Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t think it is contradictory to say they deserve extra time and to question whether too much is given. I think that is a logical question. There are several open questions on extended time:
1. Abuse and how easy accomodations are given especially among the wealthy and private schools
2. The amount of time given - are too much been given in certain cases that it creates an unfair advantage over those without accomodations? There is also the cases where too little are given. Yes, we do not wish an SN child on anybody etc but the issue at hand is the fairness of the system
3. How can the tests be changed to be fair to every kid? Should tests give everyone an extra time or be changed to be less on speed but test more on knowledge?

As a parent of a child who qualifies for extra time (I replied earlier, we don't use the time):

1. We're angry about accommodations being provided to kids who don't need it and have gotten a "fake" diagnosis for the purpose of extra time. It disrespects and undermines the real struggles that our kids have faced throughout their education.
2. Yes, I've thought about "if my DS gets a 99nth percentile with 75 minutes instead of 50 minutes, is it really a 99th percentile?" I imagine that a lot of parents in my shoes think about this and it may sway their decision to take the accommodation even when their child benefits from it and needs it. It's the same reason people don't do a lot of things to help themselves or live in denial when things are functioning in a typical way--we're socialized to believe that we need to overcome or accept that we're seemingly less capable than others.
3. I don't care if your typically functioning child gets 50 minutes or 500. If I used the extra time accommodation for my child, it's only because I want the admissions boards to know what he's capable of--not because I'm seeking and advantage over your child.

The unfairness if the system for kids who are getting extended time they do not deserve (yes, including SN kids who got more time than they needed for their disability):
1. Merit scholarships
2. College - grades/gpa - if the grades are curved, then it would be difficult for kids without any accomodations to get As which in turn impact their cumulative GPA
3. Internships that depend on GPA - let’s face it, when we interview kids from the same colleges, are we going to pick the kid w the 3.0 GPA or the kid w the higher GPA?
4. Jobs

So there are consequences down the line when there is abuse of the system and the system is unfair to those without accomodations and SN kids who do not get the proper allocated time for their disability.

The current system is tilted to the wealthy who abuses the system and also the SN kids who get too much time.

The SN kids who you think are overly accommodated (and getting unfairly benefited by the things you mentioned) are most likely UMC, because those are the parents who have the knowledge and the time to go get the testing showing that their bright children still have uneven performance and thus get the "edge case" children a benefit.

Let me be the first one to tell you that UMC children are privileged, whether they have SN or not. My UMC children have had all sorts of enrichment camps and opportunities. They have benefited from having college educated parents who could encourage them to push through frustrating courses knowing the college-admissions game. They have had access to tutors, coaches, private schools. Are you outraged by the UMC children who are taking your child's college spot, because they've had the benefit of private tennis coaches since they were 5, and had a national standing bump that your child didn't have? Are you outraged by UMC children who have had access to research opportunities, and may have publication credits in HS, because of parent support and contacts? Are you outraged by UMC college students who can plan for a 6 year college career in order to make sure they are able to focus on their classes, vs those kids who don't have families who can afford the extra time in college for their kids? Or the UMC kids who get to take unpaid or low paid internships because the bank of mom and dad subsidizes them?

SN kids who may only need 25% extra time but get 50% extra time are a tiny, tiny fraction of unfairness in this process. I'm sure you're also outraged by URMs and legacies getting benefits. And tall men and attractive women. And smart people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long past time to drop the SAT/ACT as part of admission process. The SAT/ACT can be gamed legally and illegally. The getting more time is the least of the problems. I really do not know why so many people focus on this one thing. Other kids have been drilled by professionals, shown how to game the test and worked “practice” exams for years.

Doing drills and practice exams and learning test-taking strategies is not "gaming the test" or "cheating". Nor are they beyond the reach of even poor students.

Yes they are.

Use Khan academy for free. Buy a SAT practice book for $15. That is what my kid is doing. We are not spending money on courses or on tutors.
In Montgomery County you can take SAT prep through the George V Thomas Learning Academy. Families pay $80 flat fee for a whole year of tutoring in academic subjects (Math, Science etc) and SAT/ACT prep. It costs just $40 for low income students.
Students can use computers at the public library if they don't have one at home. there are also SAT prep books in the public library.

