How the Law Sometimes Requires Disability Discrimination
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing. See my confession of potential bias at the end to the post.]
This morning on the Blaze I learned of the story of Johnnie Tuitel. He is a motivational speaker who has cerebral palsy and has traveled all around the country, alone, for years—more than a million miles in flight alone, he says. You can watch a video on the story I am about to tell here, but the short version of it is this. U.S. Airways has an explicit policy stating that
For safety-related reasons, if a passenger has a mobility impairment so severe that the person is unable to physically assist in his or her own evacuation of the aircraft, US Airways requires that the passenger travel with a safety assistant to assist the passenger to exit the aircraft in case of an emergency evacuation. The safety assistant must purchase his or her own ticket.
Now, notice that the linked article associated with the video slightly misstates this policy, claiming that Mr. Tuitel would also have to be able to assist others in evacuation. That is not required—only that he can assist in his own evacuation. And I have had friends with cerebral palsy, so it seems very likely that he would only be able to provide limited assistance at best. So, they decided to apply this policy to him and booted him off a recent flight.
Now it would be one thing if Mr. Tuitel presented a danger to others. For instance, if he would positively impair others when they try to evacuate. But if the only concern is his own life, I say leave it up to him to decide whether to risk it.
What is being missed in this story, however, is that the law actually positively requires this discrimination. Allow me to explain.
First, it is probably legal to do this. It’s specifically authorized by 14 C.F.R. § 382.29(b)(3) (2010).
But that only says that U.S. Airways may do so. How on earth are they required to? Well, the answer is that they would be required to, or risk liability if there is a plane crash. Now the rational response might be, “well, couldn’t the airline ask Mr. Tuitel to sign a waiver saying if he needs to evacuate and can’t, that the airline isn’t liable for just leaving him there, possibly to die?” And the answer is yes, but it wouldn’t cover another situation: if a third party is hurt or killed trying to rescue him.
Picture this scenario. Due to pilot negligence, a plane has crashed, but remained intact. It is on fire. The passengers and crew are evacuating. But Mr. Tuitel cannot get out. So a passenger decides to stay behind and help him out. As he does, the plane blows up, killing both Mr. Tuitel and the good Samaritan.
In that situation the airline might escape liability for Mr. Tuitel’s death using a waiver like what I described, but it would still be liable for the good Samaritan’s death. It’s a legal cliché to say that “danger invites rescue” and that legal principle means that the airline is responsible for people harmed by the negligence of the airline, and any good Samaritans who are harmed while rescuing others from the dangers created by the airlines’ negligence. In short, any proper corporate counsel of the company would tell them to institute this policy.
But the result is that Mr. Tuitel must now pay twice as much to travel as others. I mean its not exactly segregated bathrooms on the scale of injustice, but its not right, either.
———–
Confession of potential bias: I think it is fair to inform readers that I am myself disabled. I have faced discrimination based on my disabilities, allegedly for my own good some of the time. So I care passionately about eliminating any unjustified discrimination, especially disability discrimination. Whether that means I am blinded by bias, or educated by experience is your call.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
I can’t watch the video (the pains of dial-up) but I saw this on the local newscast yesterday. (They picked it up because of the sort of local connection–the incident took place at West Palm Beach Airport). So I don’t know if your video includes the following point.
Tuitel seemed most upset by the airline agent’s behavior–first he was allowed on the plane, and then moments later the same agent told him “sorry, you can’t fly with us”. And apparently he’s been able to fly alone with no problems before. So the prime source of complaint was the sudden enforcement of a policy that wasn’t enforced before.
kishnevi (c89e0a) — 10/17/2010 @ 6:54 pmA more blatant case illustrating what DID happen when a company took an absolutist view of the rights of the “disabled”, one need only look to the Exxon Valdez and its captain’s history of alcoholism. Never again will a recently sober individual be given that kind of responsibility, even though some might call it discrimination.
Kevin M (298030) — 10/17/2010 @ 7:06 pmSo the prime source of complaint was the sudden enforcement of a policy that wasn’t enforced before.
Sounds like someone at the airline desk had a recent seminar on the rules.
Kevin M (298030) — 10/17/2010 @ 7:09 pmThis may not be the most insightful comment ever, but…that’s fucked up. How in the world can something like that ever get changed? The process seems positively Kafkaesque.
