A report recommending to LSAC best practices on accommodating LSAT test-takers with disabilities has issued from a panel convened pursuant to a consent decree between LSAC and DOJ. Here are the Executive Summary and the full report. (H/T: Ruth Colker (Ohio State), the sole lawyer on the panel).
Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 12, 2015 at 09:31 AM
Comments
Sasha,
I actually take a third view on the primary goal of assessment, which is that it ought to serve to help students to learn, and not only to be a measure of how much they have done so. But, that’s beside the point.
If, when these students enter the work force they are able to overcome their disabilities by being aware of their strengths and putting themselves in a position to succeed, then it seems like the best way to accommodate them is to replicate their real-world coping mechanisms. Students have a lot more flexibility in their 2L and 3L course selection, so they’ll be able to pick substantive and procedural courses that suit them better. And professors can diversify their assessment methods to allow opportunities to partner up with students who have complementary skill sets.
If the problem with exams is their artificial nature, then the solution would seem to be having assessment mechanisms that are less artificial and look a lot more like real world work. This seems infinitely more preferable than picking an accommodation policy that treats every disability the same way.
Posted by: Derek Tokaz | Feb 17, 2015 8:25:17 PM
Derek, it would take far too long for Ruth, myself, or others who work in disability rights to unpack all of this, and it does get tiresome to do it constantly. But the short answer is that a timed law school test is an extremely artificial environment that only imperfectly reflects the necessary demands of practice (as opposed to those that are equally artificial and avoidable). Literally thousands of lawyers with various disabilities are currently practicing at the highest levels of the profession, notwithstanding that without accommodations they would have difficulty meeting various law school requirements. To be sure, like all lawyers, they must be aware of their strengths and weaknesses and put themselves in positions to succeed, whether that be by specializing in substantive and procedural areas that suit them or by partnering with others who bring different strengths to the table. My experience is that lawyers with disabilities actually are better at this, as they are less likely to have internalized the somewhat naive view that appears to be reflected in your comment that, to be successful, a lawyer must be able to handle — by him- or herself — the most extreme, grueling, and frankly unnecessary individual assignments that some law firms hand out. The question, then, is whether you view the grading process first and foremost as the means for winnowing out those students who will succeed at those firms, as opposed to a method for determining who actually has understood the material at a deep level. As you can probably guess, I would prefer law schools and law professors in the grading process to concentrate on the latter evaluation, which I think they are far more qualified to issue.
Posted by: Sasha Samberg-Champion | Feb 16, 2015 4:35:26 PM
Ruth,
What specifically do you see as a misunderstanding, and would you please provide the real facts?
Posted by: Derek Tokaz | Feb 14, 2015 11:56:46 AM
My reaction in reading this comment thread it that I am very happy that LSAC agreed to permanently remove the “flag” for tests taken under conditions of accommodation because I would otherwise be quite concerned for law school applicants if the blatant misunderstandings reflected in the above comments were reflected in the admissions process.
One of the favorite mantras of the disability rights movement is “nothing about us without us.” I hope that this historic consent decree allows more individuals with disabilities to be “with us” so that these kinds of misunderstandings can be redressed.
I will probably regret having posted these comments but I thought someone should speak up for the highly talented students with disabilities who I have had the privilege to teach for the last 30 years and who are serving our profession proudly. I hope to teach many more of them in my last decade in legal education.
Posted by: Ruth Colker | Feb 13, 2015 4:54:17 PM
Joe,
“Your comments suggest that needing 6 hours to complete a 4 hour test will translate to needing 6 weeks to complete a 4 week project. I very much doubt that’s correct.”
Could you elaborate on why you don’t think that is correct? Actually, I’ll take a stab at it, because I see two possible theories here. Let me know if I’m missed the mark at some point
We have a scenario where a student needs accommodations on an exam, requiring him to get 6 hours to complete what other students have 4 hours to finish. We also have a memo assignment with a turnaround of 4 weeks. Of course, that memo isn’t going to take 448 hours (28 days x 16 hours per day). It will take the typical student about 50 hours (10 hours for the first 3 weeks, 20 hours in the final week).
