Claiming a disability on the SAT/ACT - have people been gaming the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SAT/ACT should just change their process. One fee pays for two tests. First test is untimed, and everyone can take as long as they want. Second test is timed and no accommodations. Scores and test type submitted for both tests to schools.

This would be cheaper, clearer, and more fair in the long run.

Which would allow colleges to discriminate against kids with disabilities.

I think the word disability has been twisted and manipulated lately, particularly by affluent and influential parents. A poor kid who is bad at math is just bad at math. A rich kid who is bad at math has an expensive psychologist declare he has dyscalculia and gets to use a calculator and extra time. Meanwhile a middle class kid who is great at math within the allotted time frame and no calculator gets rejected from the college of his choice. Parents who are manipulating the system are giving the whole process a bad name.

How do you know that the poor kid doesn't have undiagnosed dyscalculia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT and ACT is testing speed. I don’t care who says it’s not. The SAT and ACT have said it is.

So I have a problem with accommodations that completely take that out of the equation.

SAT: our test is designed to test scholastic aptitude under timed conditions.

Parent: but my kid does poorly under timed conditions.

SAT: well, then your child won’t do as good on this test. Er. Wait. No. Strike that. Then we will give your child more time?

This will never be fair to me. No dog in the fight, though.

What you propose will never be fair to a large number of students with disabilities. Students who are college capable. This would effectively bar students with disabilities from college. That's discrimination and the IDEA is in place to make sure kids with disabilites have a level playing field.

This begs another question though - are they really college capable if they then also need accommodations in college? It's a separate discussion, but one I am not sure I fully understand.

This is so frustrating. Yes, kids who need accommodations are often VERY college capable. The ignorance about disabilities is so frustrating on this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s so wrong with flagging tests with extra time? They should be looked st differently. I think it’s great your child with slow processing speed (or not anymore) can get a 35 on the ACT. Why wouldn’t colleges think that too? The test is flagged and maybe there is an explanation as to why. “Student has received 1.5 time because of low processing speed disability.”

If parents are arguing as they are here about it not really giving their child an advantage surely the makers of the test agree.

The accommodations level the playing field. That's what the IDEA is all about. Anything that allows the colleges to pick based on who has a disability is discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

C’mon. Which kid is smarter? The kid who can read all those boring passages and answer the questions in 40 minutes? Or the one who needs extra time?

That’s why it’s timed.

ACT is moving toward computer based testing, and I fear it’s going to be a disaster.

Give them both 60 minutes and there are many LD kids who will blow your average kid out of the water. And that's what you're all afraid of. You all should be careful what you ask for. The tests should not be timed for anyone.

I don’t think anyone’s afraid of this. Most kids will do BETTER with extra time.

[Anonymous]

My kids not average! He can outscore your kids on the ACY with just time and a half. He has an average IQ with some high scores and some low scores. He is actually considered gifted because the low scores are caused by a disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

They don't. It's on a computer. And yes, speed counts. I would like my surgeon not to have to pause too long before deciding which sized stent to stick in my artery or for may lawyer to write her brief in less time so she can do other work as well.

So you think exceptionally bright people only become doctors or lawyers? First of all, some of the least intelligent people I have ever met are lawyers. Secondly, I would not want my brilliant DS to operate on you either, but he can solve the world's problems because of his unmatched ability to think critically, even though he has low processing speed. You on the other hand display a complete inability to grasp the concept of intelligence.

'

you really need to give it a rest. your DS wiht an "unmatched ability to think critically" will be FINE. he does not need 1.5 time on the SAT, unless you think that he must do EVERYTHING THE BEST.

The best? Are you kidding me? That poor kid isn't the best at anything, at all. He should be (and he's a hell of a lot better person than you and probably any of your offspring) great at a lot, but being born with an extremely challenging set of learning styles makes the very rigorous school he goes to almost unbearable at times. I know this is all challenging for you to comprehend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids not average! He can outscore your kids on the ACY with just time and a half. He has an average IQ with some high scores and some low scores. He is actually considered gifted because the low scores are caused by a disability.

Please say this is sacasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

C’mon. Which kid is smarter? The kid who can read all those boring passages and answer the questions in 40 minutes? Or the one who needs extra time?

That’s why it’s timed.

ACT is moving toward computer based testing, and I fear it’s going to be a disaster.

Give them both 60 minutes and there are many LD kids who will blow your average kid out of the water. And that's what you're all afraid of. You all should be careful what you ask for. The tests should not be timed for anyone.

I don’t think anyone’s afraid of this. Most kids will do BETTER with extra time.

Yes, but those who are extremely bright but with LDs will do much much better and the average kids will do just the same. The amount of time for a regular kid doesn't make a difference. The test is designed to be completed reasonably in the amount of time allotted. It was never intended to be a race to see who could do the best in the shortest amount of time. If that were the case, then the students who finish first should get bonus points. Right? You all keep claiming that the the kids who need more time aren't smart enough. That would imply that the faster you finish, the smarter you are. So why don't they score based on the amount of time it was finished in? Because it doesn't matter! The set of time is established based on average kids and convenience. It was never intended to be a race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

They don't. It's on a computer. And yes, speed counts. I would like my surgeon not to have to pause too long before deciding which sized stent to stick in my artery or for may lawyer to write her brief in less time so she can do other work as well.