CliveStaples (37f6d0) — 10/17/2010 @ 7:09 pmPatterico, there is another potential liability situation, were the airline to allow an unaided person with c.p. on the plane and it crashed. Suppose that due to Mr. Tuitel’s condition, he couldn’t not only physically evacuate himself, but during the evacuation, his condition impaired or impeded the evacuation of a number of other passengers, causing their deaths or serious physical injuries? The airlines could be held liable. The only potential bright side for the airlines’ financial damages might be the limitations on damages engrafted in the Warsaw Convention and Toronto Convention (and made a part of each passengers’ ticket purchase). I don’t know whether or not, under airline law, the dead passengers’ estates could sue Tuitel or his estate, should his physical condition proximately caused their deaths. But I’m sure there would be some creative lawyers to press such a lawsuit.
eaglewingz08 (83b841) — 10/17/2010 @ 7:09 pmFascinating dilemma. It makes sense from a safety standpoint, especially in cases involving mental impairment and hearing/vision impairment, but can one assistant ensure a severely physically disabled person’s safety in the event of a true emergency?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/17/2010 @ 7:23 pmLooking at the safety assistant page, there doesn’t need to be any qualification other than looking capable of assisting him. So, I think it likely it would only cost him an extra $20, on average, to fly if he were quick witted enough to hire the person next to him to assist him in exiting the aircraft in case of emergency.
I’d do it for $5 just because there would probably need to be a contract so that the airline would be clear of that liability since I’d wind up being that good Samaritan anyway.
Dusty (373650) — 10/17/2010 @ 7:30 pmAaron:
I think I’m missing some legal aspect of this, not being a lawyer, but — in the event of a crash, if Tuitel’s “safety assistant” were killed trying to evacuate Tuitel, wouldn’t the airline be just as liable as if an unrelated Good Samaritan were killed trying to evacuate Tuitel? How does having a safety assistant diminish the airline’s liability? Does the safety assistant also have to sign a waver?
Dafydd
Dafydd the Asker of Annoying Questions (632d00) — 10/17/2010 @ 8:20 pmMoreover, is the safety assistant required to assist safety after a crash? Suppose he decides that “there’s no point in both of us dying” ?
Kevin M (298030) — 10/17/2010 @ 8:40 pmCompeting goods. I love it.
My bottom line is that if one is not self-sufficient enough to handle the duties or self-preservation aspects of flight, one should not fly. If an assistant can reasonably be assumed to allow a person to live up to these, fine. That expense must be borne by the person in need of such.
If this is not true, I would love to hear argument when it comes to the new space flights. What duties must those pax perform? How fit must they be? I will bet anything the requirements will be far more stringent, and will require pre-flight training.
Ed from SFV (de2c81) — 10/17/2010 @ 8:43 pmThe point made by eaglewingz08 @ #5 is probably the key. In a flash fire on board a crashed plane, for example, if the disabled person collapsed in the aisle, it might slow down all those behind him. In such cases, seconds can count and mean the difference between life and death.
I also agree with Dusty that a good Samaritan would likely always be around to volunteer, but that can’t be guaranteed. Blame the lawyers, and the judges who let them roam free.
Adjoran (ec6a4b) — 10/17/2010 @ 10:28 pmI sympathize with the traveler’s situation but don’t know of a solution. Maybe also the airline was actually worried about his life, not just their liability.
I was in an 8-story building when a fire started in the basement garage. Smoke was coming into the building, the alarm rang, and everybody poured down the stairwell. A fellow on the 3rd floor in a wheelchair was just sitting there at the stairwell with nowhere to go. The rush of people stopped, while people from upper floors leaned forward. They didn’t know what the delay was. We were almost crushed. Finally somebody yelled, pick up the chair on both sides, and two guys did. We were all lucky that day.
So my question is, should a person in a wheelchair be working in a place he is not capable of escaping? On 9/11 Good Samaritans did die trying to help people in wheelchairs get out. If I were in a chair, I would not work above the first floor.
Patricia (9b018a) — 10/17/2010 @ 10:51 pmIt’s probably discrimination under the ADA for the airline to require the man to provide his OWN assistant and pay for the ticket. The airline is a place of public accomodation, and thus is covered by Title III of the ADA. Requiring the person to provide their own aide (much less paying for the aid) is discrimination. And allowing a free seat for the person’s private aid, OR providing an airline employee to act as an aid I would argue definitely falls under the “reasonable accomodation/modification” standard of the law.
I’m no lawyer, but based upon my understanding of the ADA, I’d say your friend has firm grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. Just my opinion.
School Marm (a68c64) — 10/17/2010 @ 11:13 pmPatricia
> If I were in a chair, I would not work above the first floor.
That’s all well and good if the company you want to work for is on the first floor. I mean the firm i used to work for in Washington D.C. had its offices exclusively on the 10th.
