Wall Street Journal on rampant growth in percentage of college students with “disabilities”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on reading this, the only accommodation that people seem up in arms about is the extra time. For those of you who are against it, are you against for all students or is it that you feel that too many have been granted the accommodation?

Too many have been granted the accommodation and it is due to wealthy parents gaming the system. The kids who are cheating the system - they know they are gaming the system are getting higher scores that make them competitive for scholarships and better schools. Just level the playing field - give everyone the extra time. The extra time given can range from an extra 30 minutes to 2 hours...like previous poster said, if my kid can get the extra time to double check their work, they could score an 800 also.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you gave the extra time, the scores would be wacky and a perfect score would mean nothing. A perfect score could mean someone was in the 70th percentile. Is that what you want?

Except having more time doesn't magically mean you know the material. Give a student who doesn't know the answer more time and they're just as likely to lower their grade. Even on take home tests you get the usual striations between high performers who know the material and those who dont. Eliminating extra time accommodations creates barriers for those who require extra time just to access the arbitrary format of the exam and answer sheet. Like I said, forcing someone with a learning disability to deal with only written material is as arbitrary as forcing a natural reader to take the test just by listening. Forcing someone with autism to take the test in a classroom with 60 other people is like forcing a typical to take it in a busy cafeteria. Forcing someone with dus graphic to hand write an essay in the same amount of time turns into an exercise of their handwriting speed rather than their ideas and composition skills. The test formats and time limits are designed to give enough time for people who are not handicapped by arbitrary elements of the test itself that have nothing to do with how well you know the material.

Nope. Everyone should get more time. I'm positive my LSAT score would have been 10 points higher with extra time for the logic problems. The whole POINT of that section is to see *how fast your brain works.*

Then why would you want to make the limiting factor be their disability rather than how well they're able to tackle a logic problem? That makes no sense.

Most high stakes testing is still information based, though, and what I said still stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter has an eye tracking disorder and 17th percentile processing speed with a 56% IQ. Extra time and other support means she can earn decent grades instead of being deemed a failure. She wants to go to Nursing school so she won’t compete with your kid for those top college spots so why do you care so much about her accommodations? Or would OP rather she fail out of school and end up on welfare because allowing her that extra time on the ACT is unfair to her kid?

The Op's post was about the rampant growth in student disabilities in just the last few years. Astonishing four-fold increase at some schools. I'm sure some percentage of these, like your daughter, are totally legitimate. Still one has to wonder why the sudden explosion of students with mental disabilities.

Did you read that we're looking at up to 20% of the population having reading-related disabilities? Have you paid attention to the increase in people diagnosed with autism? Just because we're more aware of people who have disabilities, and not just labeling them stupid and waiting for them to fail out of school, doesn't mean it's all somehow fake.

The truth is, some people game the system. There are people who game welfare, there are people who game minority scholarships, and so on. Does the gaming of something by a minority of people mean we do away with it for all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities aren't inherently inferior to you. Using a computer instead of a pencil to type an essay isn't cheating any more than using a ramp instead of the stairs is cheating. Having simply average working memory isn't going to make a surgeon botch a surgery. Using a calculator isn't going to doom an engineer into a life of professional ineptitude. Having dyslexia doesn't mean that a writer won't become a best seller or a financier won't succeed so wildly that he becomes a household name. Having ADHD and dropping out of college doesn't mean a person won't create a start up and become filthy rich. And a single test that arbitrarily penalizes anyone with atypical strengths and weaknesses in no way justifies withholding future opportunities from that individual.

Visual working memory is important to performing surgery. It's been studied in simulators.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-007-9287-8

It's dangerous to make claims consistent with what you want to believe that are not consistent with the pushback of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities aren't inherently inferior to you. Using a computer instead of a pencil to type an essay isn't cheating any more than using a ramp instead of the stairs is cheating. Having simply average working memory isn't going to make a surgeon botch a surgery. Using a calculator isn't going to doom an engineer into a life of professional ineptitude. Having dyslexia doesn't mean that a writer won't become a best seller or a financier won't succeed so wildly that he becomes a household name. Having ADHD and dropping out of college doesn't mean a person won't create a start up and become filthy rich. And a single test that arbitrarily penalizes anyone with atypical strengths and weaknesses in no way justifies withholding future opportunities from that individual.

Visual working memory is important to performing surgery. It's been studied in simulators.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-007-9287-8

It's dangerous to make claims consistent with what you want to believe that are not consistent with the pushback of reality.

