Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About contigotravelmug

  • Rank

  1. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    I don't see a problem with that - provided an individual can provide supporting documentation (so they choose to). My only issue and reason I started all of this was because of Osgoode's form, which I am still confident in saying creates an unnecessary moral dilemma for the applicant and (to me) does not necessarily provide any access at all if an added layer of personal bias comes in from adcoms. My point has essentially been demonstrated with this entire thread because its quite evident there is a divide about what certain people consider 'acceptable' access claims. While I do agree with this, I don't agree that adcoms should be the ones deciding that and I believe revealing LSAT accommodations (yes/no) does not support this either. I've said this before but if someone can prove that the Osgoode access form does not explicitly require revealing this information (as necessary for access application), then we can move on from this.
  2. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    Yes I am quite aware of the role of socioeconomic status thank you very much; but you keep drawing comparisons I am simply not making. I think its semi safe to say that having a learning disability is associated with income; predictive certainly and possibly explanatory too. Income is the biggest predictor of health status yes but the types of conditions I am referring to under the access category are often multifactorial in aetiology. But this disclosure of income (and its purpose of securing a bursary, post admission) simply does not hold the same intention or outcome of disclosing that of testing accommodations for an admissions decision, even IF ses is predictive of academic success.
  3. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    I think your analysis here is way off - yes its a requirement to disclose a bank account balance for bursaries but that is in no way comparable to disclosing testing accommodations; as a persons bank account (or for arguments sake, socioeconomic status to make it less black and white), is not comparable to a medical condition that can only really be interpreted by the person experiencing it and the person diagnosing it (or understands DSM etc if we are talking mental health status). Also disclosing ones monetary amount for bursary consideration is in no way an indication of academic ability, so again totally irrelevant comparison (even if the logic is there).
  4. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    Yes settled - thanks for correcting, I'm a bit rusty with official legal language as i am not a lawyer. And sure, that is a very thorough analysis of issues outside of my point - maybe it didn't do all of those things (never said it did) but for those that were affected by having accommodated (extra time) flagged, it was probably a very profound outcome. My point was that access students should be given the opportunity to apply with access without the requirement to disclose testing accommodations, because that should not weigh into an admissions decision, rather the nature of the access claim (and not the access claimants testing accommodations) should be the additional consideration given, simply because it may create unnecessary negative bias for the applicant. A person can still elect not to apply access yes, but in this case (at Osgoode), they cannot apply access without disclosing accommodated testing which is a separate issue from the transparency of access application. If Osgoode were to change the form to make the above explicitly optional (without the moral dilemma of nondisclosure, which does exist), my point would be moot.
  5. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    Yes- thats what was decided in the LSAC case and what I believe is most non discriminatory. Also, it was a $7.7m suit and affected many people, so obviously the value is there (albeit, potentially you don't see it because it does or will not affect you): Feel free to read more: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/law-school-admission-council-agrees-systemic-reforms-and-773-million-payment-settle-justice
  6. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    This. Is my interpretation of the issue. And thanks everyone for chiming in and filling in the detail gaps of the form, yes, so osgoode does ask for the specific nature of whether LSAT accommodations were received. I believe they asked for more details than that but can't check now can we. I understand everyones impression that without disclosing accommodations, schools don't have any idea about whether or not your claim is actually sound, but what I have a problem with is the LSAT details, which to me is basically a watered down version of the LSAC lawsuit that flagged accommodated testers to schools. While I realize an applicant can disclose their access status, and this MAY help them, it also may work against them by stating X LSAT score under X accessibility condition. As much as you or I may not think of it this way, there is an invisible stigma towards certain potentially non visible intellectual disabilities mental health issues, etc. Its also hard to quantify how this would independently affect a person without being assessed. So to take that person, objectively disclose a (typically) medically confidential status, and then have the moral dilemma of having to disclose your LSAT situation (by lying, because if you had them but chose not to disclose, its a lie) - it just seems a bit much. Alternatively, if someone has, say dyslexia and depression, gets accommodated testing, yet still receives an average score, the weight of that score may be skewed. If we are talking ethics here I think the issue is intention of this form - is it really to benefit the applicant and how would access applicants generally feel when having to necessarily disclose such information in the category? Because you either say yes, or you say no. You can't opt to apply under the category without stating whether or not you received accommodated testing and THAT is the problem - because the entire purpose of accommodated testing is to create an equal bar. In saying this, many still do no see it this way, rather as a potentially unfair advantage to the 'whole'. There are a few developed countries I can think of that still have this collectivist view.
  7. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    Actually, thats not correct. I vaguely recall checking it out awhile back, and upon entering the access/special considerations category I believe its a hard yes or no check box as to if you received testing accommodations on the LSAT as well as the nature of them, and your score etc. Not, IF you received accommodations, would you LIKE to share them. So if you apply this way, and you choose to not disclose your accommodations, you are essentially lying. That to me is an equity issue, albeit a potentially minor one. Just my interpretation. Edit: If someone can confirm my vague recollection that would be great. Because if I am right (and I believe I am), then I truly do think Osgoode is treating disabled or access applicants unfairly, and should maybe consider amending their access applicant form.
  8. Thanks Ryn, appreciate your constructive thoughts.
  9. lol way to go digging for my score. I was being respectful before but but after your previous post citing that god awful 1998 HR study and then stating IQ is a direct indicator of job success, your statement doesn't hold much weight. Good luck to you as well- sounds like (aside from your probably stellar LSAT score) you need it.
  10. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    To me, its a disclosure and confidentiality issue. If you apply access, received accommodations yet do not disclose them, then in a way you are potentially facing a moral dilemma, one which you may not face had you not required accommodations. If you apply access, disclose that you received accommodations and the adcoms decide your accommodations were exceptional or not compassionate/etc. (i.e. compared to your stats), then you potentially face a stigmatization dilemma. Its a tricky issue and I am simply passionate about equity issues and fortunately I get to blab about them on here in the form of anonymous opinion statements.
  11. ABA Law School Admissions Changes