So if I was a paraplegic, I just say, “okay, i guess i will forgo the six figure salary?”
I think the answer is that the handicapped dude just has to accept that life has bigger risks for him.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/17/2010 @ 11:14 pmComment by eaglewingz08 — 10/17/2010 @ 7:09 pm
I believe those two conventions only apply to international flights.
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 11:57 pmI am no more disabled than any other 54-year old sedentary lawyer, but this f****** sucks.
I thought the ADA was intended to end **** like this.
(BTW, my father was crippled with ankylosing spondylitis, much worse than most CP for most sufferers, for 30 years, just for disclosure.)
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:41 am“”I think the answer is that the handicapped dude just has to accept that life has bigger risks for him.””
Not the point. The risks are also borne by the folks who, for example, are stuck in the stairway behind the guy in the wheelchair.
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/18/2010 @ 4:53 amHell, when I get a seat near the emergency exit, they ask me if I think I can handle the door in case of emergency. I like that seat, it having more leg room.
If I obviously could not handle the door, would it be discrimination if I were placed in another seat?
Dam cripple, cain’t stand on his own two feet, what business he gots flying with us?
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 5:13 amIt’s just like the fear that those god-cursed sodomites will rape those expensively-trained killers in the Rangers and Marines. (Just an analogy, don’t mean to hijack the thread.)
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 5:17 amRichard
> The risks are also borne by the folks who, for example, are stuck in the stairway behind the guy in the wheelchair.
I don’t see how he would. They don’t put him, in his chair, on the flight. The put him in a regular seat and buckle him in. so give him a window seat.
And let’s talk reality, folks. i could be wrong, but its my impression that usually when there is a crash there aren’t many survivors. Rick Ducamen once joked ages ago that the real purpose of the seatbelt was so there would be just enough of your hip to find your wallet. 😉
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/18/2010 @ 5:42 ammaybe because this is a lawyers blog, but I can’t help but feel a tad disgusted at the legalese wimpout that seems inherent with the post.
“Three Die Trying to Save Drowned Child” this is a headline that could have come from anytime and in any language from human experience. Except, most recently, it is not a heroic/tragic one but rather a cautionary one. I, for one, would help those needing help to evacuate a downed plane, be they my kin or no. It is the right and decent thing to do. The fact that some of you would be worried that you could (and face it, would, in our litigious society) be sued is not something that is happy making.
MunDane68 (54a83b) — 10/18/2010 @ 6:20 amSchool Marm, your comment is an example of the ludicrous lengths that people stretch and snap common sense in interpreting “reasonable accomodation”.
This is why the ADA has been an unmitigated disaster. It has imposed enormous costs upon our society. Its original purpose was to increase the participation of disabled persons in employment and despite those enormous costs, the actual employment rate of the disabled is virtually unchanged.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/18/2010 @ 7:28 amAaron.
I was referring to the commenter who related being stuck in a stairwell behind a guy in a wheelchair.
I figured that’s literal enough.
But you could speculate about other possibilities. I don’t say that this means Something Must Be Done, but that the assertion that the only person at risk is the handicapped person is not entirely true.
Since some commenters are lawyers who have, these days it is said, time on their hands, why would it not occur to one of them to sue because a handicapped person was not allowed to be seated by the emergency exit? Lawyers being lawyers, completely distinct or opposite issues can be made equivalent for the right fee. So it would be necessary to spend a lot of money trying to prove that the requirement had disparate impact, or not, that it hurt the person’s feelings, that the risk was insignificant…. IANAL, so I’m sure one of the Anointed could make a federal case out of less than that, for a fee.
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/18/2010 @ 8:32 amWell, it would not occur to me Aubrey to sue an airline for seating a disabled passenger somewhere other than the exit row.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/18/2010 @ 8:38 amBut I thought you were saying that the ADA would not permit that, or even warn him of the danger, right? The company would have to make an accommodation for him?
And yes, his situation did endanger others during the fire.
Patricia (9b018a) — 10/18/2010 @ 8:57 amSPQR
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:01 amDo you speak for all attorneys?
Nope, Aubrey, just one of the attorneys being painted with the broad brush you wield.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:15 amIMNAL, so I’m sure one of the Anointed could make a federal case out of less than that, for a fee.
To become an “Annointed” requires nineteen years of education, an IQ of 133, and about $100,000 these days.
Get lost, loser.
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:23 amAh, nk, the Dale Carnegie of Patterico’s Pontifications …
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:27 amSometimes disabled people need to know and accept their limitations and deal with it gracefully, rather than try to come up with a lawsuit to force the rest of us to order our lives around your disability.
