[blindlaw] text of LSAC's letter to accompany non-standard LSATadministration

Bill Spiry bspiry at comcast.net
Tue May 19 01:14:01 UTC 2009


You're right, I am speaking from the perspective of someone who hasn't taken
the darned thing yet, but I'm also looking at it from the perspective of
someone who has been a successful working professional for a long time. One
thing that is very clear from my experience is that overcoming a disability
is all about playing to our strengths, and not getting over focused with our
limitations.  Trying to ignore or conceal the need for an accommodation
based on a concern that others may "judge" that need as a weakness is an
example of bogging down on the limitation.  People with a disability must
indeed earn respect through hard work and competency, but we should not
unnecessarily punish ourselves by trying to pummel our way through a barrier
like an artificial  time restriction when an accommodation can allow us to
roll past it and perform based on our strengths.

As to my accommodations... I'll be working with a sighted reader for the
test, I'll be permitted to use my laptop for the writing sample as well as
for notes in all the multiple choice sections. I will be permitted double
time (70 minutes) for each section, with some break time between sections.  
Based on the work I've done thus far with readers preparing and practicing
for the test its clear that 70 minutes will be a real push for some sections
such as the analytical reasoning ("games" section) and reading comprehension
with longer passages. This is mostly due to the much slower technique of
using a sighted reader which is an approach I haven't had to use much at all
in the past 15 years or more in my professional work. Computer based access
to the exam would be much faster, but LSAC would not even entertain it when
I brought it up.  It is interesting that this spring LSAC has introduced a
practice module on their website that includes a "LSATWise" practice test
that is fairly accessible with a screen reader.  It seems it would be quite
easy to provide the LSAT in a similar format for a blind person,
particularly for this generation of blind folks who depend upon the screen
reader technology for most information access and writing.  The fact that I
have to do this test using an outdated approach  rather than a more
contemporary and effective computer based approach will certainly cost me
some points in my final score. That fact doesn't make me happy, and it also
drives home the fact that the LSAT is not necessarily a reflection on how
effective someone will be as a law student if permitted to use the right
techniques.  

The push for significant improvement in the area of accommodation by LSAC
for the LSAT is completely appropriate. Frankly the hoops I had to go
through to get the accommodations I was granted was excessive, and generally
the tone of LSAC's responses in the request process could make you feel like
a second class citizen just for asking.  My advice to a blind pre law
student facing this thing is to ask for what you need, don't be shamed into
asking for less.  
 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:25 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] text of LSAC's letter to accompany non-standard
LSATadministration

Well, you talk to us after you get the results.  Are you using Braille, 
audio or large print.
Steve----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Spiry" <bspiry at comcast.net>
To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] text of LSAC's letter to accompany non-standard 
LSATadministration


