People with ASD can do especially well in careers that reward pattern recognition, accuracy, deep focus, routine, and rule-based thinking more than fast turn-taking or rapid oral processingm.

Common examples include software development, computer programming, data analysis, accounting, quality control, technical writing, engineering, cybersecurity, library/archive work, and some design roles. These jobs often let someone work with clear structures, predictable tasks, and objective standards, which can reduce the disadvantage of slower processing speed.

Processing speed is only one part of job performance. In roles where careful accuracy, persistence, and spotting small errors matter more than instant responses, a person with ASD may match or outperform neurotypical coworkers because the job plays to their strengths. For example, quality control or debugging can reward being meticulous over being quick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

Again, I’m pretty uniformly hearing parents of kids with extended time saying they wish everyone could have as much time as they wanted/needed.

No becuase then it's not an "accommodation". It's needs to be better than what everyone else gets or it doesn't count.

That doesn’t even make sense. If the element doesn’t exist it doesn’t need to be accommodated. Like we don’t make kids run a mile before the test. As a result nobody asks for an accommodation on the running part of the test because there is nothing to accommodate.

But when we suggest doing away with the timing there are lots of excuses. It's not been unanimous that is the best solution. It was "logistically difficult" in one example. As if the school would get excused for not offering an accommodation due to logistics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

In my workplace it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. Those that are slower but produce better work get promoted more quickly.

You know its possible to do work quickly and correctly right? Its not an either or situation. If youre choosing between employees who produce identical work but one employee takes twice as long you'd choose the faster employee every time!

Ok, then in good news the market will totally sort this out and you don’t have to worry about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

In my workplace it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. Those that are slower but produce better work get promoted more quickly.

You know its possible to do work quickly and correctly right? Its not an either or situation. If youre choosing between employees who produce identical work but one employee takes twice as long you'd choose the faster employee every time!

Sorry poor choice of words. When I said say "do it right" I did not simply mean "do it correctly" I meant "do it well". In my line of work, the speed just doesn't matter as much as you are assuming, and the quality between different people is much more variable and much more important than you think. My job is hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

Again, I’m pretty uniformly hearing parents of kids with extended time saying they wish everyone could have as much time as they wanted/needed.

No becuase then it's not an "accommodation". It's needs to be better than what everyone else gets or it doesn't count.

That doesn’t even make sense. If the element doesn’t exist it doesn’t need to be accommodated. Like we don’t make kids run a mile before the test. As a result nobody asks for an accommodation on the running part of the test because there is nothing to accommodate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

Again, I’m pretty uniformly hearing parents of kids with extended time saying they wish everyone could have as much time as they wanted/needed.

No becuase then it's not an "accommodation". It's needs to be better than what everyone else gets or it doesn't count.

Please stop trying to bash parents of kids with disabilities by.putting words in our mouths

That's exactly what a previous poster said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

Again, I’m pretty uniformly hearing parents of kids with extended time saying they wish everyone could have as much time as they wanted/needed.

No becuase then it's not an "accommodation". It's needs to be better than what everyone else gets or it doesn't count.

Please stop trying to bash parents of kids with disabilities by.putting words in our mouths

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

Again, I’m pretty uniformly hearing parents of kids with extended time saying they wish everyone could have as much time as they wanted/needed.

No becuase then it's not an "accommodation". It's needs to be better than what everyone else gets or it doesn't count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

Again, I’m pretty uniformly hearing parents of kids with extended time saying they wish everyone could have as much time as they wanted/needed.

Duplicate of https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/570/1304011.page#31405805

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

So what

Well, when your productivity is half and you cost the same or more, guess who will be the first to go in a RIF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

In my workplace it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. Those that are slower but produce better work get promoted more quickly.

You know its possible to do work quickly and correctly right? Its not an either or situation. If youre choosing between employees who produce identical work but one employee takes twice as long you'd choose the faster employee every time!

Gee Einstein. You know it's easier to go through life if you don't have any issues or problems or limitations of any kind that might require an accommodation. Oh well. Life is not like that for millions and millions of people and they manage to make it through with effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

In my workplace it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. Those that are slower but produce better work get promoted more quickly.

You know its possible to do work quickly and correctly right? Its not an either or situation. If youre choosing between employees who produce identical work but one employee takes twice as long you'd choose the faster employee every time!

I'd note that most colleges and universities have gone test optional; the majority of admitted students don't submit SAT and ACT scores; even schools that are extremely selective rank many other factors (grades, academic rigor, ECs) higher than standardized test scores. If the SAT is such an important measure of aptitude, then why is it so inconsequential relative to other factors in the admissions process? It seems that colleges and universities are admitting lots of kids who have ADHD and other EF issues. Are they all going to end up working at McDonalds and hanging off stripper poles? Wait--probably not the latter--they can't do the carousel fast enough.

Is the backlash here from those top 5 percenters who think a kid with accommodations is going to steal an Ivy seat from their kid?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

So what