… We have improved our turnaround time with request processing, even request processing even just responding to inquiries. We really, really felt like, okay, let's take a look at how we can do better and where we can make improvements and have done that throughout every aspect of what we do.
Part of the benefit of doing that, there are some obvious benefits, but I think it's important to point out that in the last several years since the consent decree started, the volume of requests for test accommodations that we've received has increased really exponentially. I would say in the last few years, we've seen maybe a 45-55% increase annually from each previous year.
So being able to move quickly and have better systems and structures in place has really helped us to be able to navigate and handle that volume without — you know, in a way that still benefits our customers. And I think that's really been tremendous.
And that set us up beautifully to navigate through the pandemic. When the pandemic happened March 13, 2020, the entire company went home, and we haven't been back since. We're all still working remotely.
It led us to be able to shift extremely rapidly, to move to a whole new world of remote working, to be flexible and adaptive. To consider we need to do things differently. At the forefront of every sort of decision that was made was the complete commitment to having it be seamless so that there was no negative impact for any of our customers, for our test takers. Really a seamless transition for test takers with disabilities.
As LSAC started considering remote testing, I was thrilled because I was involved in a number of the early meetings, but I think from the very beginning, it was clear that we were not even going to move forward with the testing program unless we could make sure that it was accessible and that we could continue to provide testing accommodations in the way that we always had so that any candidate with a previous history of accommodations on the LSAT would continue to receive those same or equivalent accommodations as we move forward even with this completely different test format and delivery method.
So we moved quickly and remained firm and committed, and got kind of creative in a lot of ways to make sure that we were able to develop effective solutions given the new environment, given the new type of test modality.
The partnerships we formed, feedback from test takers has been so invaluable because we don't know everything. We need to listen and we need to be able to be an open system and to take that feedback to adapt and to make sure that we are meeting the needs of all of our test takers.
Part of that has been partnering with our test vendor as well. Leanne talked about that a little bit. We really developed a strong relationship with our vendor, and I think we have worked very hard at making sure that they understand not just our test but our test takers. And we've provided training to make sure that they are able to effectively support test takers with accommodations and implement accommodations in the way that they need to be.
We are available throughout each administration of the test. We communicate with them regularly, but even on test day, I'm online, my staff is online, we're all working to make sure that when these little technological snafus come up, we're right there to address them and handle things quickly so that the test takers can continue without a barrier to their test taking.
We also meet with our vendor after each test administration because we know there are opportunities to continue this iterative process of growth, to continue to get better. We've even in the past year, as we get feedback, as we see how each administration goes, through our observations and our partnerships, we've been able to even make changes to the software that we use to deliver the test. So each test administration, we get better and we get better, and we're continuing to grow and we're continuing to learn. And it's really exciting to be able to do that and also be in the context of all of these other broader initiatives and changes that are happening at LSAC.
So I am thrilled to be here. I'm excited for what the future holds. And I'm happy to answer any questions if they come up.
LEANNE: Can you say a bit about how we've managed these communities during the pandemic?
MICHELLE: We've recognized that not everyone has access to even equipment or to a space that's conducive to taking a high stakes standardized test. We're all remote. We're kind of in situations and environments that we didn't necessarily plan to be stuck in for prolonged periods of time. And because we had not had the test in the center, we wanted to make sure that any test taker who needs assistance with equipment, by which to take the test, or even just a private, quiet space where they can take their test, that we can help them with that.
So completely unrelated to testing accommodations, all test takers are able to contact LSAC if they need assistance. And we will actually provide loaner equipment. We will send a computer device to them that they can use to take the test. We have reimbursement opportunities toward reserving a hotel space if they don't have Wi-Fi, if they don't have an internet connection. And these are all things that we do free of charge. It's something just that I think we just want to make sure that that's not a barrier for anyone who may not otherwise have that type of access.
LEANNE: Great. Thank you, Michelle.
