<p>hahaha dude08. im pretty sure if some of these posts werent nearly as hostile as they are i would appreciate some of the actual argumentaiton thats going on here. but alas! this is an online forum.</p>
<p>hahaha. What's up with Amb3r and everyone fighting her?</p>
<p>They be hatin' on me ;) Actually, on this thread, there are actually people who agree with me (like the OP)</p>
<p>It's interesting for me to see that when I argue on CC, people tend to think I'm a guy, and when I'm just posting about w/e neutrally, people think I'm a girl. For what it's worth, Rosh has got the right gender, hahaha.</p>
<p>BTW, even though I am agreeing with some of you pro-accomodations people, like Mishiru, I do NOT agree with anybody who supports the no-flagging policy. What is wrong with putting an asterisk next to somebody name if he/she is given accomodations? What is being "revealed" other than the truth of testing circumstances?! Universities have the right to know what kind of accomodations students are under when they are producing such and such scores. Without this knowledge, they don't have the FULL picture of the individual applicant.</p>
<p>^Isn't your screen name = "Amber" ?</p>
<p>I thought the reference to shopping and the "Amber" said girl...must learn to be more open minded!</p>
<p>"Or one that could kill you? Get over it. Stop whining. And be ****ing thankful that you don't get more time on the SAT."
I love you
seriously</p>
<p>I'm going to be attacked on this I'm sure but the reason I was approved for extended time was my severe anxiety disorder. You overachievers may think you know stress but trust me this is not something you can compare so don't humiliate yourself by trying. That sad, SAT is supposed to be a measure of intelligence and more like an IQ test than the ACT (it was a lot harder to get accommodation's for that). When the anxiety flares up my iq score and I have this in writing becomes invalid because of the level of fluctuation. Guess how I felt before taking the SAT..... The purpose of extended time is to give the most accurate reflection of a persons TRUE intelligence. If it takes extra time so be it. Considering I haven't been able to fall asleep yet today cause of stress (it's 7:30), same as the night before the test, I personally would have preferred they pushed back the start time. That would be a pleasant accommodation</p>
<p>OH and btw
I live in colorado so most people who take the SAT (ACT is norm) are collegebound and more affluent
their scores are above the national average
Yet out of the several hundred kids testing that day I was the ONLY one with extended time
It sucked and I froze in the empty classroom</p>
<p>beargarden - I have no problem with you getting more time on the test as long as the scores show you did not take it under standard conditions. Upper income testakers have a much better chance of being approved for severe anxiety disorder than lower income. As a parent of a kid with several LDs, I know that bright kids pretty much only get appropriate diagnosis and treatment when their parents have the money, time, and energy to seek help on their own, not wait for the school district to do something.</p>
<p>I'm a girl... I agree with Muffy, also.</p>
<p>I honestly don't have huge problem with being identified but I think it would be discriminatory to do so for everyone with extended time. It's not required for me to list that I have a 504, which also gives extended time (special ed documentation) why should it be different for the SAT?</p>
<p>Oh and you don't need to convince me about the money inequalities either
I'm on Free Lunch;) Honestly I think the money has a greater effect because of tutoring than because they can fake a disorder</p>
<p>Anyone who can pull that off almost deserves a few more points
There's so much documentation that goes into it
it's a huge time commitment being f*** up
even if its only on paper</p>
<p>Honestly, flagging it or not, in the end means nothing. Putting too much emphasis on this flagging thing. </p>
<p>Personally know a freshman @ Cal Tech, bombed freshman semester. Guess what, he got the extra time over winter break to redo the work. You think his end game degree is going to be flagged that he got a redo in freshman year? </p>
<p>This kid does not have any IEP or 504 or any other "documented" LD.</p>
<p>At least I had Amb3r right from the beginning.........</p>
<p>Meh, I don't feel like arguing now. There's too much holiday cheer in my system. LOL.</p>
<p>On the web site of the National Center for Learning Disabilities it basically concludes that they do not know what effect ET has for non-disabled kids.</p>
<p>Issue addressed at:
NCLD</a> - The SAT: Where it's At</p>
<p>NCLD: The claim is often made that some parents will try to win their child an extra time accommodation on the SATs, even though their assertion that the child has LD may be spurious. There seems to be evidence, however, that students without disabilities who are granted extended time do no better than those who are kept to the prescribed timeframe for testing, and that only students with documented disabilities benefit significantly from an extra-time accommodation. Are there studies in this area and have they found the above to be true?</p>
<p>Paula Kuebler: There are several research sources that address the question of benefit from extended time. As one recent example, the College Board conducted a study that simulated extra time by reducing the number of questions in a test section. This research, conducted on students without disabilities, measured the impact of allowing more time for each question on SAT I: Reasoning Test scores by embedding sections with a reduced number of questions into the standard 30-minute equating section of two national test administrations. Allowing more time per question had a minimal impact on verbal scores, producing gains of less than 10 points on the 200-800 SAT scale. Gains for the math score were less than 30 points. High-scoring students tended to benefit more than lower-scoring students, with extra time creating no increase in scores for students with SAT scores of 400 or lower. (Effect of Fewer Questions per Section on SAT I Scores. College Board Research Report No. 2003-2).</p>