Exactly. If the kid is motivated they can do as well as an expensive class. Some kids need the structure of the class. The kid still has to do the work of studying, taking practice tests and working on the areas of weakness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long past time to drop the SAT/ACT as part of admission process. The SAT/ACT can be gamed legally and illegally. The getting more time is the least of the problems. I really do not know why so many people focus on this one thing. Other kids have been drilled by professionals, shown how to game the test and worked “practice” exams for years.

Doing drills and practice exams and learning test-taking strategies is not "gaming the test" or "cheating". Nor are they beyond the reach of even poor students.

Yes they are.

I’m in education. Poor (and middle class, for the most part) families just do not give a sh-t. I’ve talked til I’m blue in the face about important of test prep and summer programs on and on and it just doesn’t click with them. This isn’t a money problem or resource problem, it’s a culture/values problem.

Agreed. The free resources available can significantly improve a student's test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t think it is contradictory to say they deserve extra time and to question whether too much is given. I think that is a logical question. There are several open questions on extended time:
1. Abuse and how easy accomodations are given especially among the wealthy and private schools
2. The amount of time given - are too much been given in certain cases that it creates an unfair advantage over those without accomodations? There is also the cases where too little are given. Yes, we do not wish an SN child on anybody etc but the issue at hand is the fairness of the system
3. How can the tests be changed to be fair to every kid? Should tests give everyone an extra time or be changed to be less on speed but test more on knowledge?

As a parent of a child who qualifies for extra time (I replied earlier, we don't use the time):

1. We're angry about accommodations being provided to kids who don't need it and have gotten a "fake" diagnosis for the purpose of extra time. It disrespects and undermines the real struggles that our kids have faced throughout their education.
2. Yes, I've thought about "if my DS gets a 99nth percentile with 75 minutes instead of 50 minutes, is it really a 99th percentile?" I imagine that a lot of parents in my shoes think about this and it may sway their decision to take the accommodation even when their child benefits from it and needs it. It's the same reason people don't do a lot of things to help themselves or live in denial when things are functioning in a typical way--we're socialized to believe that we need to overcome or accept that we're seemingly less capable than others.
3. I don't care if your typically functioning child gets 50 minutes or 500. If I used the extra time accommodation for my child, it's only because I want the admissions boards to know what he's capable of--not because I'm seeking and advantage over your child.

The unfairness if the system for kids who are getting extended time they do not deserve (yes, including SN kids who got more time than they needed for their disability):
1. Merit scholarships
2. College - grades/gpa - if the grades are curved, then it would be difficult for kids without any accomodations to get As which in turn impact their cumulative GPA
3. Internships that depend on GPA - let’s face it, when we interview kids from the same colleges, are we going to pick the kid w the 3.0 GPA or the kid w the higher GPA?
4. Jobs

So there are consequences down the line when there is abuse of the system and the system is unfair to those without accomodations and SN kids who do not get the proper allocated time for their disability.

The current system is tilted to the wealthy who abuses the system and also the SN kids who get too much time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13;17 making all SN parents (and kids) look bad.

Yeah, you should have had your DS re-evaluated before the admissions tests. At this point, he got into some great schools and no one wittingly cheated or facilitated cheating--so letting it go and not being extra thrilled that he got an unfair advantage is probably your best move.

No, not really. Those tests are very expensive, and are only required every 4 years. The PP did what is normally done in terms of timing of tests. And if the PP wants to gloat, let it go. Sounds like her DS lived through some tough stuff for many years. I am actually happy for him.

We were on a similar boat - minus the mid-high school testing.

DC got an extra time and calculator for non-calulator sections in 9th ahead of their first AP.

Used both on the PSAT and decided that while he needed it for day to day high school tests, when writing was involved, he didn’t need nor want them for the SAT.

I signed an acknowledgement form stating that I was aware that he was waiving his right to them and he did well. I’m proud of how far he has come, and of how he has learned to self-advocate.

I always thought that was the goal of accommodations and IEPs. To help and level the field and work toward not needing them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13;17 making all SN parents (and kids) look bad.

