WSJ article on more students especially the affluent get extra time on SAT

[Anonymous]

As a parent of a child with a gifted FSIQ while also having slightly below average processing speed and a learning disability I wholeheartedly agree. We are in an odd time where our kids’ cognitive profiles are being looked at piecemeal. But one index is just one index! Real life isn’t compartmentalized like that. Math requires every single intelligence index. So does practicing law. So does practicing medicine etc. is the full scale IQ the only number that matters? It weighs the other indices in a way to provide some kind of “one number” like average. But, no. Really it’s just one test at one time. It’s not a magic number. These tests aren’t great.

You know what these tests are great at? Helping professionals diagnose learning disabilities. That’s what these indices are good for.

My child has a learning disability. To say she’s as smart as kids with a higher IQ because she has a disability is preposterous! She is what she is. She should not be given accommodations on an IQ test. I’m not so sure she should on the SAT! So that she score higher? To show how she would score if she didn’t have this disability? She does! Real life doesn’t come with accommodations. I hear other parents claim they do. But, no, they don’t.

What we can provide for her is access to learning. We can help her learn. We can work around her deficits. Which she will have to learn how to do for the rest of her life.

Real life comes with some accommodations. Employers don't have to hire you for a job you aren't qualified for, but under the ADA, employers are generally required by law to make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with a disability.

Regardless, adults can choose a job that plays to their strengths rather than their weaknesses. That's not true in high school or on the SAT - you have to take required courses, and complete required sections of the test. You can choose to apply to the limited group of colleges that don't focus as much on the SAT, or you can ask for extra time.

[Anonymous]

Why do we accept in sports only the best available performers? In sports we don't distinguish poor kid with no special coaching but with innate abilities versus rich kid with years of high priced one-to-one coaching but with moderate abilities. We don't give others any allowance for them being subpar at their sport due to their physical limitations because of genetics or economic reasons. Based on athletic provess and interest, athletes go to D1 and professional level, D3 and semiprofessional level, intramural and private club level, weekend warrior level, and finally couch potato level. Then why do we give all sorts of allowances when it comes to admission to colleges? We give extra time for standardized tests, accept lower GPA and test scores for recruited athletes, URM, first-gen, economically poor students and now students with adversity scores. Do we, as a society, come to a common understanding that most if not all students should be given a shot at studying at highly selective colleges regardless of whether, once they get there, they will succeed academically or not? Not every student should be escorted to the gates of highly selective colleges. We have thousands of colleges, community colleges, and trade schools and they are all looking for students to educate.

What is prompting us to treat admission to colleges differently from selection to sports teams? Is it because we view education as a ticket to earning livelihood and a degree from a highly selective college is viewed as the best means to achieve it? If so, instead of strengthening education system from early childhood level to high school for every child in the society, which of course is a daunting task, we are resorting to a quick band aid that is not a solution that will give lasting benefits to the society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we accept in sports only the best available performers? In sports we don't distinguish poor kid with no special coaching but with innate abilities versus rich kid with years of high priced one-to-one coaching but with moderate abilities. We don't give others any allowance for them being subpar at their sport due to their physical limitations because of genetics or economic reasons. Based on athletic provess and interest, athletes go to D1 and professional level, D3 and semiprofessional level, intramural and private club level, weekend warrior level, and finally couch potato level. Then why do we give all sorts of allowances when it comes to admission to colleges? We give extra time for standardized tests, accept lower GPA and test scores for recruited athletes, URM, first-gen, economically poor students and now students with adversity scores. Do we, as a society, come to a common understanding that most if not all students should be given a shot at studying at highly selective colleges regardless of whether, once they get there, they will succeed academically or not? Not every student should be escorted to the gates of highly selective colleges. We have thousands of colleges, community colleges, and trade schools and they are all looking for students to educate.

What is prompting us to treat admission to colleges differently from selection to sports teams? Is it because we view education as a ticket to earning livelihood and a degree from a highly selective college is viewed as the best means to achieve it? If so, instead of strengthening education system from early childhood level to high school for every child in the society, which of course is a daunting task, we are resorting to a quick band aid that is not a solution that will give lasting benefits to the society.