JEN: Michelle, there is a question, if we can answer one for Michelle? It's Deborah wrote. How frequently do you collaborate or partner with disability services at the colleges and universities regarding barriers, both at the law schools and undergraduate level.
MICHELLE: That might be something that Leanne you could touch on a little bit through your pre-law advisers and our partnerships with the law schools. We have been doing some of that type of work, but to be honest, that's something that I think we're going to talk a little bit about and maybe touch upon that I think we would like to do more of these partnerships.
LEANNE: And I think Kat will talk about a conference that the Coelho Center had last year where they tried to bring in the disability services from both law schools and some from universities so that they could help and we could partner with them helping law schools understand how best to support law students with disabilities.
There's another question about Michelle could you speak about how LSAC provided remote accommodations during the pandemic including paper iterations of the test?
MICHELLE: That was something that we spent a lot of time thinking about and figuring out. For test takers approved for paper and pencil as a testing accommodation for the LSAT flex, we continued to provide a paper-based test. As you can imagine, we have worked really carefully to establish some clear security procedures to maintain the integrity of the test, but we do ship a paper-based test format to the test taker. So if I'm approved for a paper and pencil test format, the remote connection that the test taker still needs, they need the computer to establish the live remote proctored session, the timing of the test is still done through the computer, but the paper materials are securely shipped by UPS or even by a direct courier to the candidate in their home. We have clear procedures established that sort of address how everything is sent in secure envelopes, the test taker opens the envelope in front of the live proctor on the camera, and proceeds with the paper-based test, packs it up and sends it back to us. It's really turned out to be a very effective solution for providing paper-based remotely.
LEANNE: Larry is asking about testing accommodations when a tester doesn't hear anything for months in a black box and then gets a rejection. With LSAC, is there an opportunity for interactive dialogue with students.
MICHELLE: In terms of the time frame, our commitment and what we have on our website, we say that really unless there's some unusual unforeseen circumstance, which the reality is may from time to time come up, but we typically respond to requests within 14 business days of receipt.
I would actually say that in recent months the time frame has even gotten better. It's improved. I think a lot of what we're talking about, these sort of approaches to looking at what we're doing and how we're doing, we recognize that I don't think it's okay for someone to have to wait months to receive a decision, particularly with the frequency of our test administration. The test is administered now 8-9 times a year. We want to make sure, we know, we understand that it's difficult when a test taker is waiting for a decision or just to know what's going on. So we work as efficiently as we can to process the request and provide a response as quickly as we can.
LEANNE: And I think we brought in significantly more staff who are dedicated to responding to and providing services to accommodate a test taker. So we attempt in every way to really reduce the time frames to which they would have a response.
I'm going to move on to a couple more questions, and then we'll get to Fe and Kat.
Hannah mentions that someone was told that their accommodations for the LSAC could only be provided in person. How many accommodated test takers are still being required to take the test in person, and is there any way to move everyone to remote.
MICHELLE: So I'm not sure about that particular report, but I can assure you that the LSAT flex, we are not providing the LSAT flex or administering it in person to any test taker. And so I can't speak to that particular report.
For the writing test, I think that's something, LSAT writing is administered separately from the multiple-choice questions. Initially there were some accommodations that I think were more administered in a testing center, and even that has shifted. We would like to provide every aspect of even the unscored writing test remotely. So that itself has even changed in recent months, and it's pretty rare now for that to happen.
Again, yeah. I mean, the number of those has reduced.
We're also looking at the writing tests more broadly and how we deliver that to be able to sort of shift that to have some more similarities to the way that the flex is delivered.
LEANNE: Have steps been taken for complaints that students who need frequent restroom breaks. I can answer that unequivocally yes.
And Larkin asks, it's her understanding that facial recognition is part of making sure the student is in front of the computer throughout the remote testing. What steps have we taken to make sure this doesn't disadvantage students who are already marginalized. There's a growing body of research that shows technology works best on white men's faces.
We work very closely with our proctor, and to be certain that no person is stopped from testing. If there are any questions about facial recognition, it's all done, those decisions are all made by person.