Yeah, you should have had your DS re-evaluated before the admissions tests. At this point, he got into some great schools and no one wittingly cheated or facilitated cheating--so letting it go and not being extra thrilled that he got an unfair advantage is probably your best move.

No, not really. Those tests are very expensive, and are only required every 4 years. The PP did what is normally done in terms of timing of tests. And if the PP wants to gloat, let it go. Sounds like her DS lived through some tough stuff for many years. I am actually happy for him.

Anonymous wrote:13;17 making all SN parents (and kids) look bad.

Yeah, you should have had your DS re-evaluated before the admissions tests. At this point, he got into some great schools and no one wittingly cheated or facilitated cheating--so letting it go and not being extra thrilled that he got an unfair advantage is probably your best move.

13;17 making all SN parents (and kids) look bad.

Anonymous wrote:I will be totally honest.

I have a kid who has had an ADHD diagnosis since 2nd grade. Struggled with focusing in class and had many social issues. He was reevaluated in 8th grade and same diagnosis. During middle school did relatively well academically with the accommodations, but again, had social issues where there was lots of bullying. He was not a happy camper in middle school.

He took the ACT in his junior year of high school and scored extremely well. Met a new group of kids and got into theater and other ECs. Ended up extremely popular and liked among his peers. Even has a girlfriend for the first time. Couldn't be happier for him.

We tested him again (in preparation for college) in his senior year. His condition improved significantly (processing speed especially) to the point that with those results he likely would not have gotten the accommodations for the ACT. He likely had that improvement during his junior year when he took the ACT. So perhaps he didn't need the extra time? But do you think I am going to go back and say, "WAIT!! He shouldn't have had extra time!!!" Of course not!!! I look at it as he suffered for years of kids teasing him for being different and now this is payback!! Many of those "teasers" got rejected from their colleges (very tough year for everyone), and DS got into each and every school, including his top 10 first choice. Feeling vindicated!!

Ugh.

I will be totally honest.

I have a kid who has had an ADHD diagnosis since 2nd grade. Struggled with focusing in class and had many social issues. He was reevaluated in 8th grade and same diagnosis. During middle school did relatively well academically with the accommodations, but again, had social issues where there was lots of bullying. He was not a happy camper in middle school.

He took the ACT in his junior year of high school and scored extremely well. Met a new group of kids and got into theater and other ECs. Ended up extremely popular and liked among his peers. Even has a girlfriend for the first time. Couldn't be happier for him.

We tested him again (in preparation for college) in his senior year. His condition improved significantly (processing speed especially) to the point that with those results he likely would not have gotten the accommodations for the ACT. He likely had that improvement during his junior year when he took the ACT. So perhaps he didn't need the extra time? But do you think I am going to go back and say, "WAIT!! He shouldn't have had extra time!!!" Of course not!!! I look at it as he suffered for years of kids teasing him for being different and now this is payback!! Many of those "teasers" got rejected from their colleges (very tough year for everyone), and DS got into each and every school, including his top 10 first choice. Feeling vindicated!!

Anonymous wrote:Don’t think it is contradictory to say they deserve extra time and to question whether too much is given. I think that is a logical question. There are several open questions on extended time:
1. Abuse and how easy accomodations are given especially among the wealthy and private schools
2. The amount of time given - are too much been given in certain cases that it creates an unfair advantage over those without accomodations? There is also the cases where too little are given. Yes, we do not wish an SN child on anybody etc but the issue at hand is the fairness of the system
3. How can the tests be changed to be fair to every kid? Should tests give everyone an extra time or be changed to be less on speed but test more on knowledge?