You can't compare sports to academics...sorry. You don't NEED to do a sport, but you NEED to get an education. Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board approves 94% of requests??? So there is no real investigation? Who ever said it was difficult to get extra time accommodation is full of hog wash. A 94% approval rate is not an indication that it is difficult to get approval.

College board requires proof of diagnosis for accomodations. Once you have a qualified diagnosis, who is the College Board to say that the kid's diagnosis isn't valid? Getting an evaluation to get a diagnosis is an $$$ multiday process. All of you people implying that parents and kids are faking should count your lucky stars that your kid doesn't have a learning disability or other learning challenges.

So you are saying every person getting extra time truly has a learning disability that requires another hour of time to complete the test?

You have no evidence to doubt that they have a "true learning disability". A qualified medical professional has made the diagnosis according to the criteria of their profession and recommended accommodations as appropriate. In most cases the student has accommodations documented at their school in the form of a 504 or IEP, evidence that the school finds the disability compelling. But go ahead believing that all these kids are "fakers" since that's your worldview.

Many of our kids struggled since birth and by age 2 are in many hours of week therapies. Those who deny the need do not have kids with struggles or struggles themselves.

+1 They like to feel victimized by kids struggling with medical diagnoses. Really, the only way these people are underprivileged is by having a complete lack of empathy.

But no one is taking a thing away from those kids who are struggling. Giving extra time to all the test takers would not benefit the kids that do not need it, they would simply finish up and leave early but it could benefit kids who would like more time to read the answers.

+1. Why are parents with the “true” accomodations for their own DC so reluctant to give extra time to all? Maybe the playing field would truly be level...

I doubt anyone with extra time for their kid would object to extra time for all. It's the college board and ACT that imposes the time limits. Anyone with extra time who with object to unlimited time for all is a hypocrite. I think you're misreading to objection to having extra time for their kids attacked with them objecting to extra time for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board approves 94% of requests??? So there is no real investigation? Who ever said it was difficult to get extra time accommodation is full of hog wash. A 94% approval rate is not an indication that it is difficult to get approval.

College board requires proof of diagnosis for accomodations. Once you have a qualified diagnosis, who is the College Board to say that the kid's diagnosis isn't valid? Getting an evaluation to get a diagnosis is an $$$ multiday process. All of you people implying that parents and kids are faking should count your lucky stars that your kid doesn't have a learning disability or other learning challenges.

So you are saying every person getting extra time truly has a learning disability that requires another hour of time to complete the test?

You have no evidence to doubt that they have a "true learning disability". A qualified medical professional has made the diagnosis according to the criteria of their profession and recommended accommodations as appropriate. In most cases the student has accommodations documented at their school in the form of a 504 or IEP, evidence that the school finds the disability compelling. But go ahead believing that all these kids are "fakers" since that's your worldview.

Many of our kids struggled since birth and by age 2 are in many hours of week therapies. Those who deny the need do not have kids with struggles or struggles themselves.

+1 They like to feel victimized by kids struggling with medical diagnoses. Really, the only way these people are underprivileged is by having a complete lack of empathy.

But no one is taking a thing away from those kids who are struggling. Giving extra time to all the test takers would not benefit the kids that do not need it, they would simply finish up and leave early but it could benefit kids who would like more time to read the answers.

+1. Why are parents with the “true” accomodations for their own DC so reluctant to give extra time to all? Maybe the playing field would truly be level...

I doubt anyone with extra time for their kid would object to extra time for all. It's the college board and ACT that imposes the time limits. Anyone with extra time who with object to unlimited time for all is a hypocrite. I think you're misreading to objection to having extra time for their kids attacked with them objecting to extra time for all.

You must be a bit dense.....processing speed is what’s measured in the ACT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should get extra time. It is just a scam for the wealthy to push their kids above the others.

In real life you don't get extra time.

at work, I give extra time all the time.

Good luck telling the DC Circuit that you need extra time for your brief because your associate has a 509 and is used to getting extra time.

Most deadlines in life give a reasonable amount of time to complete the assignment. No court is giving you three hours to do something. You have a reasonable time. Plus, you can stay nightsand weekends to finish if you are slower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should get extra time. It is just a scam for the wealthy to push their kids above the others.

In real life you don't get extra time.

at work, I give extra time all the time.