So let me see. Claudia asks most state bars refuse people to remotely take the bar with a paper iteration or with unscheduled breaks and require people who need these accommodations including people with disabilities that may be at high risk for severe COVID outcomes to test in person.
Yeah, we don't require people to test in person. We're very conscious of the safety of our test candidates. So the bars have a different — the state bars have different standards than we do.
What is the data of how many requests received are denied and approved.
MICHELLE: I don't have that readily available off hand.
LEANNE: Yeah. Our data shows that a significant overwhelming number of our requests for accommodations are approved. Very small amount are denied.
I want to be sure we have time for Fe and Katherine.
MICHELLE: Has anything been done to address issues with disabled test takers receiving last-minute changes to time and location of their exam.
Interestingly, that actually is completely relevant in light of COVID and the remote testing because with the remotely-proctored test, that issue completely goes away. Test takers schedule themselves for the remotely-proctored test. So when the scheduling process opens up for each administration, it opens at the same time for all test takers, whether they're approved for testing with accommodations or not, and test takers go in to the system and choose their own start time on any one of the available dates of the test. So that's work out well.
LEANNE: So there's a question about the college admissions scandal and has it impacted the mission and purpose of our company.
KELLYE: I was able to respond to that in the chat.
LEANNE: Oh, perfect.
Okay. Michelle, thank you so much for your input, and I know we'll have more questions, but let me turn to Fe and they can talk more about her work in the DEI space as well as with disabled candidates and the pipeline at LSAC.
FE: Hi. I'll be talking less about the test and more about kind of impact than pipeline work.
So my name is Fe Lopez Gaetke. I actually joined LSAC in the summer of 2019. My pronouns are she/her and ella. I worked under federal consent decree in Seattle. I do work from Seattle. When I was recruited, I was the executive director of an organization that did this work and when I was recruited for this position, I thought, why would I want to work at LSAC. They only do a test, right?
After a couple of excellent conversations, though, I was convinced that I could work at LSAC and impact the pipeline to the legal profession. Often I have been the only woman of color in these powerful political spaces and it's challenging and lonely to feel the weight of advocacy and perspective alone.
Also our communities are not monolith. I'm a Latina, Mexican, from Washington, and can I tell you, my brothers and sisters in Texas are very different. We know that's common in many of our intersectional communities and we really need to understand the nuance of that and the complications of that. And those perspectives need to be at the table.
At every level.
So we're working on DEI and belonging issues at every level and supporting our allies at every opportunity. LSAC is best known for the test, the LSAT, and we have made significant improvements in our operations devoted to accessibility. We actually do provide a wide range of programs and services for candidates in schools. We have also been actively improving our intersectional work in pipeline programs and restructuring our DEI staff to more intentionally support pipeline work. Over the last year. That's what I've been brought in to do, again, building on the significant work that LSAC has done in pipeline work for years.
Many of our initiatives are focused on building the pipeline of students who want to pursue legal education to access the power and privilege and to impart change and provide desperately needed perspectives and decision making in power dynamics.
In addition to the excitement I share with my colleagues about the addition of Angela, she's going to be my new boss, and being part of our leadership structure, we are also going to be adding to that the support and intentionality of that pipeline. We will be hiring a disability law fellow whose responsibilities will be to develop and maintain ongoing relationships, elicit support, identify advocacy opportunities within the pipeline, implementation of research programs and initiatives to improve the pipeline for students with disabilities as well as influence policies and practices while in law school. And I'll talk a little bit about some of those partnerships and collaborations that have been developed through Leanne and Kellye and others. We're a small but mighty crew but we are devoted to expanding and seeing how we can be helpful there.
We also fund and manage the annual plus program targeted at first- and second-year undergraduate considering the career in law. It has served more than 5,000 minority students over the life of the program.