(Theory 1) The student who takes longer to complete an exam does not actually take longer to complete the memo. He is capable of doing it in the exact same 50 hours as everyone else. Under this theory there is something about issue spotting and logic games that makes his disability relevant, while it’s not relevant in regular research and writing. Or, something about the testing environment makes the disability relevant. For instance, in the exam room a student might not have access to text-to-speech, which he uses at home. If this is the case, I think we should focus on bringing those services into the exam room, rather than giving the student extra time to work under and even-more-artificial environment.
(Theory 2) The student will actually need 75 hours to complete the memo which typically only takes 50 hours. However, over that 4 week period, the student will be able to come up with the extra time, so an extension is unnecessary. This is the theory I suspect is actually at work, but I think it has some severe flaws.
First, let me say where I think it actually makes sense. This is the 24-48-72 hour exam. These exams aren’t designed to take the entire time period; they’re built in with lots of padding to let the student create a more reasonable schedule to work on it. A 24 hour exam might only require 8 hours, a 48 could take 12, and a 72 probably about 16 hours. The student can easily come up with an extra 4, 6, or 8 hours in these time frames, primarily because there’s not a lot else going on during exam weeks. There’s studying for other exams, but nothing else with a deadline during that exam period. This is the type of scenario I think the theory best fits (and these longer exams don’t actually result in extra time being given); but, it still results in the student being at a competitive disadvantage. Students not requiring any accommodation are also going to be putting in those extra 4-6-8 hours. But, maybe we think there’s diminishing returns at that point so we’re not very concerned.
Now on to why I think this theory is generally flawed. I do believe that the student can find an extra 6 hours per week over a 4 week period, but only if that memo is the only thing he has to work on. He also has 4 or so other classes to prep for. Maybe there are some disabilities that affect the ability to do research and write a memo, but don’t affect the ability to read and prep for class, but this seems unlikely — the tasks are too similar. If the average student needs 20 hours to prep for all their classes in a week, this student will need an addition 10. Finding an extra 6 hours a week when you’ve already sunk an additional 10 into your other classes might not be realistic. If we assume 20 hours of in-class time (high, but let’s factor in getting to class a few minutes early, and the time between classes that isn’t enough to be productive, and a bit of travel, 20 is close enough), then 30 for prep, the 10 hours the memo required in the first 3 weeks, and the additional average of 6, this student is now expected to work a 66 hour week, 76 hours the week the memo is due. It’s doable, but damn, that’s rough.
Moving into the workplace, it becomes completely impossible. Nevermind that he’d have to put in 90 hour weeks just to match the typical 60 hour week. When than 50 hour memo comes up, he might not get 4 weeks to work on it and to squeeze extra time out of. It’s very possible he’ll have something more like 4 days. Good luck conjuring an extra 25 hours out of that.
And then there’s the students who get not an extra 50% time, but an extra 100%. I just don’t see how the “they’ll find the extra time themselves” theory works in either law school or the workplace, outside of the long-fuse exam.
Posted by: Derek Tokaz | Feb 13, 2015 11:44:28 AM
Hi Joe,
To the extent that some post-graduate legal work must be done on tight time frames, it seems reasonable (to me) that a timed exam is a proxy for the ability to do real work under tight deadlines. So, while I agree with the earlier part of your statement (4:6 hours is not equal to 4:6 weeks), I’m not sure that I agree with the latter. In some cases, students that need time accommodations in law school will be less successful in law practice.
I also agree with Derek that the prototypical law class is graded 100% on the final exam, suggesting that it is meant to be a sorting mechanism and not a pedagogical tool. As a result, I’m left with the feeling that some students will be more successful in law school than in law practice. Of course, maybe students select practice environments/areas where the time pressures are different.
As an aside, Joe Mead, you are at CSU?
