yet got admitted to every single T14, and for the majority I got at least a partial merit scholarship. That defies your factually inaccurate assertion that law schools do not holistic admissions.
I'm sure my LSAT scores, which I likely couldn't have gotten absent accommodations, played some role in my admission. After all, it is a requirement for admissions. And you shouldn't be using accommodations if you don't need them. But being denied accommodations itself would've been unfair and would have meant, in the converse, that someone was "taking" "my" spot at my law school because they were lucky enough to not have a neurological disorder that unreasonably interferes with their ability to sit for a timed exam.
But back to the point -- which is not whether I "deserve" to have gone to the schools or gotten the jobs I have -- people with accommodations can succeed well in competitive jobs. I am an example of that.
Sorry, I did say untimed and I meant extra time.
I did not say that law school does not do holistic admissions; only that they do not in the same way as undergrad. Holistic admissions only goes so far. Think your 165 would have given you the same results? 160? Come on.
I get that you think you deserve to have gotten into a top law school. I am only suggesting that this is a big gray area: stop seeing everything in black and white.
Thank you for admitting
You said: "You think you deserve to have gotten in because of your performance in law school. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who were rejected would have been able to say the same had they been admitted. But you got in - and they did not."
I'm not sure where you decided I see this "black and white" unless "black and white" means, "I am entitled to accommodations because if I don't, the exam will measure whether I have a seizure and not whether I know the material."
BTW, now it is only seizures? You mentioned problems with “processing speed” before - and you are now strangely silent on the subject, which is a shame, because I am also the one who admired your honesty…
Oh my god I said epilepsy and related issues. But yes, explaining that if I seize during the exam, I'm not getting a fair shot at demonstrating what I know is a pretty good example. But if you must know my full medical history, I have complex partial seizures, partial seizures, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, visual working memory disorder, slow processing speed, and facial blindness. I am allergic to tegretol and found success on a combination of neurontin and lamictal. Would you like anymore details about my neurospych profile?
I am really not trying to make you mad. I just think that if there is a question (only a question; I don’t really know) whether your admission was deserved (given the messed up reliance on LSATs and the weird hierarchy of biglaw generally), then imagine the degree to which this is abused (not by you' but by others). As I stated before, I do not think you are “lucky” by any stretch.
I appreciate that. Hopefully you can understand that I (and people in my situation) are used to having our disabilities questioned constantly and whether we really deserve to be in the places we are questioned as well.
I do want you to know that I do appreciate you - though it might not seem that way - and do see what your recommenders saw in you.
Anonymous wrote:So some professor thinks all disabilities are physical? That the ADA and the IDEA only apply to kids in wheelchairs?
Ignorant.
+1
Also, what can be true, is that thanks to all of the alleged cheaters, those with actual invisible disabilities have to jump through a lot of hoops to gain and access accommodations.
Forum Index
»
College and University Discussion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}