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…
You have no evidence I wouldn’t have gotten into a T14 without accommodations. My LSAT score likely would have been lower but no idea by how much. Getting into every T14 and many with a lot of money suggests it wasn’t close call for me. But neither you nor I will ever know with certainty. Just like we’ll never know if someone only got in because they were the only applicant from North Dakota.
And people do get biglaw without T14, it’s just harder…
Anonymous wrote:If you don't have a grasp on the material, then no amount of extra time is going to change that . . . but be angry about extra time if it makes you feel better.
Wrong. Extra time students often get to come back to finish. That extra time in between testing gives them time to look up answers.
That is far less common. Most are 50% extra. 100% is next most common. Both of those are typically in one sitting. Splitting over multiple sessions, much less common.
Eh. So give them the test in two parts so they don't have the opportunity to cheat like you assume they will.
that is what happens. they don't get to see the whole exam- only the part they have to finish in the first time slot.
Anonymous wrote:If you don't have a grasp on the material, then no amount of extra time is going to change that . . . but be angry about extra time if it makes you feel better.
Wrong. Extra time students often get to come back to finish. That extra time in between testing gives them time to look up answers.
That is far less common. Most are 50% extra. 100% is next most common. Both of those are typically in one sitting. Splitting over multiple sessions, much less common.
Eh. So give them the test in two parts so they don't have the opportunity to cheat like you assume they will.
that is what happens. they don't get to see the whole exam- only the part they have to finish in the first time slot.
Does that not lead to some educated guesses as to what the exam has not yet covered and therefore what needs to be studied further?
Anonymous wrote:I will no longer subscribe to the Atlantic or even add traffic to their site, but I can imagine what the rest of the article is like. You know what the solution is to this 'problem'? Give everyone extra time - it is ridiculous, particularly at the college level, to think one person is smarter or better educated or better prepared because it takes them less time to solve a problem or write an essay than the next person.
I agree that taking less time to solve a problem doesn’t make one brighter or better educated.
However, being able to perform efficiently and quickly IS an important skill in both education and in many careers.
If it takes a student or employee twice as long to complete a task as another student, there’s no question that the faster processor will learn/produce more (all else being equal).
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…
You have no evidence I wouldn’t have gotten into a T14 without accommodations. My LSAT score likely would have been lower but no idea by how much. Getting into every T14 and many with a lot of money suggests it wasn’t close call for me. But neither you nor I will ever know with certainty. Just like we’ll never know if someone only got in because they were the only applicant from North Dakota.
And people do get biglaw without T14, it’s just harder…
Former biglaw DP. I don’t doubt your qualifications or medical condition in any way, but I do have a genuine question: do you find that it takes you longer to complete professional tasks than similarly situated attorneys?
If so, do you write off time to account for that difference?
1. There are kids who legitimately need accommodations and should receive them.
2. There are an unknown number of families (disproportionately UC) who falsely claim disabilities to get an unfair advantage.
3. There’s also a group of kids with typical abilities and traits whose personality challenges have led to a “disability” label, not to gain an advantage but bc of the current trend towards medicalization. Many well-meaning people and parents in this group, but an inappropriate result nevertheless.
Our inability to distinguish between these groups is the root cause of the problem described in the article.
1. There are kids who legitimately need accommodations and should receive them.
2. There are an unknown number of families (disproportionately UC) who falsely claim disabilities to get an unfair advantage.
3. There’s also a group of kids with typical abilities and traits whose personality challenges have led to a “disability” label, not to gain an advantage but bc of the current trend towards medicalization. Many well-meaning people and parents in this group, but an inappropriate result nevertheless.
Our inability to distinguish between these groups is the root cause of the problem described in the article.
NP here, and I completely agree.
With regards to number two, I think part of this also due to the push for increased standardized testing, and the pressure on teachers. When I was in ES in the 80s (yes, I'm old) we had gym AND recess everyday through sixth grade so we could get out our energy. Now kids need to sit still all day long starting in kindergarten.
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…
You have no evidence I wouldn’t have gotten into a T14 without accommodations. My LSAT score likely would have been lower but no idea by how much. Getting into every T14 and many with a lot of money suggests it wasn’t close call for me. But neither you nor I will ever know with certainty. Just like we’ll never know if someone only got in because they were the only applicant from North Dakota.
And people do get biglaw without T14, it’s just harder…
Former biglaw DP. I don’t doubt your qualifications or medical condition in any way, but I do have a genuine question: do you find that it takes you longer to complete professional tasks than similarly situated attorneys?
If so, do you write off time to account for that difference?
I’ve tried to closely track this. From what I can tell, particularly in my practice group, I’m around middle of the pack for efficiency. I’ve learned a lot of “hacks” for keeping my productivity up that work for me but don’t necessarily work in the 90 min timed exam setting. For instance, I take a lot of breaks and spread my work out across a really (really) long day. But I actually think a lot of my practice group has ADHD (diagnosed since arriving to biglaw) and (probably undiagnosed) ASD. So I’m not sure my peer group is totally unencumbered by their own efficiency issues. My hours are overall on the lower side, but I always hit my bonus target.
In any event, I don’t ever count my breaks. When I’ve raised concerns about tasks taking too long to partners, they’ve told me not to write down my own time and let them handle it. To my knowledge, they’ve never written down my time. I have written down my own time in circumstances where I really messed up in a few situations early on in my career.
