damn the muse

A student was denied extra time on the LSAT because the court found that his condition, ADHD, did not substantially impair his ability to take the test in the time allotted. The court relied on the student's performance in school and previous exams to make the determination, which makes sense, but what I find intriguing is the attempt to a disability.

"The fact that plaintiff is clinically diagnosed as having a learning impairment does not automatically mean that he is entitled to an accommodation under the ADA. An impairment and a disability are two different things," Surrick wrote.

Is an impairment meant to be temporary? ADHD is not temporary. And how is this different from a disability? The inability to perform is a disability even if it's mild-- in loose terms. (Must get my hands on the opinion). Impairment is a subheading. There's never a guarantee the person will get better.

Regardless, the decision is a bit ironic when I think of the students in my law school who used ADD as an excuse to get extra time for finals. A few extra minutes was not going to make the issues appear if you didn't know them.

As for the the LSAT, it's useless.