"Low" working memory in most cases is relative to the person's strengths. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that someone who succeeds in the medical field has a high overall intelligence. Two standard deviations between working memory and their strengths would still put working memory at average if not high average. Your study shows that someone like this may not be as skilled in certain types of surgery as peers with superior or gifted range working memory. It does not show that they would botch surgery. Botched surgeries have much more to do with poor team dynamic and communication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities aren't inherently inferior to you. Using a computer instead of a pencil to type an essay isn't cheating any more than using a ramp instead of the stairs is cheating. Having simply average working memory isn't going to make a surgeon botch a surgery. Using a calculator isn't going to doom an engineer into a life of professional ineptitude. Having dyslexia doesn't mean that a writer won't become a best seller or a financier won't succeed so wildly that he becomes a household name. Having ADHD and dropping out of college doesn't mean a person won't create a start up and become filthy rich. And a single test that arbitrarily penalizes anyone with atypical strengths and weaknesses in no way justifies withholding future opportunities from that individual.

Visual working memory is important to performing surgery. It's been studied in simulators.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-007-9287-8

It's dangerous to make claims consistent with what you want to believe that are not consistent with the pushback of reality.

"Low" working memory in most cases is relative to the person's strengths. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that someone who succeeds in the medical field has a high overall intelligence. Two standard deviations between working memory and their strengths would still put working memory at average if not high average. Your study shows that someone like this may not be as skilled in certain types of surgery as peers with superior or gifted range working memory. It does not show that they would botch surgery. Botched surgeries have much more to do with poor team dynamic and communication.

I don't think you have performed surgery, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities aren't inherently inferior to you. Using a computer instead of a pencil to type an essay isn't cheating any more than using a ramp instead of the stairs is cheating. Having simply average working memory isn't going to make a surgeon botch a surgery. Using a calculator isn't going to doom an engineer into a life of professional ineptitude. Having dyslexia doesn't mean that a writer won't become a best seller or a financier won't succeed so wildly that he becomes a household name. Having ADHD and dropping out of college doesn't mean a person won't create a start up and become filthy rich. And a single test that arbitrarily penalizes anyone with atypical strengths and weaknesses in no way justifies withholding future opportunities from that individual.

Visual working memory is important to performing surgery. It's been studied in simulators.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-007-9287-8

It's dangerous to make claims consistent with what you want to believe that are not consistent with the pushback of reality.

Thank you. Geez let's not promote this astonishing quarter of the population to their level of incompetence. College is not for everyone. And surgery certainly is not.

[Anonymous]

I am the VWM study poster. I am ALL FOR accommodations. I think we have suffered as a society by missing out on a large pool of talented, intelligent, and creative kids who were never allowed to even line up at the starting gate.

I also think some types of work come with requirements that can't adequately be fulfilled by everybody, even with accommodations. Not yet, at least. And if we don't also acknowledge that, we will not go in a direction that is good for anyone in the long run.

But I do look forward to technological assistance making that range of contexts smaller as time goes on as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities aren't inherently inferior to you. Using a computer instead of a pencil to type an essay isn't cheating any more than using a ramp instead of the stairs is cheating. Having simply average working memory isn't going to make a surgeon botch a surgery. Using a calculator isn't going to doom an engineer into a life of professional ineptitude. Having dyslexia doesn't mean that a writer won't become a best seller or a financier won't succeed so wildly that he becomes a household name. Having ADHD and dropping out of college doesn't mean a person won't create a start up and become filthy rich. And a single test that arbitrarily penalizes anyone with atypical strengths and weaknesses in no way justifies withholding future opportunities from that individual.

Visual working memory is important to performing surgery. It's been studied in simulators.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-007-9287-8

It's dangerous to make claims consistent with what you want to believe that are not consistent with the pushback of reality.

"Low" working memory in most cases is relative to the person's strengths. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that someone who succeeds in the medical field has a high overall intelligence. Two standard deviations between working memory and their strengths would still put working memory at average if not high average. Your study shows that someone like this may not be as skilled in certain types of surgery as peers with superior or gifted range working memory. It does not show that they would botch surgery. Botched surgeries have much more to do with poor team dynamic and communication.

I don't think you have performed surgery, then.