SGT Ted (fa9b46) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:32 amThis is one of those hard situations that you can’t fix by rule making. Someone will be impacted negatively, and people consider this to be a safety issue.
It’s easily solved with a culture of common sense and accepting imperfection in life. Most flights have healthy young men on them. If a disabled passenger is unaccompanied, a common sense approach would be to ask a young man if he minds looking out for the disabled person if some emergency arises.
I know, that’s so unfair in some way I am not concerned about at all. Might hurt someone’s feelings slightly and some young men will say they do mind.
But it’s the best solution and it’s part of having a society.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:38 amBTW, Aaron really keeps the thought provoking posts coming, doesn’t he?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:39 amSPQR@22:
Sorry, SPQR, but requiring the airline to either provide an aid or allow the man’s aid on at no additional cost is what the ADA is all about: equal access. It is no different than requiring a business to install a wheelchair ramp at cost to the business, or to the park and recreation dept that must provide an extra swimming instructor so the kid with autism can learn how to swim, or the private college to provide books in braille to the blind student.
You are wrong. And while the ADA certainly does have its abuses (just like most other anti-discrimination laws), you misunderstand its application by making a statement that is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
School Marm (a68c64) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:41 amNote: the below is not intended to be personally directed in any way. Please don’t take it in that manner.
Mr. Worthing, while it is unfortunate that you suffer from a disability, the whole disability lobby has long since passed the point where they are counter-productive, and serve far more as an impediment to relations with the Disabled than as a boon.
They are much like those behind MADD, whose pursuit of a zero-alcohol limit has become a bureaucratic objective rather than a humanitarian one.
The whole “segregated” bathroom example you cite is probably one people are not familiar with, unless you’re referring to the race-based one, and not the ADA one.
To others:
It was decided that bathrooms must be made accessible to those who were physically disabled and needed wheelchair access. OK, that’s a fairly small percentage of the populace, but it’s not unreasonable, “and we can afford it”.
It was also decided that such bathrooms must also include a separate sink and private area, for the reason that, unfortunately, the disabled may have accidents and need to “clean up”, and it would be humiliating for them to do so publicly. Again, that’s a fairly small percentage of the populace — an even smaller one — but it’s not unreasonable, “and we can afford it”.
Architects, however, are always — ALWAYS — under space constraints, and making every stall like that creates major issues. One such stall was deemed “acceptable”.
The ADA fought tooth and nail against the notion of putting one such on every other floor, rather than every floor. And that’s not entirely unreasonable, either.
HOWEVER.
Architects recognized that the need for these handicapped stalls was still fairly unusual, and that it is unlikely that two individuals would need them at the exact same time on the exact same floor. So they got a fairly smart idea, which is that of a single, unisex ADA stall in the space between the entries to the “normal” bathrooms. This provides for the needs of the wheelchair bound, and for those needing substantial privacy, while economizing substantially on space — entryways and doorways and interior spaces in bathrooms could be designed for those not requiring wheelchair access.
But no — OH, NO!! That is “singling them out” and making them “stand out” for special treatment!!
Because, you know, we might have somehow been completely oblivious to the fact that they were in a wheelchair, or something. We might have been totally ignorant that, in some manner, the universe had screwed them up — either through random chance or their own misadventure. It was only upon seeing Old Bill wheeling into the “HANDICAPPED” stall that we realized, “Hey, I never noticed before!! He actually NEEDS that wheelchair!! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!!!”
So when you go into a public bathroom, and are forced to wait five minutes because it has only 1 to 2 stalls instead of *four*, you can thank jackasses like those in the ADA who forced buildings to NOT utilize those unisex stalls.
Frankly, I have simply decided to return the favor… I ALWAYS choose the HC stall, even if the non-HC ones are available. If I get to wait for the HC on a regular basis*, then they can wait for me sometimes.
>:-/
The key point here, is, “I’m not responsible for your problems. I didn’t cause them. And, other than basic decency, I am not required in any way to assist you in dealing with them.”
But people have chosen (and I have no problem with that) to accommodate the disabled somewhat, to help make their lives easier despite the fact that we all give money in taxes — direct and indirect (who do you think pays for those ramps?) — towards that purpose. And we do so regardless of whether we want to.
And it has become such that the ADA has decided that the American citizen is a big fat deep pocket which the disabled can suck money out of to attempt to ameliorate their problems in every jot and tittle.
I repeat: I/we are not the cause of your problems. I/we are not ACTUALLY obligated in ANY manner to assist you AT ALL. That I/we choose to do so is because of basic decency, not liability or obligation.
