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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.*