As a parent of a child who qualifies for extra time (I replied earlier, we don't use the time):

1. We're angry about accommodations being provided to kids who don't need it and have gotten a "fake" diagnosis for the purpose of extra time. It disrespects and undermines the real struggles that our kids have faced throughout their education.
2. Yes, I've thought about "if my DS gets a 99nth percentile with 75 minutes instead of 50 minutes, is it really a 99th percentile?" I imagine that a lot of parents in my shoes think about this and it may sway their decision to take the accommodation even when their child benefits from it and needs it. It's the same reason people don't do a lot of things to help themselves or live in denial when things are functioning in a typical way--we're socialized to believe that we need to overcome or accept that we're seemingly less capable than others.
3. I don't care if your typically functioning child gets 50 minutes or 500. If I used the extra time accommodation for my child, it's only because I want the admissions boards to know what he's capable of--not because I'm seeking and advantage over your child.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t think it is contradictory to say they deserve extra time and to question whether too much is given. I think that is a logical question. There are several open questions on extended time:
1. Abuse and how easy accomodations are given especially among the wealthy and private schools
2. The amount of time given - are too much been given in certain cases that it creates an unfair advantage over those without accomodations? There is also the cases where too little are given. Yes, we do not wish an SN child on anybody etc but the issue at hand is the fairness of the system
3. How can the tests be changed to be fair to every kid? Should tests give everyone an extra time or be changed to be less on speed but test more on knowledge?

I agree with the above post as far as it goes (see below) but that was not the assertion in 15:31. That statement asserted that because of a lack of precision in estimating needed extra time, all kids essentially get too much (including my child). Such emotional broad based anonymous assertions do not promote constructive dialogue. I do agree with another prior poster that kids who do need extra time have to make a strategic decision as to whether they want to be at a schools where the academic demands may be more intense than others. For example, if one assumes that the demands of the same STEM course at MIT is greater than at AU, the student who could be accepted at MIT has to decide if he/she wants to work that much harder than the other kids at MIT in college to do well, and whether they are willing to make that trade off (giving up even more free time or settling for lower grades if they don't give that up -- because college grades are often based not only on timed tests, but on problem sets in stem classes and papers in many non-stem classes).

As for point 3, there is no test that is perfectly "fair" to every person if time is varied. For that matter, one of my kids is a morning person and consistently does better on tests administered its he a.m. than in the pm. And I am sure there are kids who are the opposite. And there are kids who take tests on days they are somewhat sick. Or on days when they didn't get sleep because their parents had a fight, etc. The idea that a "standardized" test can be made perfectly "fair" to every kid is not realistic. Standardized tests began to try to have some leveler for smart kids were systematically excluded or subject to quotas in elite schools because they weren't from the right social, ethnic, religious, or racial class. They are an improvement in admissions as one factor or merit, and as every college will tell you grades matter more.

If we go back to indicating that kids who take standardized tests had extra time, I guarantee their college essays will talk about how they overcame extraordinary obstacles to learning to nevertheless be competitive applicants (right now they don't need to do that). By the way, our private school counselors have told us that they often include information about any learning issues in their recommendation letters and seek parental consent to do so. And if parents object -- but its still an issue -- private schools have ways to legally get the point across anyway. Now that may be different in public schools, but still let's take a deep breath and ask the question -- is there really a wide spread fairness problem at all? Yes, there is abuse and that should be weeded out -- prosecuted in extreme cases. Again, I am coming form the perspective of a parent with one kid who did not have an extra time accommodation and was applying to the most selective schools, and another who did have extra time that was clearly obvious in late elementary /middle school forward. For the first kid, I worried about all the fairness issues in admissions -- legacy, athletics, diversity preferences etc -- but never once did I worry that my kid was disadvantaged because another kid may have gotten extra time for an ACT or SAT. There are plenty of kids with very high scores who get rejected. If some other kids got a bit higher than they should have because of extra time that they shouldn't have had, I'm not going to throw all the kids who justly needed extra time under the bus to weed out the fraud.

Don’t think it is contradictory to say they deserve extra time and to question whether too much is given. I think that is a logical question. There are several open questions on extended time:
1. Abuse and how easy accomodations are given especially among the wealthy and private schools
2. The amount of time given - are too much been given in certain cases that it creates an unfair advantage over those without accomodations? There is also the cases where too little are given. Yes, we do not wish an SN child on anybody etc but the issue at hand is the fairness of the system
3. How can the tests be changed to be fair to every kid? Should tests give everyone an extra time or be changed to be less on speed but test more on knowledge?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he had somebody on the inside on the College Board. He seemed to have enough other people in on the scam.

