Abby Rothberg, who sued for more time on the LSAT to accommodate her learning disability has won her case, thanks to a federal judge in Colorado:
The LSAC refused three times to give Rothberg more time despite the recommendations of two psychologists who tested her and determined that she is smart, but slowed by her difficulty in processing visual information and performing tasks based on that information.
Rothberg took the LSAT in October without extra time and scored on the low side of average. The LSAC argued that her performance on the test showed that Rothberg wasn't substantially disabled and consequently didn't qualify to be given extra time to complete the test.
Rothberg believed the LSAC was unfairly limiting her to average test results. After the LSAC refused twice more to grant her extra time to finish the test, she sued on Jan. 22. Daniel heard testimony from her psychologists and an LSAC official before ruling in Rothberg's favor.
[Rothberg] realized she had a learning disability when she was in the second grade and her classmates could read, but she couldn't. She has had tutoring, extra time to finish tests and other assistance throughout her school years in Colorado and at Syracuse University. When she took one test for college admission without seeking extra time, she scored below average. When she took another test with extra time, her score was above average.
This portrait in the Daily Orange is pretty sympathetic to the plaintiff:
Diagnosed with a learning disability, she has a handicap that impairs her to complete the exam in the amount of time her peers would need. It in no way, however, limits her ability to perform well on the exam should she be given appropriate accommodations...
Providing Rothberg with this time does not in any way provide her with an unfair advantage to perform on the test, nor does it guarantee she will be hired as a lawyer or succeed as one.
The LSAT is intended to predict first-year law school grades, so this accommodation also doesn't guarantee Rothberg will be able to finish law school, unless she receives this accommodation for every test she takes.
At some point, Rothberg will not be given the breaks she has been afforded thus far; but that can take place when she is in law school or in the courtroom. On a standardized test, which is itself suspect in its ability to test the taker's skills, Rothberg deserves the opportunity to perform her best. Until she is applying to law firms and must perform in a real world job setting, she deserves the rights that the law has created for her.
Gee, no bias there. The LSAT is "suspect" in its ability to test skills? Really. Would you care to back that up with some data? Would you care to explain how, if the LSAT is a bad test, we can assume that an extended-time LSAT - which is by definition a modification that may fundamentally alter the nature of what's being tested, and one that has not been validated - will somehow be a good test? Rothberg will have her accommodated LSAT, but there's little evidence to support the predictive validity of her score.
And if, as this author suggests, Rothberg will find herself at a disadvantage in job interviews and in the courtroom, why should she go to law school? Does it make sense to give a would-be lawyer accommodations for something she's going to be required to do on a daily basis - process lots of dense, heavy prose - when the real world won't provide that accommodation, thus leaving her fewer opportunities to practice law?
I blogged this in January; it looks like LSAC tried to argue alternative (a) that I theorized, but failed.
Update: Commenting on an another accommodated-testing post a few days back, Devoted Reader Wacky Hermit says what I'm thinking:
A blind person in the intellectual workforce can be just as productive as a non-blind person, given the right computer software. But a person who always needs time-and-a-half to accomplish every thinking task, who cannot be asked to speed up and cannot be assisted other than giving more time? Somehow I don't think that would make a person a productive employee. Someone like that would be better off being encouraged to go into a field that shows off his or her strengths, and doesn't rely on his or her weaknesses.
Being a slow reader is a weakness in the legal field.
Posted by kswygert at March 22, 2004 12:44 PM