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

[Anonymous]

Let’s start a petition. No time limit. Hand in. You’re done. Speed is not an indicator of academic success. So it’s a worthless metric. And they don’t even take not of what time a student hands in the test anyway.

[Anonymous]

*take note

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a petition. No time limit. Hand in. You’re done. Speed is not an indicator of academic success. So it’s a worthless metric. And they don’t even take not of what time a student hands in the test anyway.

+1. But then someone would need to write a test where speed wasn't a significant differentiator at the top end of the scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a petition. No time limit. Hand in. You’re done. Speed is not an indicator of academic success. So it’s a worthless metric. And they don’t even take not of what time a student hands in the test anyway.

+1. But then someone would need to write a test where speed wasn't a significant differentiator at the top end of the scale.

About 10% of the test should be designed so challenging that only those who master the material will be able to do them correctly. Also, the time allotted should be reasonable (as an example, 1.5 times or 2.0 times what it is today. This time is the same for all and no extra time allowed for anyone). Also, limit the test taking to three times and either superscore or take the best of the three scores.

[Anonymous]

An additional issue in Big Law or other work environments where time is billed by the hour is this. If Suzy Speedy and Lennie LD look exactly the same on their transcripts, they will probably be hired at similar salaries and similar hourly billing rates. But if Lennie needs to work 1.5 times longer to do the project, the clients lucky enough to have Lennie assigned to their projects will end up paying 50% more for his work product than if Suzy had done it. Not fair to the client, not fair to the firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If 1 in 3 in a public high school has accomodations, then the 2 without accomodations are at a disadvantage. Extra time helps in tests, quizzes that impact grades. So to the naysayers, you are just in denial about extra time not helping get higher score. Get rid of extra time or indicate on transcript/score or give everyone the same extra time. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

This is false information. 1 in 3 DO NOT HAVE accommodations in public high school.


There are some some schools that are known as being more accepting of students with disabilities. Those schools, private or public, will have parents of sn kids doing whatever they can to get into them. The parents aren't looking for an "edge" or to cheat. They are trying to find a school that will educate their child. The school teachers who are more qualified to deal with disabilities. I would move if I had to to make sure no one was able to make my kid hate school or hate learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If 1 in 3 in a public high school has accomodations, then the 2 without accomodations are at a disadvantage. Extra time helps in tests, quizzes that impact grades. So to the naysayers, you are just in denial about extra time not helping get higher score. Get rid of extra time or indicate on transcript/score or give everyone the same extra time. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

This is false information. 1 in 3 DO NOT HAVE accommodations in public high school.


There are some some schools that are known as being more accepting of students with disabilities. Those schools, private or public, will have parents of sn kids doing whatever they can to get into them. The parents aren't looking for an "edge" or to cheat. They are trying to find a school that will educate their child. The school teachers who are more qualified to deal with disabilities. I would move if I had to to make sure no one was able to make my kid hate school or hate learning.

PP was referring to WSJ article that pointed to a HS in a wealthy suburb where 1 in 3 had accommodations and another had 1 in 4. These numbers are staggering and definitely point to an abuse and unfairness in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only sent my kids to private because they have a learning disability. The number make sense to me.

This is an important point. Some parents are clearly gaming the system but the other side of the coin is that UMC and better parents push the schools to test for and/or can afford testing that uncovers specific learning disabilities and then pursue supports like extra time. So you’re going to see some measure of greater diagnosis in wealthier areas.

The article actually points out that wealthy parents will go buy a diagnosis if the private school does not help. And donations matter to private schools. What do you think a private school would do for a $$ donor?

You make no sense. You cannot buy a diagnosis. There may be corrupt psychologists here and there but in all my years of dealing with testing and parents of children with disabilities for almost 2 decades, I've never heard of a psychologist who will sell a diagnosis. I've never heard a whisper of it. The tests are thorough and exhausting for the student. Private schools don't provide the diagnosis. The private school may be supportive of students with disabilities vs what most of the parents and students in public schools have to deal with.

[Anonymous]

An additional issue in Big Law or other work environments where time is billed by the hour is this. If Suzy Speedy and Lennie LD look exactly the same on their transcripts, they will probably be hired at similar salaries and similar hourly billing rates. But if Lennie needs to work 1.5 times longer to do the project, the clients lucky enough to have Lennie assigned to their projects will end up paying 50% more for his work product than if Suzy had done it. Not fair to the client, not fair to the firm.