Posted by: Matthew Bruckner | Feb 12, 2015 5:54:05 PM
I’m not an expert on this at all (though I get the distinct impression the other commenters aren’t either), but I think you are overlooking the artificial nature of the timed testing environment. Your comments suggest that needing 6 hours to complete a 4 hour test will translate to needing 6 weeks to complete a 4 week project. I very much doubt that’s correct. I would imagine the law’s reasoning goes something like: the artificial testing environment works as a good enough proxy for most students, but for some with disabilities this artificial environment poses unique burdens that place them at a disadvantage for reasons unrelated to their ability to succeed in law school or practice law.
Posted by: Joe Mead | Feb 12, 2015 2:41:04 PM
If an employer provides extra time for a disabled employee to complete tasks, is it ethical to bill the client for the time actually consumed at the usual rate for his years of experience? Must that be disclosed? Can the client opt-out of that associates services?
It seems like quite the thicket.
Posted by: brad | Feb 12, 2015 1:56:28 PM
Matthew,
This is just a guess, but I would think that the rule doesn’t extend to longer testing times because such tests are generally designed to require only a fraction of the time. A test with a 24 time limit might be designed to take only 8 hours of active work. This means the student with a disability already has the extra time built into the test, and no further accommodation is needed.
I think such a view would be flawed, for two reasons.
First, it does not cure the student of his competitive disadvantage. While the test may be complete in 8 hours, most students will use substantially more, possibly 18 hours.
Second, for long term projects, there is not sufficient downtime. With a 24 hour exam, the student typically has nothing else competing for his time that day. For a memo with a 3 week turnaround, there are other classes making significant claims on the student’s time. There may not be enough hours left in the week to give him 50-100% more time.
Now getting to your question, I don’t know what accommodations are actually made. I think the second objection listed above comes in to play though. If a lawyer is already expected to put in a 12 hour day, it might not be practically possible to accommodate him by letting him work longer hours to accomplish the same tasks.
And I think how students are accommodated in the workplace can be significant in our decisions on what accommodations to give in school. This comes down to what we think the purpose of tests and similar exercises are. Are exams primarily a pedagogical tool, used to aid in student learning? Or, are they primarily a sorting mechanism, used to signal to employers the most capable students?
If they are pedagogical tools, then it would be reasonable to allow whatever accommodations are reasonable in fulfilling the pedagogical aims. But, if they’re a sorting mechanism (when it comes to classes where the entire grade is a final exam, it’s hard to argue that they’re not), it would make sense to allow only those accommodations the student is likely to find in the workforce. Text-to-speech? Probably. An extra 50% time to complete a task? Probably not.
Posted by: Derek Tokaz | Feb 12, 2015 11:32:04 AM
Derek, I’m not sure why the law is written this way. In any case, I understand that accommodations are restricted to timed tests of less than 24 hours. Therefore, a 23 hour exam would require an accommodation but a 24 hour exam would not.
I’ve long been curious about how accommodated students when they are in the work force. Do they worker longer hours than other lawyers and thereby continue to keep up with their non-accommodated peers? Or does their performance suffer when in the work force (relative to peers) because, for example, they are already working every possible hour and cannot work longer?
Posted by: Matthew Bruckner | Feb 12, 2015 11:08:01 AM
Why are such accommodations generally restricted to timed testing environments?
If a student, due to a disability, requires 50% or 100% extra time to complete a test, isn’t it possible that a memo with a 3 week turnaround might take 4 1/2 – 6 weeks to complete? Yet, I’ve never heard of such accommodations being given.
I suppose one answer might be that outside of the testing environment the student has been coping mechanisms. For instance, a blind student may regularly use text-to-voice at home, but relies on braille during the LSAT. If this is the case, shouldn’t LSAC focus on letting those students use those accommodations within the normal time period? I think doing so would both make the score a better prediction of the student’s future performance, and also remove most of the sense of unfairness felt by students not getting extra time.
Posted by: Derek Tokaz | Feb 12, 2015 10:14:11 AM