Anonymous wrote:If you don't have a grasp on the material, then no amount of extra time is going to change that . . . but be angry about extra time if it makes you feel better.
Wrong. Extra time students often get to come back to finish. That extra time in between testing gives them time to look up answers.
That is far less common. Most are 50% extra. 100% is next most common. Both of those are typically in one sitting. Splitting over multiple sessions, much less common.
Eh. So give them the test in two parts so they don't have the opportunity to cheat like you assume they will.
At my kid's school, they just ask other students when that happens.
1. There are kids who legitimately need accommodations and should receive them.
2. There are an unknown number of families (disproportionately UC) who falsely claim disabilities to get an unfair advantage.
3. There’s also a group of kids with typical abilities and traits whose personality challenges have led to a “disability” label, not to gain an advantage but bc of the current trend towards medicalization. Many well-meaning people and parents in this group, but an inappropriate result nevertheless.
Our inability to distinguish between these groups is the root cause of the problem described in the article.
100%. And the many kids who get ADHD diagnoses for minor issues like being late or being disorganized (and their parents, more importantly) are doing a disservice to those kids who have true mental illnesses or disabilities because people are less likely to believe the latter. We need to stop medicalizing every personality trait that makes a person tend to act in a way that isn’t “perfect” in the eyes of society. Out of all of my friends (all UMC), only one has a kid who does not have an ADHD diagnosis. I’m talking more than ten families. How can that possibly be?
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…
You have no evidence I wouldn’t have gotten into a T14 without accommodations. My LSAT score likely would have been lower but no idea by how much. Getting into every T14 and many with a lot of money suggests it wasn’t close call for me. But neither you nor I will ever know with certainty. Just like we’ll never know if someone only got in because they were the only applicant from North Dakota.
And people do get biglaw without T14, it’s just harder…
Former biglaw DP. I don’t doubt your qualifications or medical condition in any way, but I do have a genuine question: do you find that it takes you longer to complete professional tasks than similarly situated attorneys?
If so, do you write off time to account for that difference?
I’ve tried to closely track this. From what I can tell, particularly in my practice group, I’m around middle of the pack for efficiency. I’ve learned a lot of “hacks” for keeping my productivity up that work for me but don’t necessarily work in the 90 min timed exam setting. For instance, I take a lot of breaks and spread my work out across a really (really) long day. But I actually think a lot of my practice group has ADHD (diagnosed since arriving to biglaw) and (probably undiagnosed) ASD. So I’m not sure my peer group is totally unencumbered by their own efficiency issues. My hours are overall on the lower side, but I always hit my bonus target.
In any event, I don’t ever count my breaks. When I’ve raised concerns about tasks taking too long to partners, they’ve told me not to write down my own time and let them handle it. To my knowledge, they’ve never written down my time. I have written down my own time in circumstances where I really messed up in a few situations early on in my career.
PP. Great respect for your approach.
To me, this is the crux of the one of core issues being discussed in this thread: is efficiency/speed significant enough from an education and career perspective that it should be tested on the SAT?
(FWIW, the other issue is how to prevent people without disabilities from gaming the system. My view is that there’s broad consensus that people in your situation should receive accommodation without disadvantage).
1. There are kids who legitimately need accommodations and should receive them.
2. There are an unknown number of families (disproportionately UC) who falsely claim disabilities to get an unfair advantage.
3. There’s also a group of kids with typical abilities and traits whose personality challenges have led to a “disability” label, not to gain an advantage but bc of the current trend towards medicalization. Many well-meaning people and parents in this group, but an inappropriate result nevertheless.
Our inability to distinguish between these groups is the root cause of the problem described in the article.
1. There are kids who legitimately need accommodations and should receive them.
2. There are an unknown number of families (disproportionately UC) who falsely claim disabilities to get an unfair advantage.
3. There’s also a group of kids with typical abilities and traits whose personality challenges have led to a “disability” label, not to gain an advantage but bc of the current trend towards medicalization. Many well-meaning people and parents in this group, but an inappropriate result nevertheless.
Our inability to distinguish between these groups is the root cause of the problem described in the article.
1. There are kids who legitimately need accommodations and should receive them.
2. There are an unknown number of families (disproportionately UC) who falsely claim disabilities to get an unfair advantage.
3. There’s also a group of kids with typical abilities and traits whose personality challenges have led to a “disability” label, not to gain an advantage but bc of the current trend towards medicalization. Many well-meaning people and parents in this group, but an inappropriate result nevertheless.
Our inability to distinguish between these groups is the root cause of the problem described in the article.
It's mostly #2
PP here. I suspect it’s mostly #3.
I’m astonished by the number of genuinely caring parents who take their kids to doctors or therapy or go through assessments for “normal” kid issues.
Not to mention the trend of starting kids on therapy who have no current need for it whatsoever, to “get them used to it.” SMH.
Anonymous wrote:I will no longer subscribe to the Atlantic or even add traffic to their site, but I can imagine what the rest of the article is like. You know what the solution is to this 'problem'? Give everyone extra time - it is ridiculous, particularly at the college level, to think one person is smarter or better educated or better prepared because it takes them less time to solve a problem or write an essay than the next person.
they should do that.
kid's ivy does this on many tests: anyone who wants to stay late can. the tests are impressively hard such that all the time in the world would not help. it is all application questions, the high score is often 80-85% out of 100.
Forum Index
»
College and University Discussion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}