Derek T. Muller (Notre Dame), What Do Time Accommodations Do to the Predictive Value of LSAT Scores for Legal Education?:

Back in March 2025, I wrote about the LSAT’s predictive value in law school admissions. I argued that while it remains useful, it is less valuable today than it was twenty years ago (even though many admissions practices still treat it as equally predictive).

And in June 2025, I wrote about what we know, and what we don’t, about accommodations in law school exams.

I wanted to dig into one of the empirical literature’s central claims—how time-related accommodations affect the LSAT’s predictive value—and what that might reveal (or obscure) about legal education.

Data from LSAC shows that time accommodated test-takers receive higher scores than non-accommodated test-takers, around four to five points. Most accommodations for test-takers translate into LSAT scores that predict law school success as accurately as for non-accommodated test-takers. For instance, a visually-impaired person receiving large-print materials will receive a score that fairly accurately predicts law school success. There is an exception, however, for time accommodations, and LSAT scores tend to overpredict law school success when there are time accommodations. Requests for additional time have increased dramatically over the years, from around 6000 granted requests in 2018-2019 to around 15,000 granted requests in 2022-2023. …

[T]here is an interesting tension between the perception and the existing LSAC data. That is, it does not appear that the students receiving additional time are overperforming. Instead, they are underperforming. … [W]hy does additional time for a standardized test help performance, whereas it does not (necessarily) translate to a law school exam? …

[T]he objective, at the end of the day, should be for schools to ensure that all entering law students are capable of performing the work; that similarly-situated students should be treated similarly; that students in need of accommodations receive them; and that any accommodations do not redound to the benefit of a particular group but instead provide equal opportunities for all students to be similarly evaluated.

The tentative evidence suggests that time accommodations may not improve law school performance and may instead highlight misalignments between standardized testing conditions and legal education itself. More robust assessment is needed, and perhaps some schools will begin exploring this relationship in future years.