First of all, that isn't how it works. The firm will cut the time to the amount it thinks is reasonable.

Second of all, what will happen is that the firm will confront the associate spending too much time, and either fire them or suggest that they look for a job that is a better fit - which they should, if they have slow processing speed and billing time by the hour is an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The solution is to not give extra time period to any student.

Have students with challenges, write an essay how they are challenged and have schools conduct in-person interviews/assessments to verify the challenges and then they can take that into account when factoring in test scores.

But this processes should happen after the test is taken in normal conditions.

Do we lower the hoop in the nba to accommodate people who are vertically challenged?

This has to be the most stupid suggestion I've ever seen regarding the issue. You have no clue about children with learning disabilities. You aren't intelligent enough to realize how ridiculous your comparison of short nba players to students with learning disabilities is.

But your student with an LD doesn’t need to get an artificially high score on a timed test via extra time to prove their abilities then. That’s just wrong.

What should be done is the student should have to take the test TIMED and then they can take the test with accommodations and then both scores should be submitted. That would paint an accurate picture and it would be fair to everyone.

Which would be a way of broadcasting who has lds. That is discriminatory. Anything that indicates who has lds on an application opens the door for discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only sent my kids to private because they have a learning disability. The number make sense to me.

This is an important point. Some parents are clearly gaming the system but the other side of the coin is that UMC and better parents push the schools to test for and/or can afford testing that uncovers specific learning disabilities and then pursue supports like extra time. So you’re going to see some measure of greater diagnosis in wealthier areas.

The article actually points out that wealthy parents will go buy a diagnosis if the private school does not help. And donations matter to private schools. What do you think a private school would do for a $$ donor?

You make no sense. You cannot buy a diagnosis. There may be corrupt psychologists here and there but in all my years of dealing with testing and parents of children with disabilities for almost 2 decades, I've never heard of a psychologist who will sell a diagnosis. I've never heard a whisper of it. The tests are thorough and exhausting for the student. Private schools don't provide the diagnosis. The private school may be supportive of students with disabilities vs what most of the parents and students in public schools have to deal with.

You can. Savvy parents can. It’s a combination of faking and buying what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only sent my kids to private because they have a learning disability. The number make sense to me.

This is an important point. Some parents are clearly gaming the system but the other side of the coin is that UMC and better parents push the schools to test for and/or can afford testing that uncovers specific learning disabilities and then pursue supports like extra time. So you’re going to see some measure of greater diagnosis in wealthier areas.

The article actually points out that wealthy parents will go buy a diagnosis if the private school does not help. And donations matter to private schools. What do you think a private school would do for a $$ donor?

You make no sense. You cannot buy a diagnosis. There may be corrupt psychologists here and there but in all my years of dealing with testing and parents of children with disabilities for almost 2 decades, I've never heard of a psychologist who will sell a diagnosis. I've never heard a whisper of it. The tests are thorough and exhausting for the student. Private schools don't provide the diagnosis. The private school may be supportive of students with disabilities vs what most of the parents and students in public schools have to deal with.

You are so naive.

[Anonymous]

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.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

It seems that entire US is majority made up of people with disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only sent my kids to private because they have a learning disability. The number make sense to me.

This is an important point. Some parents are clearly gaming the system but the other side of the coin is that UMC and better parents push the schools to test for and/or can afford testing that uncovers specific learning disabilities and then pursue supports like extra time. So you’re going to see some measure of greater diagnosis in wealthier areas.

The article actually points out that wealthy parents will go buy a diagnosis if the private school does not help. And donations matter to private schools. What do you think a private school would do for a $$ donor?

You make no sense. You cannot buy a diagnosis. There may be corrupt psychologists here and there but in all my years of dealing with testing and parents of children with disabilities for almost 2 decades, I've never heard of a psychologist who will sell a diagnosis. I've never heard a whisper of it. The tests are thorough and exhausting for the student. Private schools don't provide the diagnosis. The private school may be supportive of students with disabilities vs what most of the parents and students in public schools have to deal with.

The charlatan at the center of the admissions scandal coached kids on how to fake disabilities to get accommodations....It's all such a joke. Even the ADHD diagnosis is a joke......it's an invented condition to make parents feel better about their children's deficiencies.