We also have issued I report that I'll post in the chat after I'm done talking. We have two different reports I'm going to talk about. I'll post those in the chat and you can download those. The first is insights from research in the LSAT plus program, with an ongoing conversation about effective pipeline programming in legal education.
The report first provides a brief overview of relevant research about diversity and law school and student learning to inform law school pipeline program.
Second, it spotlights the plus program and shares what we have learned about the importance of intentionality, how we use research, student feedback, and data in pipeline development in order to bring about a meaningful and transformative impact in the lives and perspectives of law school candidates.
Let me just say, addressing inequity and promoting access requires an intentional shift in the focus of pipeline work from addressing the question of why is there a lack of diversity in law school to addressing the question of how are we promoting and cultivating law school aspiration among minoritized students in the pipeline.
And really quickly, I want to talk about why I use "minoritize." It reflects the understanding of minority status as that which is socially constructed in specific societal contexts. For example, women are not minorities in legal education today but they are one of many minoritized groups. These are groups that face social, political, economic, and educational barriers that constrict them. Minoritized groups can include women, students of color, first generation, students with disabilities, students of low SES status, transgender, and gender nonconforming students just to name a few.
And finally you'll learn based on what we've learned the report provides a list of guiding frameworks, questions, tips, and resources to help think about and how to plan and drive intentionality and pipeline program. So what you're seeing is kind of our start to wanting to convene and talk about the new research, the new movements about how we are taking power back and how we need to be represented and shared.
We also invest heavily in our law hub and Khan Academy LSAT prep to provide high quality test prep to candidates who cannot afford expensive test prep. My parents were farm workers and I did not have money to do test prep and I would have loved to have had that opportunity.
We also just ram wrapped up Celebrate the Person Within, for law school admissions and faculty, and it focused on intersectionality. I'm not Latina Monday a woman on Tuesday and a lawyer on Wednesday. Those things happen all at once! So we are really looking at intersectionality at lots of different perspectives, understanding that we need to be in those spaces. So that's just another opportunity where we can inform and talk to law schools, among the many opportunities that we can think about intentionality and how we're trying to bring that to all of our work with law schools.
We also just recently published the justice impact law school survey that I'll also include in the chat. In collaboration with the national justice impact bar, we've administered this in September 2020 as a first step in understanding how law schools across the U.S. are recruiting, admitting, and supporting justice impacted students. It's an interesting term. I often am asked, what does justice impacted mean. For someone who has been incarcerated, detained, if you've been arrested, it has a big definition which is included in the report. And we did this because, again, this needs a lot of work. There's intersectionality. I remember working with the Washington disability rights organization, and they were working on disability issues with folks who are incarcerated. And there's a lot of intersectionality there. They worked with a lot of immigrants who had disabilities. And the incredible challenges they faced.
So we do know there's a huge impact for students of color because of the justice system, or the legal system, I would say. And it's really important that we are also highlighting that. So we're beginning our work there as well.
And we do have an upcoming LGBTQ plus guide to law school coming out where we can talk about intersectional issues and provide that for candidates about how to navigate and think about policies that are being enacted. Some of the things we've noticed is that schools whether say, yeah, we have gender neutral bathrooms. But when they got there, that gender neutral bathroom was across the street at Starbucks or on the third or fourth floor and it wasn't accessible like if you had a disability or couldn't get to it. So we're trying to be more intentional with even the questions we ask on these surveys, like what does that mean and hold schools up and let students know what they can expect in a more intentional way.
And then I wanted to talk about finally our partnerships. Our partnerships are really important to understanding what we made it to do because we don't want to say, hey, we're going to do X, Y, and Z for the disability community. I don't want people telling me what the heck I need. What we want to do is listen. We want to partner. Last summer the LSAC cosponsored a call center workshop and it brought law schools, administrators, faculty, staff, and students together to learn and share about disability issues and it was amazing. It was an interactive experience that I attended. Students shared about their experience with requesting and being denied their legally mandated accommodations in law school! It just blows my mind! But staff and faculty shared their resources, like here's how we can help each other so we can be better. And I was able to join in that community and learn more. And from there, a work group came out from the Coelho Center. You'll hear more from Katherine. We joined that access group where it's just getting started and for us we really are looking at how we can be supportive in disability advocacy both for prelaw candidates and also for law schools. What can we do to help, how can we use our power and privilege in this space to be supportive in those areas and to continue to build that pipeline.