Where do you work? I don't know many professions where you just get extra time. I would be curious

I’m a lawyer and we get extensions all the time. And there are almost no “quick you only have 3 hours but certainly not 4.5 hours!” drills.

If so many kids need more time, just extend the amount of time the rest takes. It should still be curved to the same distribution.

You must practice a very different type of law than I do. I've never asked for an extension for a brief in my life, and I have lots of "we need this is 3 hours" drills.

And someone with slower turn around time would opt out if a job like yours. There are many legal jobs that don't involve that time pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board approves 94% of requests??? So there is no real investigation? Who ever said it was difficult to get extra time accommodation is full of hog wash. A 94% approval rate is not an indication that it is difficult to get approval.

College board requires proof of diagnosis for accomodations. Once you have a qualified diagnosis, who is the College Board to say that the kid's diagnosis isn't valid? Getting an evaluation to get a diagnosis is an $$$ multiday process. All of you people implying that parents and kids are faking should count your lucky stars that your kid doesn't have a learning disability or other learning challenges.

So you are saying every person getting extra time truly has a learning disability that requires another hour of time to complete the test?

You have no evidence to doubt that they have a "true learning disability". A qualified medical professional has made the diagnosis according to the criteria of their profession and recommended accommodations as appropriate. In most cases the student has accommodations documented at their school in the form of a 504 or IEP, evidence that the school finds the disability compelling. But go ahead believing that all these kids are "fakers" since that's your worldview.

Many of our kids struggled since birth and by age 2 are in many hours of week therapies. Those who deny the need do not have kids with struggles or struggles themselves.

+1 They like to feel victimized by kids struggling with medical diagnoses. Really, the only way these people are underprivileged is by having a complete lack of empathy.

But no one is taking a thing away from those kids who are struggling. Giving extra time to all the test takers would not benefit the kids that do not need it, they would simply finish up and leave early but it could benefit kids who would like more time to read the answers.

+1. Why are parents with the “true” accomodations for their own DC so reluctant to give extra time to all? Maybe the playing field would truly be level...

I doubt anyone with extra time for their kid would object to extra time for all. It's the college board and ACT that imposes the time limits. Anyone with extra time who with object to unlimited time for all is a hypocrite. I think you're misreading to objection to having extra time for their kids attacked with them objecting to extra time for all.

You must be a bit dense.....processing speed is what’s measured in the ACT.

No it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They wont get extra time in real life.

They can self select a job that matches their talent. Most jobs don't have unrealistic time pressures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we accept in sports only the best available performers? In sports we don't distinguish poor kid with no special coaching but with innate abilities versus rich kid with years of high priced one-to-one coaching but with moderate abilities. We don't give others any allowance for them being subpar at their sport due to their physical limitations because of genetics or economic reasons. Based on athletic provess and interest, athletes go to D1 and professional level, D3 and semiprofessional level, intramural and private club level, weekend warrior level, and finally couch potato level. Then why do we give all sorts of allowances when it comes to admission to colleges? We give extra time for standardized tests, accept lower GPA and test scores for recruited athletes, URM, first-gen, economically poor students and now students with adversity scores. Do we, as a society, come to a common understanding that most if not all students should be given a shot at studying at highly selective colleges regardless of whether, once they get there, they will succeed academically or not? Not every student should be escorted to the gates of highly selective colleges. We have thousands of colleges, community colleges, and trade schools and they are all looking for students to educate.

What is prompting us to treat admission to colleges differently from selection to sports teams? Is it because we view education as a ticket to earning livelihood and a degree from a highly selective college is viewed as the best means to achieve it? If so, instead of strengthening education system from early childhood level to high school for every child in the society, which of course is a daunting task, we are resorting to a quick band aid that is not a solution that will give lasting benefits to the society.

You can't compare sports to academics...sorry. You don't NEED to do a sport, but you NEED to get an education. Nice try though.

