Retiree fundraiser in my and sues Hochul for violating ny const art 1 sec 3 rights of pta members for closing Nassau oTB on Roman Catholic Easter Sunday so they cannot bet out of state tracks
Pta uses winnings to bet horses and provide retires with strength and conditioning coaches to improve their softball skills and present the pta with better competition
Contact otb cashier mentioned on article found below
The members of the Ryuyukai have done nearly 100 years of hard time. Now they’re just looking to stay out of trouble.
Katy Thompson aka willdigg
P.O. Box 1294
North Massapequa ny 11578
Nassau otb lacks a leave transfer plan like detectives and public employees have
Nassau otb lacks a Roth 457(b) plan like many public employees have
Nassau otb violates the ny const art 1 sec rights of even betting detectives by closing eg Sunday April 9
Note the ny state lottery never closes and otb sells and cashed ny lottery tix as you may have observed when you were at the Franklin square branch of Nassau otb handing out your business card
Whate date did you become president of tck investigations ?
Come talk at shackelyons Hempstead turnpike Franklin square opposite otb
Off-Track Betting Credit: Newsday File / June 2008
Despite its provocative Web site image of a scantily clad woman lounging on a leather couch, the new Wednesday night format at the Nassau County Regional Off-Track Betting facility in Plainview will be "good clean fun" aimed at a younger audience and will not
Another bigot
If he asked the pontiff he might learn that there are two Easter Sundays
It’s ny const art 1 sec 3
Big and dumb kind letitia James and her plantation master Kathy Hochul
For the Hochul James crime syndicate which stomps Nassau otb betyors’ ny const art 1 sec 3 rights faster than those who ventilate Maryland power transformers
Hochul James never met Easter Sundays in public school or in a court of law
The American Bar Association’s policy-making body on Monday rejected a proposal to make the LSAT and other standardized tests optional for law school admissions, casting a cloud over a change that has prompted debate about diversity in the legal profession.
The test-optional policy appeared to clear a major hurdle in November when an ABA panel that accredits law schools approved it. It was on track to go into effect for students applying for admission to law schools in 2026. But the ABA’s House of Delegates voted down the policy Monday and sent it back to the accrediting body for further consideration.
Despite the back and forth, it is the accrediting council, which is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, that gets the final say. It could approve the policy again and ultimately implement it, even if the House of Delegates rejects it a second time.
The council’s main objective was to give law schools flexibility in the decision-making process, said Joseph West, chair of the ABA’s accrediting panel and partner at Duane Morris LLP.
The proposal would make law schools in line with other professional schools that don’t require tests for admission and eliminate a potentially cost-prohibitive requirement that has an impact from a racial and socioeconomic standpoint for prospective students, Mr. West said.
The council will discuss its next steps later this month. Under the proposal, law schools still have the option to require LSAT scores if they wish.
Despite Monday’s vote, Mr. West expressed optimism in the proposal. “Engaging with so many people on both sides of the issue is a good thing,” he said.
The LSAT, or the Law School Admission Test, tests analytical reasoning, logic and reading comprehension. The ABA in 2021 also allowed law schools to consider the Graduate Record Examination, or GRE, as an alternative to the LSAT.
Advocates for eliminating the test say that students of color perform less well on the LSAT and argue that law schools should have the choice to decide what criteria are best for building a student body. Going test-optional would lead to greater diversity in applicants, they say.
During the debate, former ABA President Hilarie Bass said the LSAT at one time might have opened doors for women and people of color, but that changed with the rise of a test-preparation industry in which students with financial means can take courses that lead to better scores. “What we now know is that [the LSAT] is an impediment for people without the economic means to study for this test,” Ms. Bass said.
Test-optional opponents, including the Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, say the test is the best predictor of success in law school, and without it, students may be admitted and set up for failure, harming the legal profession. They also say eliminating the test won’t help with diversity and that other admissions factors are more susceptible to bias.
James Williams, a Perkins Coie LLP attorney who is a delegate for Washington state, spoke against the proposal, calling the LSAT a “great equalizer” that allows students who may not have prestigious pedigrees to be selected. “What are we fixing? The LSAT brought everyone in this room here,” Mr. Williams said.
Kellye Testy, president and chief executive of LSAC, said the vote would ensure that there is additional time for research into the “impact of test-optional policies on students and diversity.”
“As the debate showed, we all care deeply about diversity, we just have different views on the best way to pursue it,” Ms. Testy said.
The debate comes as law schools separately await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether race can be a factor in college admissions. The ruling, expected by the end of June, could force additional changes to how law schools run their admissions process.
Write to Erin Mulvaney at erin.mulvaney@wsj.com