> I've been watching this post closely as I will be taking the LSAT in June.
> Frankly, concerns regarding what the LSAC communicates to the school
> regarding test accommodations, I'd be much more concerned about attending
> any program that would be biased against an applicant with a disability
> based on the fact that he or she has received accommodation on the LSAT.
> Such an inclination for discriminatory bias by a school would not bode 
> well
> for what you could expect as a student in that program and your chances 
> for
> success would be in question.  If you've got a need for accommodation to 
> be
> successful, don't try to hide that fact until you're already in the mix...
> that is a pretty effective way to set yourself up to fail.
>
> As to one of the posters who suggest that asking for additional time to
> complete the LSAT as an accommodation somehow equates to an admission that
> you are less capable than others who are not blind...  is absolutely
> preposterous.  Success is about outcomes and the quality of those 
> outcomes,
> not whether you can prove that you can meet some arbitrary time standard
> designed only with sighted test takers in mind.
> Obviously we cannot expect to have unlimited time to accomplish a task in
> the real world, there are deadlines and time related needs that we must
> satisfy.  but most folks with a disability who are capable of functioning 
> in
> the real world also understand that there is more than one way to "skin a
> cat" and that using the resources we need to level the playing field is 
> part
> of that.  We learn to play to our strengths and fight the battle on our
> terms as much as possible.  I've learned that lesson well out in the real
> professional world over the past 20 years.  The LSAT is one of those
> battlefields that we have no choice but to face. Based on the practice and
> training I've been going through of late on this, it's also pretty clear
> that trying to survive that fight based on rules created with sighted
> examinees in mind would be academic suicide.  We're not in this to earn 
> some
> bloody badge of courage for fighting the fight with our hands tied and 
> with
> a blindfold on, we're in this to apply the capabilities we know we must 
> have
> to successfully  achieve a law degree and function as a professional in 
> the
> real world.
>
> Blindness is different for everyone and we all got to where we are on
> different paths with different approaches.  I agree that there are 
> probably
> plenty of blind people out there who did not get adequate training in the
> skills of blindness and who are not ready to face the rigors of law 
> school..
> by my take that is not much different than all the non-disabled kids out
> there who fall between the cracks educationally and are at least equally
> unprepared for the real world.    That is another battle.  The point is 
> that
> just because a blind person hasn't learned Braille or some of the other 
> "by
> the book" skills of blindness, and has learned to use some other
> accommodations and compensating skills to get the job done, it sure as 
> hell
> doesn't equate to failure... and having to take additional time for the 
> LSAT
> due to blindness or another disability sure as hell doesn't mean that 
> person
> is less capable of succeeding as a law student.  Use the accommodations 
> for
> the LSAT, don't try to hide that fact, and focus on succeeding.
>
> Bill
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 1:16 AM
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] text of LSAC's letter to accompany non-standard
> LSATadministration
>
> I don't see that as entirely practical.
>
> The test is visually biased and the stakes could not possibly be
> higher.  If you want to take a gamble like that, knowing that the
> test is designed for you to fail without the accommodation because it
> depends upon visual processing skills, you go right ahead.
>
> One of the skills I think people entering college have often failed
> to learn is knowing what they can honestly accomplish.  Many believe
> they cannot do things that they can and will do.  Some believe they
> can do things they cannot.
>
> I can already hear the response of, "How will you know until you
> try?"  My answer is that a test that determines whether or not you
> are deemed worthy of a particular career is not the time to be
> experimenting.  If you know you can do it with the accommodation, but
> don't know if you could do it without, take the accommodation for the
> LSAT.  It's an artificial environment with artificial rules and an
> artificial result.  Accommodations used therein have little bearing
> on the "real world".
>
> Unless any of you have had major cases hinge upon how many gumballs
> fit into a given shaped container or the other silliness I've seen on
> practice exams.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 08:03:24PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> It would almost be better for a blind to take the test without the extra
>> time accommodations if it is at all possible.
>> Chuck
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephanie Enyart"
>> <stephanie_enyart at yahoo.com>
>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] text of LSAC's letter to accompany non-standard
>> LSATadministration
>>
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>> Since Haben asked about the type of communication that will accompany 
>>> any
>>> non-standard test (any test taken with extended time due to a 
>>> disability)
>>> here is a copy of what the LSAC sends with the score report to law
>>> schools:
>>>
>>> "Dear Colleague:
>>> This candidate took a __fill in test date___ LSAT under nonstandard
> timing
>>> conditions in order to accommodate his or her disability. The 
>>> nonstandard
>>> test this candidate received was administered on or about the same test
>>> date
>>> as the corresponding standard administration.
>>> Because this candidate's score was earned under nonstandard timing
>>> conditions, it is important to note that the degree of comparability of
>>> this
>>> score to scores earned under standard conditions cannot be determined.
> The
>>> LSAC's Cautionary Policies Concerning LSAT Scores and Related Services
>>> explain:
>>> LSAC has no data to demonstrate that scores earned under accommodated
>>> conditions have the same meaning as scores earned under standard
>>> conditions.
>>> Because the LSAT has not been validated in its various accommodated
> forms,
>>> accommodated tests are identified as nonstandard, and an individual's
>>> scores
>>> from accommodated tests are not averaged with scores from tests taken
>>> under
>>> standard conditions. The fact that accommodations were granted for the
>>> LSAT
>>> should not be dispositive evidence that accommodations should be granted
>>> once a test taker becomes a student. The accommodation needed for a
>>> one-day
>>> multiple choice test may be different from those needed for law school
>>> course work and examinations."
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Haben Girma
>>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:39 AM
>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] LSAT Accommodations?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there a fact sheet out there that reveals what percentage of a
>>> university's student body is disabled?
>>>
>>> Haben
>>>
>>> James Pepper wrote:
>>>> They probably do that, I know that one of thee Coolge entrance exams
> does
>>>> it, but I am not sure if it is the SAT or the ACT but they inform the
>>>> schools eactly which devices were used to take the test.  I think it is
>>> both
>>>> of them.  This is how colleges can know who is disabled and who is not
>>>> without actually asking the student if they are disabled or not.  It is
> a
>>>> great way to get around the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
>>>> And this is good for colleges that do not have a high percentage of
>>> students
>>>> who are disabled because they will most certainly accept you once they
>>>> realize you are disabled, to satisfy their requirements to not be
>>> considered
>>>> discriminatory.  But your chances of graduating from that situation
>>>> is not
>>>> as good as a college that accepts the disabled on a regular basis.  Of
>>>> course state schools are more likely to handle the disabled with
> respect,
>>>> since they are more in tune with the consequences of discriminiation.
>>>> But
>>>> if you are competing with a lot of other disabled students to get into 
>>>> a
>>>> college that is a good college for the blind, then you will probably be
>>>> judged on your abilities based on being disabled and not the general
>>>> population.  Because they will probably only admit a certain amount of
>>>> students who are disabled as the disabled tend to cost the university a
>>> lot
>>>> more than non disabled.
>>>>
>>>> Since most people do not know they are doing this type of profiling,
> they
>>>> have gotten away with it since 1973.
>>>>
>>>> You all are lawyers, can you stop this nonsense because colleges accept
>>> the
>>>> blind and disabled in proportion to their numbers in the population, 
>>>> but
>>>> they don't graduate them in any proportion to the numbers they accept.
>>>>
>>>> James Pepper
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> blindlaw:
>>>>
>>>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/habnkid%40aol.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> blindlaw:
>>>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stephanie_enyart%4
>>> 0yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> blindlaw:
>
>>>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglob
> al.net
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40g
> mail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/bspiry%40comcast.n
> et
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindlaw:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40in
sightbb.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.33/2120 - Release Date: 05/18/09 
06:28:00


_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/bspiry%40comcast.n
et





More information about the BlindLaw mailing list