<p>Also, a finding across a great many studies pertaining to test accommodations was that the accommodation of extended time improves the performance of students with disabilities more than it improves the performance of students without disabilities (The Effects of Test Accommodation on Test Performance: A Review of the Literature. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report no. 485. University of Massachusetts/Amherst.)</p>
<p>Writing presents unique challenges that are currently being studied and the effects of which we will continue to closely monitor after it is introduced on the SAT in 2005, including whether the provision of extra time on a writing test to a student without a disability could provide an unfair advantage out of line with the score increases demonstrated in the studies cited above</p>
<p>What about kids who are just stupid? Do they get extra time for stupidity? Everybody has an imperfect brain and has learning problems. I have trouble visualizing shapes in my head. Until they come up with a name for it, I'm out of luck. Isn't this a "standardized" test? IMO Learning problems should not be valid. Things like physical disability or blindness should be valid.</p>
<p>I should note that for many ADD students the drugs they take do more than enough to level the playing field, and then extra
time really swings things in their favor. </p>
<p>The worst example is the valedictorian at my school. He has dysgraphia supposedly. BS. IMO these kids are cheaters and I have to try to compete with these cheaters, but such is life.</p>
<p>I know tons of kids at my prep school whose parents went out and bought a diagnosis. Life catches up to these kids. There is no extra time in I-Banking, no extra time for lawyers with ADD to present their arguments, etc.</p>
<p>People seem to be coming to the same standstill. People are given accommodations for the SAT if they have a condition that puts them at a DISADVANTAGE at a fundamental level.</p>
<p>No, the idea is not to compensate every possible flaw for a given person until they achieve a better score. I think obvious disabilities such as missing limbs or impaired motor functions or senses deserve accommodations. If they still perform poorly, then what's the big deal? If they perform well, then it's clear they have something to contribute on some level despite their disabilities.</p>
<p>I feel the line becomes fuzzy when it comes to these reading/learning disabilities, but only because I am not familiar with the diagnostic criteria that defines those cases. I personally know of at least... twelve?... students, all from wealthy backgrounds, who were able to get extended time on the SAT by faking dyslexia. This is what I feel is unfair. People who have genuine dyslexia or learning disabilities REALLY have it rough. It is NOT comparable to someone who is capable and just happens to mis-bubble something due to carelessness or weariness. </p>
<p>People who say "These famous disabled people made it big even without the accommodations" are missing the point. It's also possible to make it big without a college degree, but it's certainly much harder. Same goes for the SAT. It's a lot harder for someone with a genuine disability to excel if they're not allowed to show their skills through in an appropriate way. In many ways this is the fault of the SAT for being such a flawed metric that accompanies only certain types of students, but that is an inherent problem in standardization: You have a standard. While it's aiming to extract a standard level of performance, that standard is skewed if the mechanisms that PRODUCE this performance are impaired in the first place, and that's why accommodations exist.</p>
<p>Realistically speaking, it is not unreasonable to allow for these special exceptions. Allowing capable/lazy individuals these same accommodations is the only thing I feel should not be allowed. </p>
<p>There's a severe lack of empathy in this thread when it's coming to the disabled. I don't think people realize how difficult things can be for people who have these legitimate problems. People who say "They should be held to the same standards without exception because, say, why would we want a blind surgeon?" are using straw-men arguments, in my opinion. Clearly a blind person would not choose to become a surgeon, nor is it likely that a blind surgeon would perform well no matter what the accommodations may be. The skills required on the SAT are usually not related to the skills you use in real life or even in your career, so assuming the link between SAT score and job performance is perhaps not so accurate. Those skills are acquired over time as you progress in your academic career down the track of your choice. The SAT does not define everything, but it's a large part of your application unfortunately, and it is not unreasonable to allow the disadvantaged a chance to show that they are capable individuals. </p>
<p>Yes, accommodations interfere with the "standardization" factor of the SAT, but I feel it's a reasonable exception considering the nature of the test and its relevance and influence or lack thereof in certain cases. I think as long as the requirements for the accommodations are strict enough to keep lying/capable individuals out, then it's a more reasonable system.</p>
<p>what about the extra time on the ACT which many kids can't finish... yes the 36's I know got extra time.