So those whose actions supposedly represent your interests have been acting for well over a decade now to take advantage of that basic decency. So don’t be surprised when there is a backlash at some point. You’ll have earned it.
As with environmentalism, and so many other Pet Causes of The Left, the Bureaucrats In Charge have decided that there is no rational boundary for action, that there is no point beyond which absurdity rules, not reason.
Accommodating a literally tiny percentage of the populace by costing A LOT OF MONEY (as Everett Dirksen so famously put it, “A billion here, a billion there — sooner or later it all adds up to Real Money”) to do so is just one more example of how our society is regulating business to death.
And yes, Mr. Worthington, they ARE a tiny percentage. The obvious claim that “x million Americans are in some manner disabled” is a specious one in this situation, and you know it. There are vast sums of money spent, directly and indirectly, to deal with specific varieties of disablement. Such monies do not assist the mass of the populace.
========================================
IgotBupkis (9eeb86) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:46 am* This includes the vast number of times when people have to drive that much further from a building because there are 97 empty handicapped spaces because anyone who is handicapped should NEVER EVER need to be discomfited in the least ways — ever — unlike the rest of us, who should be allllllll the time.
You might recall the scene in my movie, Fight Club, where I discuss this exact matter…
We Are Tyler Durden (9eeb86) — 10/18/2010 @ 9:57 amAh, nk, the Dale Carnegie of Patterico’s Pontifications …
Comment by SPQR — 10/18/2010 @ 9:27 am
😉
Let them hate provided they also fear.
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 10:00 amThere were, I thought, good intentions behind the ADA. I have several “invisible” handicaps which qualify me for various bits of aid if I ask for them; mostly circumstances and my health mean that I don’t tell about them, don’t ask for the aid, and (thank you, Lord) get along fine without it.
But blaming all of the woes caused by fools mis-applying the ADA and its regulations on those whom are supposedly being helped is a violation of Cooper’s Rule Four: Be sure of your target, and what is above, below, beside, beyond, and through that target.
Aaron has put up a great series of posts, I agree.
htom (412a17) — 10/18/2010 @ 10:04 amnk
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/18/2010 @ 10:34 amI suppose some attorney might sue an airline for not allowing a handicapped person to sit next to the emergency exit “pro bono”?
So, some for a fee, some pro bono–for grits and shins, I suppose–so my brush is getting more precise.
It takes an IQ of 133 to be a lawyer??? (nk @ #28) That’s a laugh! The entire legislative branch of our government, overrun with attorneys, puts paid to that idea.
Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 10/18/2010 @ 10:47 am“…I ALWAYS choose the HC stall, even if the non-HC ones are available…”
As do I, as I suffer(?) from non-diagnosed claustrophobia – or something.
AD-RtR/OS! (56f7fd) — 10/18/2010 @ 10:50 amI said “these days”, Gesundheit. Without linking it, I’m pretty sure that’s what the current LSAT scores correlate to.
And if Richard will apologize for lumping all lawyers with the the 1% or so who are ambulance chasers, I will apologize to him for my intemperate response. There are no lawyers like he imagines on this site, for at least one fact.
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 10:54 amnk has a point that a 165 LSAT or so is about the borderline for getting into a reasonably good law school, and that’s around 133 IQ.
He’s also right that it’s a lot of work and usually very expensive.
Lawyers have power, and are not well understood, so it’s a good idea that they have thick skin at the sentiments they are going to hear, even from otherwise reasonable people. A few bad lawsuits have caused a lot of problems for society, even if a few great lawyers assembled the best philosophies of our great nation. Like I said, lawyers have power.
Igotbupkis has a very insightful point that disabled is a wide category, and that example he cited of ‘don’t single them out’ while society goes to some effort to help is a terrific example of PC unfairness.
You can’t solve these problems entirely by rules. You need a society that employs a little sense. If my airplane can’t safely manage a crippled passenger, I won’t give him the choice to board, either, but 99% of the time, I’d just sit him next to a nice and healthy young man. Of course, my airline exists in an unrealistic fantasy land where people don’t face tremendous legal risks for employing sense alone.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:04 amYes, lawyers provide a valuable service to society.
AD-RtR/OS! (56f7fd) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:07 amIt is unfortunate that 98% of lawyers give a bad name to the other 2%.
“Without linking it, I’m pretty sure that’s what the current LSAT scores correlate to.”
nk – There is a correlation between a given LSAT score and a passing grade on the bar exam? I am interested in that. Also in which states the correlation has been demonstrated. People could save themselves a whole lot of law school tuition armed with such information.
Please link your information.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:20 amDustin.
