[blindlaw] Time on the LSAT

Mon Dec 5 19:03:31 UTC 2016

I mistakenly attached the final panel report twice. Here's the
executive summary document.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Sai <legal at s.ai> wrote:
> 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: Executive-Summary-of-the-Report.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 81949 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attachments/20161205/41bb4b7c/attachment.pdf>