Np. I disagree with above poster.

Our child has an LD. We don’t encourage giving up. We encourage working harder. We don’t let the LD affect access to curriculum. But we also don’t let DC believe anything is impossible. We say “work harder”. “You’re LD is not an excuse, it’s an explanation as to why you have to work harder than other kids on some things.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

+1.

That would be fair for everyone.

And colleges can make informed decisions.

so you agree that students with hearing aids, glasses and wheel chairs should also be flagged? Where do you draw the line? Should a person who is blind be flagged because they need accommodations?

My driving license says I need glasses.

Good for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

+1.

That would be fair for everyone.

And colleges can make informed decisions.

I have a child with dyslexia, dysgraphia and ADHD. She is not at college age yet, but did get accommodations on the SSAT and ISEE. I'm on the fence about flagging it. On the one hand, we tell the schools about her disability because we don't want her in over her head, so they know anyway. We have been nothing but transparent. She is a great student, but needs to use ebooks and a computer (she can read, but because of a RAN deficiency, it is laborious so ebooks make it faster and allow her to focus on content instead of decoding). She does perfectly well at school with accommodations (as reflected by her grades and recommendations). On the other hand, I'm not sure it's fair to flag her when all she really needs is enough time to make her reading speed similar to a non-dyslexic student. She is doing the work and is capable of doing the work once she gets past the standardized test bar.

So, for her, flagging wouldn't be the end of the world because she will likely write an essay about the grit she has developed by being dyslexic and having to work twice as hard as everyone else. It just seems really bitter to want to "flag" my child, who has already worked so hard to get where she is just because she is trying to even the playing field. Her ability to read quickly has nothing to do with intelligence or ability to succeed in college.

Anonymous wrote:The “gaming” happened as a response to immigration and international applications, where fraud is a way of life. Should we just give all of our top 50 American universies over to 2 billion Chinese, Korean and Indians?

You voted Trump, correct?

If you didn't, you are even dumber than you sound.

Anonymous wrote:My 2 cents -- my child has a fine motor delay among other issues, and we've specifically asked for him NOT to get extra testing time in his IEP because we think he should learn to compensate, and we don't want him to think of himself as disabled or not having to work hard. He's still very young, but I think it's good for him to realize his weaknesses and learn to compensate, because the real world will not accomodate him.

You are doing a disservice to your child and you clearly don't understand your child's disabilities. I see this all the time on sn forums where a parent with a newly diagnosed child comes and the first thing they are concerned about is the child uses the label to be lazy or to not be accountable for behavoir issues. You are, in effect, punishing your child for their disability. If your kid's writing is slow and laborious, your child is going to miss instruction because child has to use more of the brain just to take notes. You need to educate yourself. Your sanctimonious post is all about you, not what is good for your child.

Anonymous wrote:The “gaming” happened as a response to immigration and international applications, where fraud is a way of life. Should we just give all of our top 50 American universies over to 2 billion Chinese, Korean and Indians?

Grow up
You sound bitter that this has been exposed in such a shameful way.
My guess is that the prestige of getting your kid into an ivy has gone down

Employers are suspicious about the quality of the candidate when they see ivy degree

Most kids get time and a half for extra time.

So on the ACT there are 60 math questions to be answered in 60 minutes.

If a student can answer all 60 math questions correctly in 90 minutes. Then they would have answered at least 40 in the normally allowed 60 minutes.

40 questions right gets a respectable score around 27 if not higher. This is a more accurate score for the student. He’s bright but slow.

The “gaming” happened as a response to immigration and international applications, where fraud is a way of life. Should we just give all of our top 50 American universies over to 2 billion Chinese, Korean and Indians?

If u r not in a private school w wealthy kids, u don’t even have a clue about how big this is gamed. This side door is the formula used by our private to get over 30% of the kids to ivies. Private college counselor will call on behalf of wealthy families and indicate that family is willing to donate to school. Kids have accommodations and supported by school. And all the wealthy kids are athletes. This is a small school w a small class in each grade - the kids all know the gaming of accommodations. They know there is a different playing field for the wealthy families. I am not talking about 7 digit millionaires but high end 8 digit and above.