Sports ARE an occupation though.
There are also occupations for which performance under time pressure is essential.
The goal posts should not be moved for either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we accept in sports only the best available performers? In sports we don't distinguish poor kid with no special coaching but with innate abilities versus rich kid with years of high priced one-to-one coaching but with moderate abilities. We don't give others any allowance for them being subpar at their sport due to their physical limitations because of genetics or economic reasons. Based on athletic provess and interest, athletes go to D1 and professional level, D3 and semiprofessional level, intramural and private club level, weekend warrior level, and finally couch potato level. Then why do we give all sorts of allowances when it comes to admission to colleges? We give extra time for standardized tests, accept lower GPA and test scores for recruited athletes, URM, first-gen, economically poor students and now students with adversity scores. Do we, as a society, come to a common understanding that most if not all students should be given a shot at studying at highly selective colleges regardless of whether, once they get there, they will succeed academically or not? Not every student should be escorted to the gates of highly selective colleges. We have thousands of colleges, community colleges, and trade schools and they are all looking for students to educate.

What is prompting us to treat admission to colleges differently from selection to sports teams? Is it because we view education as a ticket to earning livelihood and a degree from a highly selective college is viewed as the best means to achieve it? If so, instead of strengthening education system from early childhood level to high school for every child in the society, which of course is a daunting task, we are resorting to a quick band aid that is not a solution that will give lasting benefits to the society.

You can't compare sports to academics...sorry. You don't NEED to do a sport, but you NEED to get an education. Nice try though.

I agree. You NEED to get an education. But it doesn't have to be at a highly selective college only!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board approves 94% of requests??? So there is no real investigation? Who ever said it was difficult to get extra time accommodation is full of hog wash. A 94% approval rate is not an indication that it is difficult to get approval.

College board requires proof of diagnosis for accomodations. Once you have a qualified diagnosis, who is the College Board to say that the kid's diagnosis isn't valid? Getting an evaluation to get a diagnosis is an $$$ multiday process. All of you people implying that parents and kids are faking should count your lucky stars that your kid doesn't have a learning disability or other learning challenges.

So you are saying every person getting extra time truly has a learning disability that requires another hour of time to complete the test?

You have no evidence to doubt that they have a "true learning disability". A qualified medical professional has made the diagnosis according to the criteria of their profession and recommended accommodations as appropriate. In most cases the student has accommodations documented at their school in the form of a 504 or IEP, evidence that the school finds the disability compelling. But go ahead believing that all these kids are "fakers" since that's your worldview.

Many of our kids struggled since birth and by age 2 are in many hours of week therapies. Those who deny the need do not have kids with struggles or struggles themselves.

+1 They like to feel victimized by kids struggling with medical diagnoses. Really, the only way these people are underprivileged is by having a complete lack of empathy.

But no one is taking a thing away from those kids who are struggling. Giving extra time to all the test takers would not benefit the kids that do not need it, they would simply finish up and leave early but it could benefit kids who would like more time to read the answers.

+1. Why are parents with the “true” accomodations for their own DC so reluctant to give extra time to all? Maybe the playing field would truly be level...

I doubt anyone with extra time for their kid would object to extra time for all. It's the college board and ACT that imposes the time limits. Anyone with extra time who with object to unlimited time for all is a hypocrite. I think you're misreading to objection to having extra time for their kids attacked with them objecting to extra time for all.

You must be a bit dense.....processing speed is what’s measured in the ACT.

No it doesn’t.

OMG. There are some university programs where your child with ‘slow processing speed’ would be miserable and completely overwhelmed. Why would you want that for your child? Why push for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we accept in sports only the best available performers? In sports we don't distinguish poor kid with no special coaching but with innate abilities versus rich kid with years of high priced one-to-one coaching but with moderate abilities. We don't give others any allowance for them being subpar at their sport due to their physical limitations because of genetics or economic reasons. Based on athletic provess and interest, athletes go to D1 and professional level, D3 and semiprofessional level, intramural and private club level, weekend warrior level, and finally couch potato level. Then why do we give all sorts of allowances when it comes to admission to colleges? We give extra time for standardized tests, accept lower GPA and test scores for recruited athletes, URM, first-gen, economically poor students and now students with adversity scores. Do we, as a society, come to a common understanding that most if not all students should be given a shot at studying at highly selective colleges regardless of whether, once they get there, they will succeed academically or not? Not every student should be escorted to the gates of highly selective colleges. We have thousands of colleges, community colleges, and trade schools and they are all looking for students to educate.

What is prompting us to treat admission to colleges differently from selection to sports teams? Is it because we view education as a ticket to earning livelihood and a degree from a highly selective college is viewed as the best means to achieve it? If so, instead of strengthening education system from early childhood level to high school for every child in the society, which of course is a daunting task, we are resorting to a quick band aid that is not a solution that will give lasting benefits to the society.

