Exams should test mental ability, not mental health

As we prepare for the start of another lively academic year, the question of how to be fair to students who live with mental health issues is once again top of mind. On Aug. 17, 2017, the National Post published an op- ed by Queen’s University law professor Bruce Pardy, which argues that providing exam accommodations to students with mental health issues provides those students with an unfair advantage.

This position strikes us as unfounded, and gives rise to an array of undesirable implications. As we see it, Pardy’s claims are based on a number of flawed premises and assumptions, foremost of which is his confusion of mental health and mental ability. We take a different view of the connection between fairness and students’ circumstances, and, more fundamentally, on the purpose and nature of legal education.

Pardy is correct to observe that the number of students requesting accommodation on exams has risen. He suggests, in effect, that students are using the system to gain an unfair advantage. We see the rise in accommodations differently.

A number of factors are leading more students to recognize and respond to mental health issues, including concerted efforts at law schools and elsewhere to de- stigmatize mental health conditions, to identify and intervene when early warning signs of mental health illness appear, and to provide a range of strategies and services designed with student wellness in mind.

More broadly, there is growing evidence of a higher incidence of mental health illnesses in law school ( in Canada as well as countries like the U.S ., Australia and the U. K .). We see this trend as symptomatic of a broader problem. More competition, greater expectations, higher tuition and debt, and more stressful circumstances all contribute to the higher incidence of mental health illness at law school. We see this less as a reality to be acknowledged and defended than as a call to action to provide better legal education that is more consistent with students’ experiences and our values as educators.

Pardy claims that the point of an exam is to assess how well students perform under pressure, like athletes at a competitive meet. If a mental health issue — such as anxiety or depression — prevents a student from doing well, that condition should not be accommodated, Pardy argues, because it is the point of the evaluation to assess how the student performs under stress ( though he acknowledges physical disabilities such as blindness should be accommodated).

But Pardy is confusing mental abilities with mental health.

A student’s diagnosed mental health condition is not a reflection of their intellectual worth, talent or abilities. And exams and assignments should not be exercises in testing mental health.

This is one way in which Pardy’s attempt to analogize between an athletic race and law school assessment breaks down. Given its animating values and goals, legal education is not a race.

Of course, l aw school grades will draw distinctions between students. But the goal of evaluation in law school ( and other post- secondary fields) is to assess a student’s knowledge, critical thinking and problemsolving abilities.

The purpose of academic accommodations is to ensure these distinctions are being drawn on those bases, not on the basis of medical conditions.

Students with diagnosed mental health conditions — like students with physical disabilities — may require accommodations in order to have a fair opportunity to display these abilities, and to give professors an opportunity to fairly evaluate them. Crafting appropriate accommodations is certainly not an easy task. However, regardless of whether mental health conditions are temporary, situational or chronic, to simply ignore them is unjust to the student and frustrates what we are trying to achieve as educators.

Ultimately, however, we do not see the goal of the movement to better accommodate students with mental health conditions as an end in itself. Addressing the reasons why law school contributes to, or exacerbates, mental health conditions is the bigger conundrum.

In its recent Access Osgoode Strategic Plan, Osgoode Hall Law School committed to pursuing “universal design” so as to reduce ( and, ideally, eliminate) the need for accommodations in the first place.

For example, as Pardy notes, many current accommodations centre on requests for additional time in sit- down, in class exams. Such exams represent only one of many options for evaluating a student’s abilities. Other forms of evaluation — from experiential assessments, to take- home exams, to oral presentations, to collaborative problem- solving — could do a better job of determining student performance while at the same time reducing accommodations.

There is another benefit to highlighting the nature and implications of mental health in law school: namely, lawyers play a key role in the mental health system.

As we build a more inclusive, accessible and fair law school, our graduates can dedicate themselves to building a more inclusive, accessible and fair society.