So these are just the tip of the iceberg. We want to do more. This is an iterative process and we're always learning. And we're always expanding those relationships. And I'm really, really excited to have you all learn from Katherine in the work we're doing and our relationship with them. We've learned a lot and we are excited to continue that among many of the relationships to continue to build and grow.
Thank you.
LEANNE: Wonderful, Fe. Thank you. Love your enthusiasm.
Okay. Next we'll turn to Kat Perez, the director at the Coelho Center. We would love to hear what you're doing. As Fe mentioned, we are happy to be working closely in an advisory group with Kat really to think about how we can be more intentional about helping law schools understand how they can better support law students with disabilities. So let me turn it over to Kat.
KAT: Hi, everyone, and thank you so much for sharing your space with me and letting me talk a little bit about my work and highlighting how we've collaborated together.
In talking about the LSAT, it made me think back to when I took it. I don't know if I told any of you that I actually took the LSAT in Lima, Peru, because I was living there for two years. So just at the end of my Peace Corps service. So I feel like I have a pretty interesting LSAT test taking experience.
I graduated in 2013, and sometimes I feel like that was just the other day and I'm a student, but now at least for the last 3 years have been on the administrative side working as the director of the Coelho Center at Loyola Law School. Sometimes I still have to pinch myself that I'm not on the student side. I've been working towards these pipeline issues. Our center was inaugurated in November 2018. We work on a host of issues, but one of the pillars of our center is to work on the pipeline of getting more law students with disabilities into law school and then graduated and out into the bar and the bench.
One of the first programs that I thought it was essential to do was to start a pipeline program that specifically targeted students with disabilities who are interested in going to law school. So we have our Coelho law fellowship program toward that end.
We are on our second class of law fellows and our third-class applications are coming out so we'll be welcoming them soon within the summer.
Another way that we've been working on this pipeline issue — and when I say "we," really to be transparent the Coelho Center right now is an office of one. I'm the director but I'm also everything in that office for the moment. So one thing that I really rely on are my collaborations with other interesting organizations who have already been doing such incredible work on the issues that we're interested in getting involved in. So in terms of the pipeline issue, it made sense to us first to develop relationship with the ABA commission on disability, and then I met these wonderful folks at LSAC who were ready to jump on board and work with me. As was mentioned, we've also been working with Peter Blanck at the Burton Blatt Institute and Arlene Kanter in the disability program at Syracuse law program there. And NDLSA. I don't think anyone's defined that but it's the National Disabled Law Students Association newly formed in the last year.
So together all of us put together a workshop that has been referred to a few times last year with the aim of it being a call to action, which is not just a one-off workshop but that something would come of the workshop. And I'm very proud of the work that we did last summer in getting together. We identified about 20 law schools across the nation, and we made a conscious decision to try to limit it even more to less law schools. I think we just wanted to invite so many of the great law schools that we thought were doing great work in this space to have those initial conversations and share resources with how these different law schools were doing in terms of making law schools accommodating to students with disabilities.
So just to list off a few of the law schools that participated, we had of course Loyola Law School, UCLA, Yale, NYU, Berkeley was there. And just to give an example of some of the questions that were discussed, it was over 3 days, and essentially this was a workshop so it wasn't just a bunch of panels. We comprised everyone from deans, associate deans, disability services staff, down to and including students. Through the workshop, they each had a group and we mixed it up with different levels of people who were in the group from deans to law students, and they discussed different questions every day, starting with our first question which talked about intersectionality, which Fe just spoke so eloquently about. As a reminder, this was in the summer just after the Black Lives Matter protests were going on. So we really took this as an opportunity to talk about not only how law schools are made accommodating for students with disabilities but also how they're working within the intersection of disabled students of color.
