[blindlaw] Time on the LSAT

Mon Dec 5 18:58:52 UTC 2016

On a legalistic side, from DFEH v LSAC and some other sources:

Something not as widely circulated as the consent decree is the "best
practices" panel final report and the court's order on it. I've
attached both (plus the summary of the report).

I suggest reading them in detail, as they're a bit complex.

In short, for blindness or serious visual impairment, they create a
rebuttable presumption of 100% extra time throughout — and 150% extra
time on the analytical reasoning (logic games) section.

Broadly, it creates three standards of accommodation:
1. non-time, given fairly easily (eg braille or electronic format,
separate room, scratch paper, electronic essay submission, food &
drink, extra break time rather than test time, etc)
2. extra time up to 50% for non-visual disabilities and up to 100% for
visual disabilities, given with appropriate documentation (more or
less automatic if it was given previously)
3. extra time more than that, requiring extra documentation (with the
exception of 150% on analytical reasoning for blind people, which is
in category 2).

I would guess that if someone is blind *and* has another disability
(like ADHD), they could make a good case for more time still, like
150% base / 200% analytical, but would face a lot of resistance and
demands for extreme documentation.

If you get them to grant electronic format, they'll send you a USB
stick with an older HTML format test on it for practice purposes.

(I'd have to check on whether I can share that or not, but if it would
help - e.g. to determine how much speed is actually needed with that
format - let me know privately.)

As a practical matter, I'd suggest just asking for double time (and
150% time on analytical), pointing to the final report adopted by the
court and documented visual disability. And practice with the
electronic format to find out how much time it actually takes you.

If it takes more time, be prepared for an uphill argument.

I should add that there's also a fourth category of accommodation,
that LSAC is extremely pissy about: phones.

These are *not* in the consent decree, and LSAC still by default does
not allow people to have them, even when turned off during the test.

This is a bit ironic, in that they do allow laptops if you have
electronic format. (In fact, they insist on you bringing your own, and
give you the test in HTML format on an Ironkey USB stick.)

I *was* able to get them to let me bring my phone - kept off during
the test, just used so I could take an Uber to and from.

However, that required making both
a) a strong case that I needed my phone to be able to safely get to
and from the test center, and
b) a very credible threat of immediate litigation if they did not
promptly agree.

FWIW, I think there are two things not covered in the DFEH case that
are ripe for a second class action:

1. phones, where required for purposes outside the test room, like
navigation, transportation, communication, etc. and proposed to be
kept off during the entire test

2. denials based exclusively on a combination of factors, no single
one of which is permitted under the DFEH decree (e.g. high IQ, high
test scores, no prior documented accommodation)

If you happen to be interested in pursuing such a case as litigation
counsel, please contact me privately.

- Sai

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:00 PM, J Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Jameyanne,
>
> You bring up a good point. Had I been able to do my logic games in
> braille, I would've had a very different experience with them.
> Unfortunately, my braille skills aren't yet where they need to be for
> me to have taken the test in braille.
>
> J
>
>
> On 12/5/16, Jameyanne Fuller via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> I had 100 percent extra time as well. I took my exam with a Braille test,
>> Braille scrap paper, and a scribe to bubble in my answers, and a computer
>> and screen reader to write my essay. This worked for me. I had no problems
>> with the logic games. I found it easier to use my Perkins Brailler to
>> diagram the logic games and have everything under my fingers. Lots of
>> practice working out my own system paid off. Logic games was my best
>> section
>> and I consistently on practice tests and in the actual LSAT got a perfect
>> score on that section.
>> I've never heard of more than 100% extra time, but whatever your mentee
>> decides, they should take as many practice tests as possible to get
>> comfortable with the time limit.
>> Jameyanne
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of J
>> Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw
>> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 11:35 AM
>> To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Cc: J Steele-Louchart <jsteelelouchart at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Time on the LSAT
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm totally blind and took mine this past Saturday. I used a
>> screen-reader and electronic documents. I was completely comfortable
>> with 100% additional time, with the exception of the logic games
>> section, which requires you to diagram variables into multiple
>> sequences and/or groups. (There really doesn't seem to be a good
>> accommodation or amount of time for diagraming logic games on the
>> LSAT.)
>>
>> Warmth,
>> J
>>
>>
>> On 12/5/16, Daniel Smyth via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> My mentee has asked me what an appropriate amount of time to ask for on
>>> each section of the LSAT is. Can anyone share any insight as to the outer
>>>  limit in terms of time the LSAC will go for? I can't speak directly to
>> the
>>> question as I took the LSAT before some of the recent lawsuits and I am
>>> partially sighted. I am trying to get her to join the list and introduce
>>> herself, but in the meantime any help is hugely appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Daniel E. Smyth*
>>> J.D. Candidate, 2017
>>> St. John's University School of Law
>>> President | Student Bar Association
>>> (917) 692-1978
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BlindLaw mailing list
>>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> BlindLaw:
>>>
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jsteelelouchart%40gmai
>> l.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> J Steele-Louchart
>>
>> I Will Find A Way or I Will Make One
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BlindLaw mailing list
>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> BlindLaw:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jameyanne%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BlindLaw mailing list
>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> BlindLaw:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jsteelelouchart%40gmail.com
>>
>
>
> --
> J Steele-Louchart
>
> I Will Find A Way or I Will Make One
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/legal%40s.ai
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Final Panel Report.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 294712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attachments/20161205/15404213/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Spero LSAC Appeal order.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 657489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attachments/20161205/15404213/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Final Panel Report.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 294712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attachments/20161205/15404213/attachment-0002.pdf>