See above. When the CB and ACT balked at extra time for these clearly non-disabled students whose parents hired Singer, the FBI asked them to grant it, so they could catch the parents as well as the paid off proctors who administered the tests and changed the students' answers.

Singer has been doing this a long time so there have been many students that got accommodations through. So put on your thinking cap -it really isn’t that difficult. Because Singer wouldn’t have been successful in his business if the parents in past years didn’t successfully receive accommodations for their kids.

So how did this happen? I haven't heard an explanation yet. Parents of LD and ADHD students insist that that it's very difficult to be granted extra time by the College Board, that students need to have a history of needing this accomodation. Yet it appeared that many (although possibly not all) of Singer's clients were able to get permission with recent diagnosis and no history of using accomodations in the past. So which is it? If one is able to get a diagnosis of LD/ADHD, is it then easy to get permission from the College Board for extra time or not? This scandal seems to show that the claims that LD parents makes - that it's sooo difficult to get approval for extra time is bunk.

Because the FBI told the College Board to give them untimed tests! Honestly, do a little reading. It's laid out in the complaint.

I think it's important to keep the cheaters separate in our thoughts from the kids/families who actually qualify for accommodations. How many parents have said that even though their child has been recommended for extra time due to a learning/attention diagnosis that they haven't used it? My DS does not use extra time on standardized tests even though his neuropsychologist recommended it and the school was willing to accommodate. He tests in a non distracting environment because some day, at work or in college, he can put on noise cancelling headphones, but he can't change his deadlines.
He's a brilliant kid with a learning disability and would definitely be taking his seat at a great college with extra time- but we're after "fit" and realism about what he (as an individual) can handle. A lot of parents whose kids have learning issues are looking for happiness and fit--because we know from raising these kids that it can be a house of cards.
I am in no way disagreeing with extra time on tests for qualifying students, nor am I judging where kids thrive or which learning issues benefit from extra time and which do not. I'm just saying that the people cheating this test are a far different group than parents and kids who have lived with a disability.

Thank you 15:31. My oldest DS also qualified for a using a lap top to write essays on and extra time, but he refused the the extra time. His teachers had urged us to seek a computer accommodation because it it very difficult to read his handwriting and takes him an extraordinary long time to write anything by hand, but he's actually a great writer. The way the psych testing works, he came out as qualified for both extra time and a computer accommodation. He had close friends with dyslexia who needed extra time, and though it was unfair for him to use extra time he did not believe he needed and refused to apply for the accommodation although the school was supportive as was the psychologist. He used his computer accommodation in both the classroom and the essay portions of on standardized tests, the results of which confirmed he was right -- he didn't need the time to do extremely well. My second child, however, has always taken a particularly long time to complete certain tasks. Diagnostic testing called it slow processing speed, some ADD, and a lot that was just unexplained as to root cause . Like the child of the poster above, DC is extremely bright -- he would get every problem right that he completed on an exam, but only finish 2/3 of the questions -- especially if they involved reading. Even math word problems would raise the issue which was not evident in pure equations/calculations. He bregudingly accepted the extra time (50%) and yes -- went to the top of the class. But no one seemed jealous of his time. DC's friends and teachers all knew from conversations with DC just how smart he was and that it wasn't showing. He also dislikes it, because he has to sit for very long periods to complete standardized tests. They won't let you go faster if you only need, say 25% extra time but they gave you 50%. I don't see him as advantaged over other kids -- i see him as not having had an opportunity to test in a manner that showed his true abilities without the time, just as our older DC could not show his true written ability if he was forced to make chicken scratch no one could read at a painfully slow pace rather than bang our his ideas on a key board quickly. some families abuse the system -- shame on them -- but the rest of these kids should not be punished.

And have you ever wondered that maybe your kid received too much extra time and hence was able to double check their answers and with the extra time also had extra time to go through all the questions? Yes, they deserved extra time for their disability but since none of the xtra time are personalized, the time they received was more than they needed that they had the luxury to double check their answers and able to answer all the questions. So basically you are part of the group that created an uneven playing field for the kids who did not receive any accommodations.