Of course not. I'm an engineer. But I can read and I know the source of CRM. You really, really want to define people by their weakest areas alone and moreover you only want to talk about weak areas that impact testing. I'm saying that first, areas of strength can more than make up for areas of weaknesses and second, the areas of weakness that you're talking about are not the dominating factor. People with no IQ subtest disparities botch surgeries all the time because of those weaknesses, but strangely you don't want to talk about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on reading this, the only accommodation that people seem up in arms about is the extra time. For those of you who are against it, are you against for all students or is it that you feel that too many have been granted the accommodation?

Too many have been granted the accommodation and it is due to wealthy parents gaming the system. The kids who are cheating the system - they know they are gaming the system are getting higher scores that make them competitive for scholarships and better schools. Just level the playing field - give everyone the extra time. The extra time given can range from an extra 30 minutes to 2 hours...like previous poster said, if my kid can get the extra time to double check their work, they could score an 800 also.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you gave the extra time, the scores would be wacky and a perfect score would mean nothing. A perfect score could mean someone was in the 70th percentile. Is that what you want?

Except having more time doesn't magically mean you know the material. Give a student who doesn't know the answer more time and they're just as likely to lower their grade. Even on take home tests you get the usual striations between high performers who know the material and those who dont. Eliminating extra time accommodations creates barriers for those who require extra time just to access the arbitrary format of the exam and answer sheet. Like I said, forcing someone with a learning disability to deal with only written material is as arbitrary as forcing a natural reader to take the test just by listening. Forcing someone with autism to take the test in a classroom with 60 other people is like forcing a typical to take it in a busy cafeteria. Forcing someone with dus graphic to hand write an essay in the same amount of time turns into an exercise of their handwriting speed rather than their ideas and composition skills. The test formats and time limits are designed to give enough time for people who are not handicapped by arbitrary elements of the test itself that have nothing to do with how well you know the material.

Nope. Everyone should get more time. I'm positive my LSAT score would have been 10 points higher with extra time for the logic problems. The whole POINT of that section is to see *how fast your brain works.*

Then why would you want to make the limiting factor be their disability rather than how well they're able to tackle a logic problem? That makes no sense.

Most high stakes testing is still information based, though, and what I said still stands.

Because how fast your brain works is part of most forms of legal practice. It's one basic aspect of intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities aren't inherently inferior to you. Using a computer instead of a pencil to type an essay isn't cheating any more than using a ramp instead of the stairs is cheating. Having simply average working memory isn't going to make a surgeon botch a surgery. Using a calculator isn't going to doom an engineer into a life of professional ineptitude. Having dyslexia doesn't mean that a writer won't become a best seller or a financier won't succeed so wildly that he becomes a household name. Having ADHD and dropping out of college doesn't mean a person won't create a start up and become filthy rich. And a single test that arbitrarily penalizes anyone with atypical strengths and weaknesses in no way justifies withholding future opportunities from that individual.

Visual working memory is important to performing surgery. It's been studied in simulators.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-007-9287-8

It's dangerous to make claims consistent with what you want to believe that are not consistent with the pushback of reality.

"Low" working memory in most cases is relative to the person's strengths. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that someone who succeeds in the medical field has a high overall intelligence. Two standard deviations between working memory and their strengths would still put working memory at average if not high average. Your study shows that someone like this may not be as skilled in certain types of surgery as peers with superior or gifted range working memory. It does not show that they would botch surgery. Botched surgeries have much more to do with poor team dynamic and communication.

I don't think you have performed surgery, then.

Of course not. I'm an engineer. But I can read and I know the source of CRM. You really, really want to define people by their weakest areas alone and moreover you only want to talk about weak areas that impact testing. I'm saying that first, areas of strength can more than make up for areas of weaknesses and second, the areas of weakness that you're talking about are not the dominating factor. People with no IQ subtest disparities botch surgeries all the time because of those weaknesses, but strangely you don't want to talk about that.

so change the test or how it's used. but don't give people accommodations to distort what the test measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am the VWM study poster. I am ALL FOR accommodations. I think we have suffered as a society by missing out on a large pool of talented, intelligent, and creative kids who were never allowed to even line up at the starting gate.

I also think some types of work come with requirements that can't adequately be fulfilled by everybody, even with accommodations. Not yet, at least. And if we don't also acknowledge that, we will not go in a direction that is good for anyone in the long run.

But I do look forward to technological assistance making that range of contexts smaller as time goes on as well.