So one question, for example, is a lot of the framework, support, and research around students with disabilities is around white middle-class Americans, what is your school doing to bring awareness to the struggles of people who aren't white when it comes to disabilities.
Day 2, what are you doing to destigmatize disability within your law schools, how are you finding, elevating, and centering the voices of disabled law students.
And I see we're running out of time, but we have really fruitful discussions and one thing every time I talk about this workshop, you know, we compiled a lot of data from the different working groups that we had, who all submitted their robust conversations that they had: But one of the biggest feedbacks, something that just reverberates is my research assistant, who was a law student, reminded me of this as we were preparing the next workshop for this summer. She said, as a student, she felt even in the workshop that a lot of the deans, the faculty, all the higher ups there were still putting the onus on the students in the group to do the work. So as they were discussing these questions, they kept asking, which is great, because we want to listen to the disabled students' voices but she felt like they were saying, okay, you make the change, you guys have the baton, you guys lead the way. And that's a lot of burden and pressure on students. So I think that we have to strike that balance between listening to students but also taking it upon ourselves as the administration, the folks who are running the system to look within ourselves and evaluate ourselves and do better for our students.
Once again, thank you so much for having us. I just want to say it's been a wonderful collaboration and I think you all are a shining example of how you all are taking on the responsibility of looking at your own institution and trying to do better for students with disabilities. So I'm excited about our collaborations in the future.
And also, sorry, just a little tandem, but I'm especially excited that they brought on the disability law fellow because although we just started in the past couple weeks, they've essentially loaned out their disability law fellow to work with me on our access working group. So once again, as our center develops and even though I'm a staff of one, I never really feel that way because of the wonderful collaborations that we have with organizations just like LSAC. So thank you all again.
LEANNE: Thank you, Kat. We love our collaboration with your center. And I had the chance to meet Tony Coelho, an inspirational leader.
FE: I think Deborah asked about our work with HBCUs. In particular, I work with HBCUs and disability access issues. One, we do a lot of different programming with HBCUs over the years. We are actually moving towards being more intentional about our approach, not just with HBCUs in particular, but also minority-serving institutions. But as it relates to accommodations or accessibility issues, we need more work there. So I just want to be quite honest: We want to be more intentional about that work and thinking about that, but we haven't specifically addressed that with either HBCUs or MSIs. We've addressed it in other ways, but being more intentional about accessibility and accommodations is some of the work we still need to do. So we will be listening. We're really excited about Angela joining us as one of those leaders in that space to help us really think about our approach, but like has been said before, it is iterative and we are going to be thinking about that and being more intentional about those approaches and working with various schools.
So I just wanted to say, just let you know that that's part of our working plan.
LEANNE: We have about 10 more minutes or so. For those who are interested, you can raise your hand or post your questions in the chat, and if we can't get to them because of time constraints, we'll certainly follow up with you.
Not seeing any further questions, let me go ahead and turn back to Kellye to close out our session.
FE: Larry has a question.
LARRY: Thank you. I'm interested in a comment that was made early about the fact that you are providing more support. It started with a general comment that you're providing more supports for disabled students who are applying for accommodations, which I think is a wonderful thing. And I have no experience myself with representing people with LSAC problems but I do have experience with another testing organization and I will be completely transparent, it's the organization that Dr. Goldberg used to work for, NBME. And one of the things that concerns me with NBME apart from their objective decisions is that applications go into a black box. You submit your application, sometimes you will get a follow-up that if something has been left out, they may ask for MCAT scores and they weren't submitted originally.
And then it goes into a black box for a period of time. And it's a period of time and it is much longer than 14 days. I was very positively impressed by that.
And at the end of — and there's no communication during that time that it's in the black box. And then at the end of that period of time, which before the pandemic was typically 2 months and is now often longer, what comes out is a decision letter. Yes, you get accommodations, or no, you don't. And some explanation.