Yes, there is a lot of cheating on the SAT and the ACT. Reading ahead, starting early, going back after bathroom breaks, using a calculator dictionary...<br>
it is my opinion that posting lists of people (like an earlier poster) who don't agree with you, is a bullying tactic</p>
<p>I'm very relieved to know those stats Father of the Boarder. I've struggled to come to terms with my score because I did do significantly better than I was expecting after I took the test with extended time.
Like at first I was proud that I outscored my brother the chemical engineer but then I began questioning exactly how accurate the assessment is, with or without extended time. I should point out that my other brother, the degree less bartender and tattoo artist with disgraphia significantly outscored us both under normal conditions.
The real issue is an economic one. Seriously people you do realize you're getting ****ed off at a bunch of special ed kids too right? The ones who are abusing the system are the ones with money (and questionable morals). I think we can all agree that not working a 40 hour week before taking the test, not to mention all the other perks money can buy, would increase YOUR score. Right?
A test thats that manipulatable by cash ISN"T standardized to begin with</p>
<p>People who actually have learning disorders deserve extra time but I go to private school and there are tons of people who don't deserve extra time who get it just b/c they paid someone to vouch for them. And there are also ppl who actually need extra time who don't know to get diagnosed and haven't been approached about their obvious learning disorders.
Stupid rich people (half-joking...).</p>
<p>And I didn't read the whole thread so ignore this post if it's irrelevant.</p>
<p>In 2005 only 32 students nationwide got a perfect 36 on the ACT. You must have a large network of friends sooky2. In addition, I am positive that ACT or college board would definitely notice a trend if it existed. In fact, statistics from the college board from this year show that students who received accommodations were on average scored LOWER than those who didn't get accommodations.</p>
<p>Scores are influenced by socio-economic factors; there is no doubt.</p>
<p>Are you a psychologist sunshineyday? Their "obvious learning disorders" might as well just be laziness. When accommodations are given, a thorough review of the student is conducted. I actually went through this over winter break to receive accommodations during college. Some example statistics from that test include (all tests are standard with no extra time of any sort):</p>
<p>IQ- 117 (87th percentile among those 17 years old)
Math- Above Average (Top 10%)
Reading- Above Average (Top 10%)
Writing- Below Average (25th percentile among those 17 years old)</p>
<p>These scores were taken from my report and I didn't remember the exact scores except for the IQ. I remembered the descriptions though. That's why there are no numerical values posted here. These are my ACT scores with accommodations (50% extra time)</p>
<p>Composite- 32
E- 33
M- 33
R- 34
S- 29
Writing- 11</p>
<p>Notice the writing score. Did my Math, Reading, Science, or English scores necessarily see the same performance increase? By the logic of many people here, I should have gotten a 34 or 35, at least. Hopefully this proves extra time only helps in the areas affected by the disability.</p>
<p>I don't think theres anything sicker than manipulating a system designed to help disabled people to benefit yourself. It just goes against everything that's right and moral.
Karma. It'll be interesting to find out how many of these students and their parents get involved in some sort of tragicly ironic accident years after they get accepted into HPY and are disabled for the rest of their lives muahahahahaha.</p>