No one is talking about making everybody able to do anything regardless of talent but we're not talking about talent; we're talking about disability. Someone can easily have a disability that impacts how well they do in an exam and still have strengths that make them outstanding in the field they're pursuing. Someone's disability doesn't define their strengths much less define the person overall. If it did we wouldn't have people who are severely dyslexic and almost failed out of school entirely go on to be best selling authors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities aren't inherently inferior to you. Using a computer instead of a pencil to type an essay isn't cheating any more than using a ramp instead of the stairs is cheating. Having simply average working memory isn't going to make a surgeon botch a surgery. Using a calculator isn't going to doom an engineer into a life of professional ineptitude. Having dyslexia doesn't mean that a writer won't become a best seller or a financier won't succeed so wildly that he becomes a household name. Having ADHD and dropping out of college doesn't mean a person won't create a start up and become filthy rich. And a single test that arbitrarily penalizes anyone with atypical strengths and weaknesses in no way justifies withholding future opportunities from that individual.

Visual working memory is important to performing surgery. It's been studied in simulators.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-007-9287-8

It's dangerous to make claims consistent with what you want to believe that are not consistent with the pushback of reality.

"Low" working memory in most cases is relative to the person's strengths. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that someone who succeeds in the medical field has a high overall intelligence. Two standard deviations between working memory and their strengths would still put working memory at average if not high average. Your study shows that someone like this may not be as skilled in certain types of surgery as peers with superior or gifted range working memory. It does not show that they would botch surgery. Botched surgeries have much more to do with poor team dynamic and communication.

I don't think you have performed surgery, then.

Of course not. I'm an engineer. But I can read and I know the source of CRM. You really, really want to define people by their weakest areas alone and moreover you only want to talk about weak areas that impact testing. I'm saying that first, areas of strength can more than make up for areas of weaknesses and second, the areas of weakness that you're talking about are not the dominating factor. People with no IQ subtest disparities botch surgeries all the time because of those weaknesses, but strangely you don't want to talk about that.

I just wrote above about intelligence, talent, and creativity in kids who previously would not have received accommodations, but should. So this is an interesting claim.

So let me ask you this -- honest question, and I'll listen to the answer. Please be honest back.

If your child (or your mom, or you) is going into surgery, are you okay with knowing that the surgeon has a simple average working memory? That the surgery won't probably not be "BOTCHED" botched, but just not as good?

For most people, not totally "botched" is not good enough. And not as good as it could be is not good enough, either. Someone with average working memory shouldn't go into surgery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on reading this, the only accommodation that people seem up in arms about is the extra time. For those of you who are against it, are you against for all students or is it that you feel that too many have been granted the accommodation?

Too many have been granted the accommodation and it is due to wealthy parents gaming the system. The kids who are cheating the system - they know they are gaming the system are getting higher scores that make them competitive for scholarships and better schools. Just level the playing field - give everyone the extra time. The extra time given can range from an extra 30 minutes to 2 hours...like previous poster said, if my kid can get the extra time to double check their work, they could score an 800 also.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you gave the extra time, the scores would be wacky and a perfect score would mean nothing. A perfect score could mean someone was in the 70th percentile. Is that what you want?

Except having more time doesn't magically mean you know the material. Give a student who doesn't know the answer more time and they're just as likely to lower their grade. Even on take home tests you get the usual striations between high performers who know the material and those who dont. Eliminating extra time accommodations creates barriers for those who require extra time just to access the arbitrary format of the exam and answer sheet. Like I said, forcing someone with a learning disability to deal with only written material is as arbitrary as forcing a natural reader to take the test just by listening. Forcing someone with autism to take the test in a classroom with 60 other people is like forcing a typical to take it in a busy cafeteria. Forcing someone with dus graphic to hand write an essay in the same amount of time turns into an exercise of their handwriting speed rather than their ideas and composition skills. The test formats and time limits are designed to give enough time for people who are not handicapped by arbitrary elements of the test itself that have nothing to do with how well you know the material.

Nope. Everyone should get more time. I'm positive my LSAT score would have been 10 points higher with extra time for the logic problems. The whole POINT of that section is to see *how fast your brain works.*

Then why would you want to make the limiting factor be their disability rather than how well they're able to tackle a logic problem? That makes no sense.

Most high stakes testing is still information based, though, and what I said still stands.

Because how fast your brain works is part of most forms of legal practice. It's one basic aspect of intelligence.

So you agree with me.

[Anonymous]

Privileged white peoples looking to game the system. Been happening for years — extra push to get their dumb-ish kids into the end zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Out of curiosity, how are all these scribes, readers, extra time supervisors, individual rooms etc paid for?

In college? With the tuition money paid by full freight fools.