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:32 amMy son was in his mid-twenties after 9-11. He’s a big, hard-looking guy. He flew frequently on business and was invariably bumped to first class.
He knew what the deal was after I told him it wasn’t his charm.
The problem with the guy sitting next to your putative handicapped person is…if something goes wrong in his rescue attempt, he will have to spend some substantial money being a Good Samaritan for legal purposes.
Still, it isn’t over. If the healthy young guy is going to take care of the handicapped person in an emergency, it still requires time that would not have been necessary.
Let’s point out that it puts everybody at increased risk, at some level of increase.
I’m not saying that the handicapped should be kept home. I’m saying that the cost, or risk, does actually exist and that it does no good to pretend it does not.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/18/2010 @ 11:20 am
You’re right. An LSAT score that correlates into 133 IQ is only enough to get you into law school. It does not mean that you will either graduate or be admitted to the bar. Among other things, it’s three years of hard work, a character ivestigation, and a very tough bar exam.
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:40 amNot in Texas he won’t. I don’t know about elsewhere, but if some good Samaritan is sued for botching a rescue effort, that’s outrageous and ‘there ought to be a law’.
I find it acceptable that younger healthier men spend more time and face more risk because society expects them to help others sometimes. It isn’t fair in some sense, but then, it’s not strictly fair that some men are strong and some are crippled either. Society manages using a little sense.
I agree completely.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:47 am“An LSAT score that correlates into 133 IQ is only enough to get you into law school.”
nk and dustin – It may be enough, but I want the study showing the correlation. I’ve got two kids coming out of college this year and am not interested in throwing away money. Going to one of the better law schools is not a requirement to become a lawyer.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:49 amActually, Aubrey could be right and I wrong. Just because the law says you aren’t liable, under good Samaritan acts (not the Seinfeld version), that doesn’t mean you won’t have to pay for a defense.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:53 amAaron, I am enjoying reading what you write, though I wish that you would review the differences between “its” and “it’s.”
K Hays (a09ba7) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:53 amI don’t have a clue about the bar passage links to LSAT performance. But I strongly recommend not going to law school if you can’t get into a very good one. They aren’t that much more expensive. by very good I don’t necessarily mean t14 from US News, though all of those are very good schools.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 11:56 amDustin and nk – Were those prior comments complete a*spulls or do you have any studies or correlations to link?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/18/2010 @ 12:09 pmdaleyrocks, what prior comment of mine are you referring to?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 12:10 pmSome “Good Samaritan” laws are really “Blameless Sadducees” laws; when you read the details, it is not Joe Sixpack who is protected, but “official” first responders and licensed medical folk. Joe isn’t qualified for protection.
🙁
htom (412a17) — 10/18/2010 @ 2:04 pmThanks for the clarification, htom. I definitely stand corrected.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 2:13 pmdaleyrocks,
I have a kid who’s asking me for an after-school snack.
Google “Mensa” for a chart of correlations between standardized test scores and IQ; the individual law schools your kids are applying to for their LSAT requirements.
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 2:28 pmMensa. http://www.mensafoundation.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm
Safe for work. 😉 Follow their tree for more specific stuff.
The law schools, like Dustin said, you check them out one by one for their LSAT requirements, but they do average about 95% percentile.
Now if your question is whether a good LSAT and good grades will make you a living as a lawyer, the answer is a strong “Maybe”.
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 2:37 pmIt occurs to me that a 165 LSAT and a good GPA probably equals a full scholarship at some low tier schools.
I still believe it’s better to not enter law school if you can’t gain admission to a very good one.
If Daleyrocks was asking about the IQ to LSAT ratio, I simply googled it. It’s on the internet so it much be true (actually, yes, it must be true, since the LSAT, like the IQ measurement, are forced scores relative to everyone else’s performance.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 2:44 pmAnd since I’ve made this thread mine, my kid’s snack was a piece of hearth-baked crusty bread and a cup of milk. 😉
(She knows I’ll never say “no” to bread or milk, the little glutton.)
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 2:47 pmHere’s Mensa’s table of acceptable scores Theoretically, a person with these scores is among the top 2 percent of the population.
That said, I find it hard to believe that an LSAT that is equivalent to a 133 IQ or higher is necessary to get into any but the really top level law schools. The average lawyer is not a genius, although they may often think they are. (Come to think of it, from my very brief experience of Mensa–not at all impressive–a legal system full of Mensans would be catastrophic.)