You can't compare sports to academics...sorry. You don't NEED to do a sport, but you NEED to get an education. Nice try though.

I agree. You NEED to get an education. But it doesn't have to be at a highly selective college only!

See- but it’s about the parents and their egos, it’s not at all about the child. If the child doesn’t get into a top University they are a family failure.

Please understand that those of you who operate this way are awful people who are psychologically damaging their children for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board approves 94% of requests??? So there is no real investigation? Who ever said it was difficult to get extra time accommodation is full of hog wash. A 94% approval rate is not an indication that it is difficult to get approval.

College board requires proof of diagnosis for accomodations. Once you have a qualified diagnosis, who is the College Board to say that the kid's diagnosis isn't valid? Getting an evaluation to get a diagnosis is an $$$ multiday process. All of you people implying that parents and kids are faking should count your lucky stars that your kid doesn't have a learning disability or other learning challenges.

So you are saying every person getting extra time truly has a learning disability that requires another hour of time to complete the test?

You have no evidence to doubt that they have a "true learning disability". A qualified medical professional has made the diagnosis according to the criteria of their profession and recommended accommodations as appropriate. In most cases the student has accommodations documented at their school in the form of a 504 or IEP, evidence that the school finds the disability compelling. But go ahead believing that all these kids are "fakers" since that's your worldview.

Many of our kids struggled since birth and by age 2 are in many hours of week therapies. Those who deny the need do not have kids with struggles or struggles themselves.

+1 They like to feel victimized by kids struggling with medical diagnoses. Really, the only way these people are underprivileged is by having a complete lack of empathy.

But no one is taking a thing away from those kids who are struggling. Giving extra time to all the test takers would not benefit the kids that do not need it, they would simply finish up and leave early but it could benefit kids who would like more time to read the answers.

+1. Why are parents with the “true” accomodations for their own DC so reluctant to give extra time to all? Maybe the playing field would truly be level...

I doubt anyone with extra time for their kid would object to extra time for all. It's the college board and ACT that imposes the time limits. Anyone with extra time who with object to unlimited time for all is a hypocrite. I think you're misreading to objection to having extra time for their kids attacked with them objecting to extra time for all.

You must be a bit dense.....processing speed is what’s measured in the ACT.

No it doesn’t.

I was right....you are dense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we accept in sports only the best available performers? In sports we don't distinguish poor kid with no special coaching but with innate abilities versus rich kid with years of high priced one-to-one coaching but with moderate abilities. We don't give others any allowance for them being subpar at their sport due to their physical limitations because of genetics or economic reasons. Based on athletic provess and interest, athletes go to D1 and professional level, D3 and semiprofessional level, intramural and private club level, weekend warrior level, and finally couch potato level. Then why do we give all sorts of allowances when it comes to admission to colleges? We give extra time for standardized tests, accept lower GPA and test scores for recruited athletes, URM, first-gen, economically poor students and now students with adversity scores. Do we, as a society, come to a common understanding that most if not all students should be given a shot at studying at highly selective colleges regardless of whether, once they get there, they will succeed academically or not? Not every student should be escorted to the gates of highly selective colleges. We have thousands of colleges, community colleges, and trade schools and they are all looking for students to educate.

What is prompting us to treat admission to colleges differently from selection to sports teams? Is it because we view education as a ticket to earning livelihood and a degree from a highly selective college is viewed as the best means to achieve it? If so, instead of strengthening education system from early childhood level to high school for every child in the society, which of course is a daunting task, we are resorting to a quick band aid that is not a solution that will give lasting benefits to the society.

You can't compare sports to academics...sorry. You don't NEED to do a sport, but you NEED to get an education. Nice try though.

I agree. You NEED to get an education. But it doesn't have to be at a highly selective college only!

See- but it’s about the parents and their egos, it’s not at all about the child. If the child doesn’t get into a top University they are a family failure.

Please understand that those of you who operate this way are awful people who are psychologically damaging their children for life.

+1. All of this accommodation nonsense is about parental egos.....not what’s best for the child. None of this idiocy existed 30 years ago and we all ended where we belonged in life.