<p>That’s an interesting angle, Mildred. I doubt documenting how much time she studies would document a legally recognized disability, though. I am not an atty, but I think her biggest legal hurdle is going to be showing that P was unreasonable toward her. Particularly in light that she declined the accommodations offered her so far. P doesn’t have to offer what she considers perfect, and, they can’t just do nothing at all; they have to be reasonable to be in compliance with laws.
I wonder too, about her study time. With the additional study time needed, plus soccer too, one wonders how she has time do it all.</p>
<p>younghoss, the link is indirect but I think pretty clear. I honestly don’t think I’m capable of understanding the plaintiff’s LDs (there are a few posters who do though likely most are similarly clueless). There is nothing wrong with armchair speculation, but I don’t think that we can advance the ball too much without more information. </p>
<p>But, since the issue is whether the university should deny her extended time in testing and some people have challenged the concept (at least for cognitive as opposed to physical disabilities) because they assert that speed in test-taking is important, I was trying to examine a) for what it might be important; and b) for whom. The for what is for the sorting role of college rather than the educational function of college; and b) the for who is professors, administrators, employers and grad schools. So, we can have basically two discussions. The first is whether the ADA and its extensions provides a fertile ground for a lawsuit (and I’d be surprised if we actually had good enough information to offer anything other than armchair speculation). The second is to deal with the broader policy question: Does it make sense to have time limits on tests and if so, why?</p>
<p>Because I don’t see speed as important to the educational function, I was looking to places where it made sense to add speed to the testing criteria. For example, I’d actually be happy to have timed tests of manual dexterity for surgeons if the tasks were tied in reasonable ways to their surgeries as getting in and out quickly is, I understand, valuable. I’d be less happy to have timed tests for math determine who my surgeon was, as is the case in some countries (including, IIRC, the UK).</p>
<p>Query: Is this more appropriate for a new thread?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I surely do wonder about the study time for the young lady for sure. It must take her an eternity to study her very best on top of everything else. It’s weird how no one wrote of that in the article posting at the beginning of this thread nor even throughout this thread at all</p>
<p>There would have to be a direct correlation between her study time versus how long it takes her to take a test for sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I reckon it would.</p>
<p>If I’m in the admissions office at Princeton, after this brouhaha I’m going to be REAL careful before admitting anybody with this kind of laundry list of claimed disabilities.</p>
<p>I agree with those who say we don’t have enough detail to make an informed decision. Still, it’s hard to see how the student will prevail. I’m sure there have been many students with varying disabilities who successfully navigated the material and graduated from Princeton. The natural rebuttal to this is “Yes, but that doesn’t mean Princeton handled those students in the best manner possible.” The rebuttal (to the rebuttal) is that Princeton’s approach didn’t impede those earlier students. What has changed that now makes the approach inappropriate?</p>
<p>I am not an attorney, nor am I an expert on the subject of LD. So, my opinion is worth only a penny (not even 2 cents).</p>
<p>However, I wonder why the student and her parents chose Princeton to begin with. Her LD does not seem a localized case of dyslexia, a problem with hand writing, etc that can be addressed with relatively ease. Based on what’s available, her LD seems global and complex/complicated that affects the entire realm of cognitive information processing from comprehension, acquisition, storage and retrieval. Regardless of her native intelligence beneath this layer and layer of disabilities, the fact of the matter is, at an institution like Princeton where the student norm is VERY HIGH indeed in terms of the demonstrated ability for all types of information processing capabilities, her battery of disabilities presents a barrier that is very difficult to overcome and maybe even set her up for a potential failure. Now, compound that with her obligations as an athlete: this is not a winning combination.</p>
<p>I would have not recommended a school like Princeton to my kid if this was the case for us. The fact that her brother got an adequate support is not a sufficient basis for taking this chance: what worked for her brother may or may not work, and we don’t know what degree of disabilities her brother had - perhaps his problems were not as global as hers. </p>
<p>It’s great to be able to say, I go to Princeton. It’s entire another matter to be happy and competent at the school one is attending, AND graduate with a reasonable standing without incredible stress on an on going basis for all four years!</p>
<p>^ Echoing my previous posts. ;)</p>
<p>(Yours is more complete, but I agree with it.)</p>
<p>
I can’t imagine a slowed-down version of the socratic lecture environment as exemplified by my best law profs. It simply would not have been the same educational environment. And as intimidated and scary as it could be to try to keep up with the rapid pace of the classes (as well as the voluminous reading required to prepare for class)… nothing I encountered in law school came close to the demands of actually trying a case before a jury. </p>
<p>That’s not to say that a student with LD’s or processing issues should be denied the opportunity to attend law school… for one thing, not all lawyers become courtroom litigators. For purposes of passing the bar exam, most of the material could be learned by a stripped down approach to reading, as exemplified by the outline and quiz format used in bar review courses. In fact… not all of my profs were all that great, and in some cases I skipped class and relied on commercial study outlines, which were readily available for just about every law school subject. </p>