Daley–do your kids know where they want to practice law or in what field of law they want to practice? If they do, they should try to get into the best law school they can which has a strong faculty in that area of practice and a good sized alumni network–in other words, a school with enough connections that they can get a job in the area of practice they want. Provided of course they are willing to work their rear ends off to get good grades, law review membership (desirable but not absolutely necessary), internships, and a good track record to offer all possible employers. And then work their rear ends off once they get the job….
kishnevi (c89e0a) — 10/18/2010 @ 2:53 pm“daleyrocks, what prior comment of mine are you referring to?”
Dustin – #42
“nk has a point that a 165 LSAT or so is about the borderline for getting into a reasonably good law school, and that’s around 133 IQ.”
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:01 pmI am taking the above responses from Dustin and nk that their earlier comments in this thread linking IQ and LSAT performance were complete a*spulls.
Thank you gentlemen.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:07 pmSorry to have wasted your time, daleyrocks. Enjoy your ignorance.
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:12 pmAsshole. http://www.lsat-center.com/lsat-page2.html
nk (db4a41) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:20 pm, that’s outrageous and ‘there ought to be a law’.
If the healthy young guy is going to take care of the handicapped person in an emergency, it still requires time that would not have been necessary.
“”I find it acceptable that younger healthier men spend more time and face more risk because society expects them to help others sometimes. It isn’t fair in some sense, but then, it’s not strictly fair that some men are strong and some are crippled either. Society manages using a little sense.””
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:37 pmAgain, not the point. It’s the folks behind the pair who are at risk, for which they did not volunteer.
Daleyrocks, it’s pretty goddamn rude to insist I am a liar a few moments after you finally let me know what the hell you were questioning.
I figured you were asking about bar passage rates. This makes sense if you read your comments.
Now that I know you’re referring to LSAT scores needed to get into a reasonably good law school, I have no problem pointing out what I’m basing my claims on.
A good law school, say, GW, UCLA, Georgetown level schools show drastically reduced admission rates as soon as LSATs drop below 164-167.
Perhaps daleyrocks was disputing by definition of a good law school. Oh well. I am entitled to that opinion.
Perhaps daleyrocks was disputing the IQ to LSAT ratio. It’s well demonstrated on google. As I already said, that’s how I found the ratio. You can google “LSAT IQ” and the first several links all show the same information. Honestly, this isn’t important to anyone. nk was noting that a law student at a reasonably good school is a pretty smart person.
At any rate, no, that wasn’t an asspull. I have no idea what is so controversial about anything I said, which is why I simply asked him what the damn problem was. I don’t really have time to be someone’s school counselor.
Daleyrocks, what’s the problem? What exactly are you trying to say? That LSATs correlated to IQs differently? That Cooley is a good law school? What is the point of arguing about something you don’t know about, and don’t care to google before calling people liars?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:49 pmThanks for making the distinction clear. You’re probably right… society is a little slower for trying to take care of the older or the very young or the weak or the crippled.
And I agree, we should be honest about it. I’m ok with that kind of inefficiency.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:50 pmI’m confused about this LSAT-IQ debate. It appears that MENSA accepts a minimum score on various exams, including the LSAT, as proof that the scorer meets MENSA’s qualifications for membership. If that’s the case, is it evidence of a correlation between IQ and LSAT scores or is it just MENSA’s way of eliminating a certain percentage of applicants?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:54 pmDRJ, it’s a bit of a fuzzy thing, I’m sure, simply because LSAT takers self select. So the theoretical average LSAT score equals greater than 100 IQ.
I found a variety of comparisons, all floating around the same vicinity of mid to high 160s LSAT being mid to low 130s IQ. MENSA is apparently one of the orgs making the comparison, for their membership purposes, as are various other organizations such as the International Society for Philosophical Inquiry.
Here’s a chart of high IQ societies accepting various tests for membership.
I had planned to make a bunch of geeky jokes about insecure folks taking internet IQ tests, because I just don’t take this issue very seriously.
At any rate, DRJ, yes, this is MENSA’s way of eliminating a certain percentage of applicants, because their accepted score is whatever the 95 percentile is. They apparently assume that the 95th percentile of LSAT takers is equivalent to the 98th percentile of IQs.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/18/2010 @ 4:13 pmI flunked DENSA.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 10/18/2010 @ 4:52 pmBradley, I’ve misplaced your email addy. Would you post it, pls? Thanks.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/18/2010 @ 6:13 pmPerhaps there needs to be a battery of physical and psychological tests for every person getting on a plane. Then it could be documented that only the most able were sitting in front of emergency exits, the person in the aisle seats were always more “able” than those by the window, that those closest to the front exit were quicker than those farther down the aisle, and business class could only hold athletic and cool demeanored individuals.