    agreed. respectfully, i hope you'll be more careful before citing your sources next time. might even make you a better lawyer.
  12. Citing Disability or Accommodation

    agreed - in fact osgoode otta take some advice from this multi million $ american lawsuit against LSAC for allegedly identifying to law schools that the test taker had a disability (and thus creating 'blind' bias/stigma) ...... http://www.ldao.ca/law-school-admission-council-settles-disability-lawsuit/ that seriously defeats the purpose of access and confidentiality and is like a literal law school access application oxymoron.
  13. Law school in Australia?

    you go glen coco.
  14. ABA Law School Admissions Changes

    oh and lol they even authored a book on bias and random error in meta analyses in 2014. how suiting. https://idostatistics.com/hunter-schmidt-2014-methods-meta-analysis-correcting-error-bias-research-findings/
  15. ABA Law School Admissions Changes

    Yes I am familiar with meta analyses; upon a quick google and skim of this study - first of all its 20 years old - probably better studies out there. Second, upon looking for the cited meta analyses, i don't actually see the results of one i.e. forest plot or overall effect size. I can't be bothered to read through the whole thing but i also noticed that a good chunk of the table 1 summary of predictive values cites the authors own studies a number of times === major selection bias and publication bias. Typically, you would be able to see the publication bias in a forest plot, which they do not publish (major red flag that leads me to question the true internal validity of the data). Because of this, i would also question the study's external validity based on generalizing it to the overall population. What you just stated was not evidence, merely a claim - validity and reliability is only as good as the population being measured and methods being utilized. In saying this, (regardless of the statistical methods used - i unfortunately don't have time to read them), in the first table you will see that the authors interpretation of GRE testing is actually EQUIVALENT to that of structured interviews (and interviews are actually slightly higher for one standardized GMA regression weight). Again, i am not discounting the merit in standardized testing, but it is much easier to measure and quantify a metric based measurement than personality, which is more prone to confounding and has higher degrees of random error in measurement as it stands (by default). Does this make it flawed and not meaningful? no - rather an appropriate balance of each is important. in a way, it takes the statistical significance of results and adds context. otherwise, you have validity coefficients or p values/ confidence intervals etc, yet they essentially place people in boxes with 'lines in the sand' to cross. this is seen with the indexing in admissions and to me, takes some of the humanity out of the applicant pool. again, not saying one or the other but an equal distribution of objective/subjective consideration may better reflect reality. also, before you cite 'evidence', make sure your evidence is valid and reliable (and ideally, current) in the first place.