<p>But I think what made my law school experience something beneficial for MY brain is that it was the first time in my life that I was in an environment surrounded by other students who were for the most part as smart or smarter than me, where I had to work to keep up. Part of the benefit of the experience is that I did learn to think and respond FASTER. </p>
<p>In law school, we weren’t graded on class participation – so it would actually be possible for a student whose mind functioned at a slower pace to do well – the grades are entirely based on exams and if someone needs extra time for an exam, that would be fine. Though I would note that in practice, a litigation practice also often requires producing a prodigious amount of well-researched paperwork in an impossibly short amount of time – so the employment opportunities for a slow-processor with a law degree might be less than for someone who is able to function well in the high-stress, high-pressure, high-output environment of many law firms.</p>
<p>But the point is – there IS an educational value in that experience. And I can see a reason in some contexts to testing under conditions that require a fast response. (One of my favorite lawyers is dyslexic – David Boies – and if you have ever had the pleasure of watching him in action, you would see that his mind works at lightning speed. He has said that he compensated for his slower reading speed by developing a prodigious memory, so that once he read something he would never have to re-read it – and it shows. )</p>
<p>There is a concept called overlearning which refers to mastering information so thoroughly that it becomes automatic-- you don’t have to consciously think about the question and answer, it is just there. Sometimes testing under conditions requiring speed is used to test that sort of knowledge – that even starts in elementary school where teachers give timed tests of multiplication tables. They do that because their goal is NOT to know whether their students can figure out the solution to 8 X 7 – they want the students to have committed that equation to memory so firmly that the solution is retrieved automatically. (Both of my kids had difficulty with this “mad minute” sort of tests kids, and teachers did extend time for them – but it was an ad hoc thing, done on an individual basis based on the teacher’s observations, in an environment where adjustments could be made as needed, without undermining the purpose of the exercise.).</p>
<p>calmom, I think we’re generally in agreement here but there is one thing worth mentioning. I was talking about testing criteria as opposed to methods of teaching like the Socratic method. </p>
<p>There are different ways people can respond slowly. Some involve written I/O. Others involve really slow retrieval, etc. Some may involve just thinking more slowly. Boies no doubt was slow on the I/O but is obviously not slow at oral argument once he’s assimilated the cases and other information. For the reasons you describe (need to read numerous cases and documents, assimilate and write quickly), I think it would be painful for most dyslexics to be associates at law firms and probably would be the case for most of the partners at law firms. </p>
<p>My son has really enjoyed and been successful in Moot Court competitions in high school – he’s great at crafting an argument and pretty good at thinking on his feet, but he’s really slow on the input/output. Having done the reading and assimilation, Boies (and undoubtedly to a lesser extent my son) could handle the Socratic style of classroom. My son relishes and selects for classes in which there is active debate, including debate with the instructor. So, speed of processing once the input has been done would not be a major issue. But, I think the pain of the reading would be too much. As a result, despite his early positive experience, I have strongly advised him against law as a career (I probably would have done it even without the dyslexia, but not as strongly). </p>
<p>I have seen the overlearning in elementary school. I don’t think that Princeton is testing for overlearning (at least I can’t think of how or when). They do assume in some fields that knowledge is cumulative. For example, in math, they assume that you remember how to differentiate when you take second semester calculus or differential equations. However, I’m not sure that’s the same thing. I don’t know that they do so at professional schools (except perhaps at medical school when docs learn to operate when 9/10 asleep). Do you see this differently? </p>
<p>Incidentally, when I taught at business school, we did grade in part based upon the quality (and quantity) of classroom participation. So, people who are slow thinkers as opposed to slow readers and writers would have suffered. Students could compensate for this by a) doing really well on tests; and b) probably preparing a few things to try to insert into the conversation.</p>
<p>jbusc and mathmom:</p>
<p>The exams I am taking in college might be poorly designed or they might be pursuing the wrong pedagogy. But that’s irrelevant to my point. I have taken several timed exams in college (and high school) when time is an issue for everybody, not just for students with LDs. The aforementioned test was not an exception, just the first instance that came to mind because it happened so recently. In fairness to others, students with LDs should get more time relative to the intensity of their disability, and not a fixed amount. Getting 50% more time when they only need 30% more to achieve at the same level is giving them an unfair advantage on exams where everyone is struggling to finish in the time allowed. (And yes, these exams do exist!)</p>
<p>If you think that time should not be an issue on an exam at all, why not give everybody as much time as they need to finish without pressure?</p>
<p>P.S., I am saying this as someone who has never gotten a grade higher than a B (and usually closer to a C or a D) on an essay exam in high school because I always ran out of time. But I think it would be unfair to ask for extra time when other students are struggling with time in subjects I have no trouble with at all. I would not want to take science exams with reduced time just because I am faster than most, so why should I get extra time for essays? My weaknesses are as much part of who I am as my strengths.</p>
<p>Do you know what she has learned at Princeton?