Yes, it would not make sense to put a person with an obvious mobilty issue in a position to impede others; but the idea that each person is legally owed the optimum circumstances in life is a bit much. Not everyone can be the center of the universe.
A person doesn’t get out of the plane in time because the person two spots up the line has a heart attack. Are they going to sue the heart-attack patient’s doctor for failure to diagnose coronary disease and keep the person off of the plane?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/18/2010 @ 6:26 pmIn today’s world? Absolutely.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/18/2010 @ 6:31 pmDana,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 10/18/2010 @ 7:00 pmSure. It’s my first and last name, no space, @gmail.com
“What is the point of arguing about something you don’t know about, and don’t care to google before calling people liars?”
Dustin – Can you please point out where I called anybody a liar. You chimed in to support an assertion by nk who claimed he wasn’t going to provide links and suggested I google it myself. nk then backed off his assertion that there was a correlation between IQ, an LSAT and a passing grade on a bar exam, merely a correlation between IQ and LSAT score.
I still have not seen either of you present that linkage, only some BS about MENSA.
It’s pretty rude of you to try to hold me responsible for not remembering what you write in your comments.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/18/2010 @ 7:41 pmHarley Sullivan: Did I ever tell ya how
nk (db4a41) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:25 ammy Uncle Charliedaleyrocks got stoved up?John O’Hanlan: No, Harley.
Harley Sullivan: His home set right out in the prarie. One day he went in the outhouse and got caught right in the middle of a stampede. When he went in there wasn’t a cow in sight. A few minutes late 365 longhorns ran over him. Broke him up something terrrible. That was nineteen years ago and he’s still constipated.
Harley Sullivan: What kind of business you figure your brother left you?
nk (db4a41) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:30 amJohn O’Hanlan: Well, the letter don’t say – but that’s just like a lawyer. They don’t tell you no more than it takes to confuse you. But it’s a… something called the Cheyenne Social Club.
Don’t worry about it, Dustin. Daleyrocks has had a hardon (meaness not love) for me for quite a while. Probably thinks I ran over his cat. Whenever I say black he says white.
nk (db4a41) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:58 amThere has to be a way for people to discuss these things without clawing at each other’s throats.
Please find that way.
Patterico (babbb6) — 10/19/2010 @ 3:41 am79
look on the bright side = the topic could have been religion or Odonnell (not that there is much sunlight between the two) 🙂
EricPWJohnson (d2957c) — 10/19/2010 @ 3:52 amDaleyrocks is on ignore.
nk (db4a41) — 10/19/2010 @ 4:06 amI’m not trying to claw your throat out. In fact, I’m really surprised that someone I agree with all the time is responding to me this way.
When I make an assertion, and you call that an “asspull”, I interpret that as you claiming I made something up, when I explicitly said I did not. If you weren’t trying to call me a liar, then I’m glad you’re saying so now. Are you?
At any rate, indeed, I was backing up some of what nk said, because I knew some of it to be true, but had never googled LSAT to IQ comparisons until I read his comment, and when I did, I was surprised and wanted to remark on it.
Absurd. That’s why I quote people. That’s why I asked “what comment are you referring to?” when I thought you had mistaken bar passage claims for my comments. You’re not a victim of my treatment of you.
You finally identified the comment of mine you were challenging, and then instantly declared it an “asspull”. I have no idea why. It’s a mix of true facts and a reasonable opinion, and not controversial. Instead of accepting you messed up, you’re playing the victim, but if you had treated me the way I’m treating you, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:05 amAnd I apologize to Patterico for letting this stupid issue escalate. I can’t pretend I’m not a common factor in discussions that get ugly.
Only thing I could have done differently here is what nk is doing now… ignore some stuff. Doesn’t really sound all that difficult.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:13 am“Daleyrocks has had a hardon (meaness not love) for me for quite a while.”
nk – You mistake me. It’s when you throw out unsupported arguments by authority as you did on this thread, claiming you have support when in reality you do not, that I take issue with. It seems to have become a trademark of yours over the past six months or so and I have corrected you several times on points of law. I call that failed argument on your part, not a hard on.
Dustin – Have you presented any evidence linking IQ and LSAT scores? You claim you have, but all you have presented is membership requirement s for geeky societies, so forgive me if I am not impressed with your claims of linkage. Spare me your claims of outrage.
nk and Dustin, at the time you made your comments about IQ and LSAT scores, those claims were indeed a*spulls, not necessarily lies, but claims pulled out of your butts and you’ve been trying to find supporting data since I challenged the claims.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:43 amNot while I’m in charge, any way…
IgotBupkis (9eeb86) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:48 am:^P