So you think exceptionally bright people only become doctors or lawyers? First of all, some of the least intelligent people I have ever met are lawyers. Secondly, I would not want my brilliant DS to operate on you either, but he can solve the world's problems because of his unmatched ability to think critically, even though he has low processing speed. You on the other hand display a complete inability to grasp the concept of intelligence.

'

you really need to give it a rest. your DS wiht an "unmatched ability to think critically" will be FINE. he does not need 1.5 time on the SAT, unless you think that he must do EVERYTHING THE BEST.

The best? Are you kidding me? That poor kid isn't the best at anything, at all. He should be (and he's a hell of a lot better person than you and probably any of your offspring) great at a lot, but being born with an extremely challenging set of learning styles makes the very rigorous school he goes to almost unbearable at times. I know this is all challenging for you to comprehend.

You sound delusional about your ds’s abilities and like you have an excuse for anything not pointing to “unmatched ability” to whatever. Np

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

C’mon. Which kid is smarter? The kid who can read all those boring passages and answer the questions in 40 minutes? Or the one who needs extra time?

That’s why it’s timed.

ACT is moving toward computer based testing, and I fear it’s going to be a disaster.

Give them both 60 minutes and there are many LD kids who will blow your average kid out of the water. And that's what you're all afraid of. You all should be careful what you ask for. The tests should not be timed for anyone.

I don’t think anyone’s afraid of this. Most kids will do BETTER with extra time.

Yes, but those who are extremely bright but with LDs will do much much better and the average kids will do just the same. The amount of time for a regular kid doesn't make a difference. The test is designed to be completed reasonably in the amount of time allotted. It was never intended to be a race to see who could do the best in the shortest amount of time. If that were the case, then the students who finish first should get bonus points. Right? You all keep claiming that the the kids who need more time aren't smart enough. That would imply that the faster you finish, the smarter you are. So why don't they score based on the amount of time it was finished in? Because it doesn't matter! The set of time is established based on average kids and convenience. It was never intended to be a race.

This has been proven time and again by researchers (not just claimed by parents of kids with disabilities).

So let's give everyone time and a half or unlimited time, and shut these hates down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

C’mon. Which kid is smarter? The kid who can read all those boring passages and answer the questions in 40 minutes? Or the one who needs extra time?

That’s why it’s timed.

ACT is moving toward computer based testing, and I fear it’s going to be a disaster.

Give them both 60 minutes and there are many LD kids who will blow your average kid out of the water. And that's what you're all afraid of. You all should be careful what you ask for. The tests should not be timed for anyone.

I don’t think anyone’s afraid of this. Most kids will do BETTER with extra time.

Yes, but those who are extremely bright but with LDs will do much much better and the average kids will do just the same. The amount of time for a regular kid doesn't make a difference. The test is designed to be completed reasonably in the amount of time allotted. It was never intended to be a race to see who could do the best in the shortest amount of time. If that were the case, then the students who finish first should get bonus points. Right? You all keep claiming that the the kids who need more time aren't smart enough. That would imply that the faster you finish, the smarter you are. So why don't they score based on the amount of time it was finished in? Because it doesn't matter! The set of time is established based on average kids and convenience. It was never intended to be a race.

This is a lie you tell yourselves. The vast majority do better. And kids without LDs do better too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

C’mon. Which kid is smarter? The kid who can read all those boring passages and answer the questions in 40 minutes? Or the one who needs extra time?

That’s why it’s timed.

ACT is moving toward computer based testing, and I fear it’s going to be a disaster.

Give them both 60 minutes and there are many LD kids who will blow your average kid out of the water. And that's what you're all afraid of. You all should be careful what you ask for. The tests should not be timed for anyone.

I don’t think anyone’s afraid of this. Most kids will do BETTER with extra time.

No. They don't. Give you kids the practice test with and without accommodations and see.

[Anonymous]

I don’t get why parents of kids w accommodations are so against extended time or abolishing it completely for everyone esp in light of knowing certain segments of the population is abusing this.

[Anonymous]

The scores are more than college admissions. It also impacts merit scholarships. So let’s get rid of the abuse and have untimed for EVERY kid as we are testing for knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know the answer, why does it matter how fast you can write it down? How often does anyone in the real world even use a pencil anymore? Who has a job that requires perfectly filling in little circles with a No.2 pencil?

Why do they still have to fill in the g-dmnd little circles in a timed setting?

C’mon. Which kid is smarter? The kid who can read all those boring passages and answer the questions in 40 minutes? Or the one who needs extra time?

That’s why it’s timed.

ACT is moving toward computer based testing, and I fear it’s going to be a disaster.

Give them both 60 minutes and there are many LD kids who will blow your average kid out of the water. And that's what you're all afraid of. You all should be careful what you ask for. The tests should not be timed for anyone.

I don’t think anyone’s afraid of this. Most kids will do BETTER with extra time.

No. They don't. Give you kids the practice test with and without accommodations and see.

I am an ACT tutor. Ask me anything. All my kids’ scores go up with extra time. Now I only tutor pretty bright kids. I would say any of them are stupid.