I'll accept the first part of this as a fair question and discuss it at length below. But you may want to rethink jumping to your conclusion with such limited facts. You agree that students with disabilities deserve extra time, but because extra time is not personalized, theme "they" receive was more than "they" needed which afford them a luxury that made me (I'm sure you mean my child) part of the "uneven" playing field for the kids who did not receive the accommodation." I respect your question about fairness, but there are several problems with your conclusion: a) time isn't personalized precisely, but some kids get 25% more time, some kids 50% more time, etc - there are categories that are somewhat personalized; b) you assume that the time my child (or "they") received was more than necessary, and you never consider that it may be less than appropriated. Why do you just assume that without any explanation? Some kids no doubt get more than needed, but other kids no doubt get less than needed, and still others are never diagnosed (I was probably one of those in the last category.)


To address the first part of your question, we not only have we wondered whether DC got too much time, we initially questioned the determination of whether 50% more time may hurt DC in other ways and resisted it. The whole extra time thing is actually quite exhausting. I recall on some standardized tests, if DC finished a test section he was not allowed to start a new section until the full time was exhausted. By the time he got to the later part of the exams, sometimes the exhaustion factor outweighed the extra time. The extra time rooms seemed to receive more interruptions, ironically, then ordinary course times and more confused proctors than most. With a slower reading speed, processing speed, and some ADD, after several hours of testing he was not going back over answers -- it doesn't work that way -- at least not for our DC. And I'm willing to stipulate that an "average" kid given more time can probably raise up his/her scores a bit -- obviously, some folks in the admissions bribe scandal thought so -- but I highly doubt that a typical kid with standard time -- all other things equal (same preparation, etc.) who scores an average 531 is gong up to a 796 (50% higher points) on an SAT with 50% more time. If you "personalized" the test what would that mean --how would you do that? Say my kid tested in the 5th percentile on processing speed, should DC get 45% more time to get up to an equivalent to the average? This science is not nearly that precise, but oK. On that theory, should we discount his scores by 5% if he got 5% more time than needed? Out of curiosity, I just looked at PrepScholar on the internet and found that if we dropped DC's test score numbers that would translate into only a 1% drop in his overall percentile compared to all other takers. Yes, I know that at the most competitive level 1% can seem very important, but that's only at a small number of schools and probably less important in the whole person evaluations than most of us think. Even so, if we are talking "fairness" we have not covered the waterfront. Was it fair that a kid with no disability could take many more practice tests than a kid who took 50% longer to take them in the same amount of time, and thus should be better prepared for the SAT? Was it fair that DC was finishing tests when DC's high school classmates were getting more practice time for their sports team or the band, which may was the difference in being a starter rather than a back up , or the difference between being an officer in a value club or not. The Boston case shows there are outrageous examples of bribery in admissions, just as the Harvard case suggests that some Aisan students are unfairly tainted with artificially lowe personality scores. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Let's think about this more. I have another DS who did not need extra time. In fact, he usually finished standardized tests with some time to spare and could go back and look over some answers. He happens to read very fast and remarkably well his first time through. Is that fair to the kid who reads at an average pace and gets the same amount of time? Maybe my older son should get less time to even the playing field? If you think about it, why is it any less fair to an average speed student that a super-fast student gets just as much time? Either way, you are talking about some notion of "fairness" by allowing some students who are far from the average get less or more time so that you can presumably measure their reasoning ability or their knowledge-base against the middle, rather than measure their speed ability.

In case anyone is wondering, both these kids ended up with the exact same combined SAT score the first time they took the exam. It is true that the student who can read faster and easier is able to accumulate a larger body of information in that student's head from reading in less time than the other student. On the other hand, the other student appears able to comprehend and absorb as much or more information as the first one from college lecture classes and You-Tube videos, so much so that it compensates for slow reading speed of textbooks and other materials. Grades in college are based on tests, projects, papers, research, all sorts of things. Tests are the only ones timed. The rest comes down to hard work and planning.

No one was more outraged in the college admission scandal than parents of kids with real disabilities, some of whom were competing for those limited slots at selective schools. But to acknowledge that these kids deserve extra time and in the same breadth assume that somehow they unfairly benefitted from too much extra times is an inherently contradictory conclusion.