Here's a short little blurb in the Denver Post about a student who is suing the Law School Admission Council, because she has not been granted extra time on the LSAT. The story contains very little detail, but I can provide some extra information. Not about this particular case, but I can give a good educated guess about what's going on.
The plaintiff, Abby Rothberg from Littleton, claims to have a learning disability, and wants extra time on the LSAT. LSAC has refused to grant her extra time, and thus she claims her presumably-low LSAT scores do not "accurately reflect her overall intellectual aptitude and abilities."
Here's the LSAC page on accommodated testing. There's quite a few links to read on applicants who have a cognitive disability. If you have Adobe Acrobat, you can read the Guidelines for Documentation of Cognitive Disabilities. It's very detailed, and readers are immediately made aware that an accommodation for a cognitive disability is not an easy or simple thing to get. Which is as it should be.
Those who wish to gain extra time on the LSAT due to a cognitive disability must:
* Be assessed by a qualified and licensed evaluator with comprehensive training and direct experience in working with adult populations, who is willing to provide academic credentials and qualifications.
* Show that the current nature of the disability is such that it will have an impact on timed testing, in the sense that someone has the capability to understand the material but cannot respond to it within the proscribed time limit (requests for extra time are the most common). Within the previous three years, tests must have been conducted to show the impact of the disability. Someone who is diagnosed with a learning disability at age 10 and then is never re-assessed will not be able to use that diagnosis alone to apply for an LSAT accommodation at age 21. Anyone older than 21 must have been tested and diagnosed within the previous five years.
* Provide results of a "neuropsychological and/or psychoeducational evaluation," with the expectation that "the assessment will be a comprehensive battery of tests administered by someone with clear credentials in the field (such as board certification by a recognized board)." In other words, a note from your family doctor won't do. Whatever testing is done must be comprehensive and provide a clear diagnosis. A psychoeducational evaluation is also required "without exception" and must be submitted on the letterhead of a qualified professional.
And dig the amount of detail each candidate must provide:
Domains included in each evaluation MUST include the following:
The report of assessment must include a comprehensive diagnostic interview that includes relevant background information to support the diagnosis. In addition to the candidate’s self-report, the report of assessment should include: a description of the presenting problem(s), including DSM-IV-TR symptoms; a developmental history; an academic history, including reports of classroom performance and grades, including high school transcript(s), especially in
classes related to LSAT performance; behavioral observations and notable trends; a family history, including primary language of the home and current fluency of English (where relevant); a psychosocial history; a medical history, including the presence or absence of a medical basis for the present symptoms; history of prior psychotherapy; a discussion of dual diagnosis, alternative
or coexisting mood, behavioral, neurological and/or personality disorders, along with any history of relevant medication and current use that may impact the individual’s learning; and exploration of possible alternatives that may mimic a cognitive disability when, in fact, one is not present.
All reports must also include, at a minimum, scores on previous standardized
admission tests, such as, but not limited to, the SAT, ACT, GRE, MCAT, and LSAT, with scores broken down by areas (such as verbal, mathematics, reasoning, critical reading, etc.) and with both the standard scores and percentiles reported. In addition, if accommodations have been granted for any of these tests, the exact accommodations granted and used must also be
described. For example, if you were granted “unlimited time,” provide a report of the specific time used. This information will speed up the processing of your request considerably and will avoid delays due to requests for more information.
I would not be surprised to discover that this is the most stringent set of requirements to be satisfied in order to take a standardized, high-stakes admissions test. Again, there's a good reason for all of this. The LSAT is a difficult, timed test which requires test takers to read lengthy and dense reading passages, answer logical questions, and complete analytical problems (the "logic games"). Being able to do all of this under the set time limit is not unrelated to work in law school. The pool of test takers is competitive, ambitious, intelligent - and litiguous. LSAC has these crystal-clear guidelines in place under the assumption that anyone who does have a cognitive disability will be willing to provide this information, and anyone who is trying to cheat the system won't be able to produce this much proof.
So, back to our plaintiff. I'm guessing she either (a) did not provide sufficient information for LSAC to agree that she had a cognitive disability that warranted extra time, or (b) she had the information but didn't provide it in time to be processed. It's not unrealistic to expect wanna-be lawyers to understand the importance of providing sufficient documentation in a timely fashion, but it's also not surprising to see that a law school hopeful is willing to file a lawsuit. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Posted by kswygert at January 25, 2004 01:26 PM