She has learned how to work the system.
If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
While qualified students get passed over, she gets in and sues Princeton.
What a joke.</p>
<p>I had a response written out for you Gnee, but it would be much more concise to just tell you that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Having LDs and requiring accommodation does not make her unqualified for Princeton. Hell, even Princeton disagrees with you.</p>
<p>
This wouldn’t bother me, at least within reason. My husband teaches at a medical school and there’s a real art to designing an exam that differentiates between the students that really know the material and those that don’t.</p>
<p>My younger son, simply can’t write that fast physically, but ditched a 504 plan years ago. I’d love it if his exams didn’t put him under os much pressure timewise.</p>
<p>My point is that Princeton is trying to help her.
She thinks they should do more.
When do we say that’s it, maybe this is not the school for you.
Nothing wrong in admitting that you may be in over your head, and find a better school for YOU.
Is it fair to the other students that get extra time, but not as much as her?
Yes I have a clue what am talking about, and it’s you can’t always get what you want!</p>
<p>Gnee, I don’t think any of us have enough evidence to say that she is in over her head based upon the publicly available data. Do you know her grades thus far? Do you know how her disabilities would affect her performance on timed tests? </p>
<p>The one thing we do know is that bringing suit is unlikely to be an effective strategy. She shouldn’t have chosen that except as a last resort, but this is America and people sometimes sue far too quickly, so we can’t infer from the fact that she has sued that she was in over her head.</p>
<p>I will say it one more time.
How much time and extra help do we give someone.
Is it fair to other students that do not receive as much help and extra attention.
I stand by my point that this may not be the school for her.
Will Princeton be forced to do more?
Does she sue again when she feels she needs even more help.
We must admit sometimes we can’t do or have it all, to sue Princeton is wrong.</p>
<p>Uh, yeah, because they do not have the barriers that LD students do. How can you not see the distinction? She is fully within her right to sue if she thinks her ADA rights are being violated, and the judge will decide. Well all have the option to bring our case before a judge when we think our rights have been violated, why can’t Diane?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But as I pointed out before… the structure of her lawsuit requires her to prove, in essence, that she is in over her head. Either the accommodations offered are reasonable – that is, they enable her to keep up with other students — or they are not – that is, they are not sufficient to allow her to keep up and the denial of such accommodations is not legitimately related to a necessary educational purpose. If it is the first, then of course she loses her lawsuit.</p>
<p>I’d note that it works the other way as well. Princeton now has a vested interest in defending by developing evidence to rationalize it, including challenging the plaintiff’s claims as to the nature an extent of her various disabilities. Even if there was some person on the staff of Princeton’s disability office who wanted to find a way to help the plaintiff, lawyers tend to advise their clients to avoid saying or doing anything that could be interpreted as an admission or concession. </p>
<p>The part that frustrates me – both as someone with experience as a litigator and as someone with experience working with LD kids, including my own son – is that this is a good example of a place where the procedures that are part of the legal system tend to hurt the people they were designed to protect. It simply is not good for someone with an LD to be in the position of needing to fail in order to improve their chances of winning their case. This is one area where I think mediation is a far better approach – and that certainly is something I would encourage a client to pursue prior to filing a lawsuit. Again - as I noted above – litigation is never a good idea when the plaintiff wishes to maintain an ongoing relationship with the other party.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that it’s “wrong” for her to sue if that’s the choice she’s made or that she doesn’t belong at Princeton.</p>
<p>On an entirely separate note, I wonder if we are also assuming too much in thinking her first move was to sue. Had I started the Spanish process in July like I was supposed to rather than forgetting about it until a few weeks ago I could have been at a point to have to consider other options by midterms FOR SURE. Nothing I have read so far has said one way or the other about what else has been tried, and none of the articles have been particularly detailed at all enough for us to assume that the absence of information in the article means it didn’t happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the reality is that MANY students have significant difficulties that do not rise to the level of a diagnosable “learning disability”. My daughter has always had a tough time with math – anything to do with math takes her a long time, and she really struggled with her college stats class (required to meet a quantitative reasoning requirement for all students). But she isn’t LD, she doesn’t get extra time even though it might take her twice as long to work through a problem as another student. </p>
<p>Where do you draw the line? The problem is that there are no bright line criteria or measurements for most issues that are labeled learning disabilities – it is a judgment call made by the diagnostician, and colleges are not required to offer free testing services. There are many students who have specific areas of difficulty and have to essentially tough it out either because their difficulties haven’t crossed whatever line is necessary to cross for an official diagnosis, or because they don’t have the personal resources to obtain a formal diagnosis.</p>