Partial Approvals for Testing Accommodations: Why Extra Time Is Often Denied

If you’ve applied for testing accommodations and received a partial approval, you’re not alone. This comes up regularly for applicants taking high-stakes exams such as the MCAT and LSAT, and it often feels confusing when it happens.

Many applicants expect accommodations decisions to be all-or-nothing. When part of a request is approved and another part is denied, the result can feel inconsistent. In practice, partial approvals reflect how the testing organizations evaluate different accommodations independently, with extra time receiving closer scrutiny than most of the other supports. This pattern appears far more often on the MCAT than on the LSAT accommodations process.

How partial approvals actually work

Testing accommodations are evaluated one request at a time. Each accommodation is reviewed on its own merits, based on the documentation supporting it.

Because of that structure, approval is rarely global. A testing organization may agree that certain supports are appropriate, while concluding that another request has not been sufficiently justified. This is why partial approvals often have environmental or structural supports being approved (e.g., stop the clock breaks) while extra time is denied.

Extra time is reviewed under a higher standard

Extra time receives more scrutiny than almost any other accommodation, particularly on the MCAT.

The reason has less to do with doubt about ADHD or anxiety and more to do with how the exam itself is defined. On the MCAT, pacing and endurance are treated as core elements of performance. The testing day is long, the sections are demanding, and sustained cognitive effort under time pressure is considered part of what the exam is designed to assess.

Because of that, extra time is viewed as a change to the structure of the exam rather than a contextual adjustment. On the LSAT, timing is still important, but the way speed is conceptualized is narrower, which helps explain why extra-time requests are more likely to be limited on the MCAT, even when documentation looks similar.

Where extra-time requests tend to lose support

Most partial approvals involving extra time don’t come down to a single flaw. They usually reflect how the testing body weighs different parts of the record when those parts don’t point in the same direction.

One issue involves how the overall record is documented. Testing organizations review a full package that includes developmental history, academic records, prior evaluations, current test data, and the accommodations report itself. When those elements are not clearly aligned, reviewers tend to rely most heavily on what appears objective and consistent across time. If the accommodations report emphasizes functional impact but the historical records are thin or mixed, the report may carry less weight than applicants expect.

A second issue arises when test data show both weaknesses and areas of strength. An applicant may demonstrate slowed processing speed or reduced efficiency under certain conditions, while also showing average or above-average performance in related domains. In those cases, the testing body may conclude that the strengths offset the weakness enough that extra time is not necessary for the exam to function as intended. This happens more often on the MCAT, where the threshold for showing that a weakness meaningfully limits overall performance is higher.

A third issue involves developmental history. For accommodations tied to ADHD or related conditions, testing bodies place significant weight on evidence that limitations were present earlier in life, not just recently. When childhood records don’t clearly show attentional, organizational, or time-based difficulties, reviewers may question whether current limitations reflect a longstanding condition or something more situational. Even when current struggles are real, an unclear early history can be enough to limit approval. This is where older school records, prior testing, and contemporaneous documentation matter. Applicants often need to dig for it.

Each of these issues can independently affect an extra-time request. When more than one is present, partial approval becomes much more likely.

High functioning often coincides with partial approval

Many applicants seeking accommodations for the MCAT or LSAT are capable, disciplined, and academically successful.

From a review standpoint, visible success carries weight. Transcripts, prior scores, and academic progression are easy to interpret. The effort behind those outcomes is not, unless it is documented directly. When compensatory strategies are effective but undocumented, the record may suggest that additional time is not necessary.

This dynamic helps explain why partial approvals are common among high-achieving applicants, particularly on the MCAT, where the threshold for approving extra time is higher.

Partial approval does not invalidate the evaluation

Receiving a partial approval often leads applicants to question the quality of their evaluation.

An evaluation can be thorough and clinically sound while still falling short of a testing organization’s accommodation threshold. Testing bodies apply their own standards and risk tolerances, particularly on exams like the MCAT, and those standards are intentionally conservative.

A partial approval reflects how the documentation was interpreted within that system. It does not negate the diagnosis or imply that the evaluation was incorrect. It indicates that some parts of the request met the testing body’s criteria and others did not. This is also why formal reconsideration processes exist. They are designed to address how evidence was weighed, not to correct an error in diagnosis.

Even well-prepared evaluations, including those written specifically with MCAT or LSAT standards in mind, can receive partial approvals. That reality reflects the structure of the review process rather than a failure of the evaluation itself.

Timing becomes a limiting factor

Partial approvals frequently arrive late in the testing cycle. By the time a decision is issued, there may be little calendar space left before the exam date.

Even when reconsideration is possible, documentation takes time to revise and review timelines are fixed. For many applicants, the difficulty lies less in understanding what needs to change and more in having enough time to make those changes before deadlines close.

This constraint is especially pronounced on the MCAT, where review cycles and implementation requirements leave little flexibility once a decision has been made.

Planning and next steps

A partial approval provides information about how the testing organization interpreted the record and which parts of the request were persuasive.

Applicants who understand this early tend to plan more deliberately. They consider which accommodations are most essential, how extra time is justified, and how much lead time is needed to respond if a request is limited. That approach does not guarantee a particular outcome, but it does reduce surprises.

If you’re early in your MCAT planning or LSAT planning and trying to understand whether accommodations, including extra time, are realistic for your situation, a consultation can help clarify how testing organizations tend to view similar records and what timelines look like as part of a testing accommodations evaluation.

The goal is not to promise outcomes. It is to understand the system well enough to make informed decisions before time becomes the limiting factor.

If you’d like to discuss your situation directly, consultations are available.

Schedule a 15-minute consultation