So end the accommodations and give everyone extended time - the % of those asking will drop

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

I'm one of the posters who has been stating that the SAT (in part) tests processing speed, and I absolutely believe that other kinds of intelligence compensate for low processing speed. That said, I have a hard time grasping how your child could actually have low processing speed, and yet get 99% on the SAT. My guess is that the low processing must be a function of attention with her, not actual cognitive ability. EVERYONE's processing speed slows down when the content gets more difficult or their focus wanes. At any rate, I also agree that processing speed is not the ultimate measure of intelligence or achievement. But I think that it's really on the colleges to design admissions policies that take this into account -- not to rely on the SAT score alone.

Low processing speed is not shorthand for cognitive ability.

You use different instruments to test both. And for anyone cognitive ability is not determined on a timed test.

Further to get a diagnosis of ADHD you must take other tests that look at working memory, long term memory, and retrieval, executive functioning, and consider the student's interactions with peers and family.

An ethical psychologist will only give a diagnosis if there are deficits in 3 domains -- school, home and social interactions.

There probably are unethical practitioners that take shortcuts and give a diagnosis for only lower than average processing speed who should be sanctioned and lose their licenses, and be prosecuted for insurance fraud if they provide a receipt to parents that falsifies results to be given to an insurer for reimbursement.

processing speed is absolutely a key component of cognitive ability. I'm sorry that people are in denial about that. certainly there are other aspects of intelligence and personality that can compensate.

Unfortunately, your own average cognitive ability prevents you from fully understanding how processing speed does and doesn't reflect one's intelligence. My DS is in the 99th percentile for cognitive ability. This is a fact. His processing speed is in the 4th percentile. His processing speed is slow because he processes an amount of information that blows away the amount your brain could ever comprehend and he is thinking deeply and clearly before coming to a conclusion. On absolutely any test of aptitude or straight up cognitive ability, you may answer the questions faster than him, but taking his own time, he will answer 100% of them correctly and intelligently, which you and most people (99% to be exact) won't do. Seriously, those of you who want to claim it's "unfair" should walk one day in the shoes of kids with LD's. It's awful. You scream about how the 1% have unfair advantages and act like you want to stick up for those who are disadvantaged, but then have zero sympathy for kids who are challenged.

Nobody is saying he doesn’t have challenges. All our kids do, btw, LD or not. I’ve never met a kid who was great at everything.

The question is why does you ds get extra time? Let him do the SAT best he can. That a true representation of his cognitive ability.

Like an above poster said. Why do you get to just throw out that part of his profile as inconsequential?

And his cognitive ability includes Processing speed. So he’s not 99th percentile. I’m curious though. What percentile is he?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

I'm one of the posters who has been stating that the SAT (in part) tests processing speed, and I absolutely believe that other kinds of intelligence compensate for low processing speed. That said, I have a hard time grasping how your child could actually have low processing speed, and yet get 99% on the SAT. My guess is that the low processing must be a function of attention with her, not actual cognitive ability. EVERYONE's processing speed slows down when the content gets more difficult or their focus wanes. At any rate, I also agree that processing speed is not the ultimate measure of intelligence or achievement. But I think that it's really on the colleges to design admissions policies that take this into account -- not to rely on the SAT score alone.

Low processing speed is not shorthand for cognitive ability.

You use different instruments to test both. And for anyone cognitive ability is not determined on a timed test.

Further to get a diagnosis of ADHD you must take other tests that look at working memory, long term memory, and retrieval, executive functioning, and consider the student's interactions with peers and family.

An ethical psychologist will only give a diagnosis if there are deficits in 3 domains -- school, home and social interactions.

There probably are unethical practitioners that take shortcuts and give a diagnosis for only lower than average processing speed who should be sanctioned and lose their licenses, and be prosecuted for insurance fraud if they provide a receipt to parents that falsifies results to be given to an insurer for reimbursement.

processing speed is absolutely a key component of cognitive ability. I'm sorry that people are in denial about that. certainly there are other aspects of intelligence and personality that can compensate.