And some of the things in the explanation sometimes are things that the student might have been able to address if there had been discussion along the way.
So my question is whether, when an application is under consideration, you have any kind of interactive process where you might say to the student, you know, we have a question about this or about that.
And I will say NBME will typically say in its letters, we may ask you questions along the way, but in my experience, which is now about 10 medical students, never happened. Or maybe one out of ten.
So I'm very concerned about that. Or interested in that and how LSAC approaches that.
KELLYE: Michelle, do you want to start with that, please?
MICHELLE: Sure. Certainly we can't speak to the procedures or what happens at any other testing organization, but I can tell you at LSAC, we have — and really as a result of the consent decree, we have very clear guidelines and we have very clear procedures and processes established and in place that make it clear for candidates what types of documentation is needed in order to support a request, how to submit a request, and how we respond to it, how we process the request. And we move very quickly and do everything that we can to take whatever the candidate chooses to provide to us to support the request, we provide a decision, put a letter in writing in their online account.
If any part of their request is not approved in full, we provide a clear explanation in writing. We have clear procedures for sort of what happens at that point. If there's something that is, like I said, not approved in full, we inform the candidate. Any candidate can appeal the decision. They have the right to appeal our initial decision. And we have processes around how that goes and how that works. But we give them information at that point about what might be helpful in an appeals procedure.
But I can say, in terms of the number of requests that are approved versus not approved in full, substantially the overwhelming majority are approved. So we try to get a response and get back to the candidate as quickly as we can so that they do have the opportunity, then, if something were not approved to come back and to sort of have the ability to provide more information to fully support their request.
Does that help?
LARRY: Yes. Thank you. Certainly a 14-day response time goes a big distance towards alleviating that concern too.
But again, I would think, and I don't have LSAC experience, but I think that being specific about this is what you could do, this is what else you could submit, this is what we didn't find, those kinds of things could be very helpful.
KELLYE: Thank you for the question, Larry. And I think one of the areas that we have gotten better at and we're going to keep trying is just that communication, is trying to be, to have the right staffing and the right focus on trying to be as clear as we can up front so that as much goes as easily, but then to be able to be responsive. And that's something that I want to close with, because I want you to know that we are absolutely devoted to making every effort. We know that despite those intentions, sometimes there may be miscommunications or we may miss the mark somehow. We want all of you to help us know that. We want to do the right thing.
So any time there's something that you feel that you've heard of that could be better or that you're knowing someone who may be experiencing a difficulty, we want to know and do everything we can to help, and we will do that.
Michelle and her team have become just awesome at being able to really turn on a dime to try and make sure we're doing everything we can while still maintaining a fair playing field because obviously we want to make sure we're being consistent across candidates and all.
With that, I think you all for including us today. I want you to know that we will continue to try and learn and partner and advance this work together. I know that equity work is hard work. It's ongoing work. We all have to keep learning. And those of us who are devoted to it need to hold hands together and push together, because the way the deep weight of structural inequality means that we need all of us.
We look forward to being with you in the future. In the meanwhile, please reach out to any of us. We want to be in dialogue with you. We're easy to find.
We thank you for the questions we had today, and we would be happy to answer additional ones as we go forward.
I see, for instance, there's a question about when could we expect reform around the analytical reasoning section of the LSAT. And that's something we're working on now. And even though there's been a pandemic, we absolutely are committed to meeting the deadlines that we promised there. So we look forward to continuing to innovate, to expand accessibility and access, and that's something that we will continue to do.
I want to thank my colleagues for being with us today, and if you have a minute to answer another question or two on chat, please do that as we're signing off. But I know that you have a next session starting soon. So with that, I'll close the formal part of our program.
Thank you, Leanne, for moderating. Thank you, Fe and Katherine for being with us, and thanks to all of you for this wonderful conference that you have.
Thank you.
Bye bye.
Bye bye. Thank you all.