Unfortunately, your own average cognitive ability prevents you from fully understanding how processing speed does and doesn't reflect one's intelligence. My DS is in the 99th percentile for cognitive ability. This is a fact. His processing speed is in the 4th percentile. His processing speed is slow because he processes an amount of information that blows away the amount your brain could ever comprehend and he is thinking deeply and clearly before coming to a conclusion. On absolutely any test of aptitude or straight up cognitive ability, you may answer the questions faster than him, but taking his own time, he will answer 100% of them correctly and intelligently, which you and most people (99% to be exact) won't do. Seriously, those of you who want to claim it's "unfair" should walk one day in the shoes of kids with LD's. It's awful. You scream about how the 1% have unfair advantages and act like you want to stick up for those who are disadvantaged, but then have zero sympathy for kids who are challenged.

Are you the "my kid got 35 on the ACT because he's an amazing test-taker and got 1.5 time" poster? Your kid does not have an LD. Clearly you identify with him having an LD, but he doesn't have one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

+1.

That would be fair for everyone.

And colleges can make informed decisions.

so you agree that students with hearing aids, glasses and wheel chairs should also be flagged? Where do you draw the line? Should a person who is blind be flagged because they need accommodations?

Nobody is saying that. You’re a broken record though. The pp clearly draws the line at extra time for being slow or distracted.

So, only flag some students who have accommodations but not others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

+1.

That would be fair for everyone.

And colleges can make informed decisions.

so you agree that students with hearing aids, glasses and wheel chairs should also be flagged? Where do you draw the line? Should a person who is blind be flagged because they need accommodations?

Nobody is saying that. You’re a broken record though. The pp clearly draws the line at extra time for being slow or distracted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

+1.

That would be fair for everyone.

And colleges can make informed decisions.

so you agree that students with hearing aids, glasses and wheel chairs should also be flagged? Where do you draw the line? Should a person who is blind be flagged because they need accommodations?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

I'm one of the posters who has been stating that the SAT (in part) tests processing speed, and I absolutely believe that other kinds of intelligence compensate for low processing speed. That said, I have a hard time grasping how your child could actually have low processing speed, and yet get 99% on the SAT. My guess is that the low processing must be a function of attention with her, not actual cognitive ability. EVERYONE's processing speed slows down when the content gets more difficult or their focus wanes. At any rate, I also agree that processing speed is not the ultimate measure of intelligence or achievement. But I think that it's really on the colleges to design admissions policies that take this into account -- not to rely on the SAT score alone.

Low processing speed is not shorthand for cognitive ability.

You use different instruments to test both. And for anyone cognitive ability is not determined on a timed test.

Further to get a diagnosis of ADHD you must take other tests that look at working memory, long term memory, and retrieval, executive functioning, and consider the student's interactions with peers and family.

An ethical psychologist will only give a diagnosis if there are deficits in 3 domains -- school, home and social interactions.

There probably are unethical practitioners that take shortcuts and give a diagnosis for only lower than average processing speed who should be sanctioned and lose their licenses, and be prosecuted for insurance fraud if they provide a receipt to parents that falsifies results to be given to an insurer for reimbursement.

processing speed is absolutely a key component of cognitive ability. I'm sorry that people are in denial about that. certainly there are other aspects of intelligence and personality that can compensate.

Unfortunately, your own average cognitive ability prevents you from fully understanding how processing speed does and doesn't reflect one's intelligence. My DS is in the 99th percentile for cognitive ability. This is a fact. His processing speed is in the 4th percentile. His processing speed is slow because he processes an amount of information that blows away the amount your brain could ever comprehend and he is thinking deeply and clearly before coming to a conclusion. On absolutely any test of aptitude or straight up cognitive ability, you may answer the questions faster than him, but taking his own time, he will answer 100% of them correctly and intelligently, which you and most people (99% to be exact) won't do. Seriously, those of you who want to claim it's "unfair" should walk one day in the shoes of kids with LD's. It's awful. You scream about how the 1% have unfair advantages and act like you want to stick up for those who are disadvantaged, but then have zero sympathy for kids who are challenged.