<p>You shouldn't mention Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory in a serious discussion because it's a joke. There is absolutely no scientific evidence or basis in reality for it. It's in the same junk pile of pseudo-science as the Caveman Diet or the Ladder Theory: one man's opinion masquerading as "science" so he can sell books and buy his new BMW. I do, however, think there are different forms of intelligence that may not manifest themselves well on standardized tests. I simply do not buy into the fiction espoused by pop-psychologists like Howard Gardner who value their place on the NY Times Best Seller list more than scientific rigor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow, what an incredible amount of ignorance from the OP. People with certain learning disabilities have a legitimate need for extra time or other help. It depends on how the disability affects them. It helps level the playing field because they otherwise wouldn't be able to complete the test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You completely miss my point. If someone reads slow or is simply not good at reasoning and math and they cannot finish the test on time they do not receive extra time. So why is it that someone with a "mental disability" gets extra time. What seperates these two, one is innate and one is unfortunate? In essence they are identical-- in life your intelligence is measured by how you respond to issues and you do not get extra time. This test and a SET TIME FOR EVERYONE would levell the playing field. Since being mentally handicapped is equivalent to simply not being that smart, since on the SATs and in life it is a detriment. So who is to say one group deserves extra time over the other. Forget the chronic abuse which occurs, simply the basic premise is false. How do we distinguish between dumb people and those with learning disabilities and even moreso does it really matter? Meaning shouldn't they be treated the same as everyone else so colleges can equally evaluate everyone.</p>
<p>Also if people think they deserve extra time why not put an asterix next to their score so colleges are aware they received it? Whats wrong with full disclosure?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the personal attack, since I am sure I did better than you on the Sats, especially the verbal sections. Also thanks for a useful, informative and totally irrelevant post as someone has mentioned. That theory is considered absurd in the academic world so learn your stuff before you post.</p>
<p>Why can't you guys debate this without the irrelevant personal attacks? Both side of this argument have completely valid viewpoints, but I agree that the extra time should be noted.</p>
<p>"You completely miss my point. If someone reads slow or is simply not good at reasoning and math and they cannot finish the test on time they do not receive extra time. So why is it that someone with a "mental disability" gets extra time. " -Bescraze</p>
<p>The people who merely read slow or do things slowly WITHOUT a mental disability do NOT get extra time because it is their OWN fault that they are in that scenario. If they had read more, done more work in school, or just simply studied for the SAT a lot, they would not be in that predicament. The people with mental disabilities are NOT in that position because it is their own fault, rather, they are there because of an entity out of their control. It is the own person's fault if he/she is reading slow or anything that will hinder his/her performance if he/she do not have a mental disability, it is that person's own job to fix it.</p>
<p>Edit: The person below me made a good point. I am from India and have trouble with the reading section. To fix the problem I PRACTICED A LOT to get better at it, I mean A LOT. So, I started out being slow at it and getting many wrong, not finishing, etc etc, and have moved onto being good at it after practice-- I do not have any mental disfunction. Despite what you may think, practice will get slow readers' and people who reason poorly into shape if they do not have a mental disability---it is fixable while a mental disability is not.</p>
<p>I know where you come from... China? i know nearly ALL Chinese applicants simply quit their school and study for SATs... and their goal is 2200+... lol for Chinese, the most difficult part is Critical Reading, so they take extra time to read, read and read! but the result may not be good... and i don't think it's necessary to take extra time on SATs... it's just a small quiz... you can shine out of shades if you're truly good >.<</p>
<p>The only critique I would make of the extended time testing is that it does benefit the wealthy student with a disability over the poor and middle class student with a disability. The College Board is so strict with how they give out extended timing that they require a doctor's report within the last written year and extra testing that costs money. I had to go through occupational therapy to develop the ability to hold the pen and write throughout elementary and middle school. State law mandated that I was to be given a laptop to use for all my classes. Nevertheless, I come from less prosperous family that does not have the money to put me through all the testing, doctor's visits, etc. I have already done as a little kid. More importantly, evil health insurance companies won't cover it.</p>
<p>Thankfully, this really is not that great of a problem for a test like the SAT (it is for APs, but that's a different question). The reading and writing sections really do not require scratch work, so I am pretty much on equal footing with other students. However, no matter how hard I try on the essay, I can write no more than three paragraphs in the time alloted, and even then, those three paragraphs are often difficult to read (and who is to say the graders do not have a bias toward neat handwriting?). Furthermore, doing scratch work on the math section is quite out of the question, but thankfully, there are few occasions when one needs to do scratch work (usually just the last 5 problems of the very last math section). Yet, it still has someone of an effect on my performance.</p>
<p>As for AP's and the SAT, I usually find a way for compensating my disability by working and studying harder than everyone else. And this is usually not a problem, for I get a little more out of the material from working arduously. Despite this, I still feel resentment towards the friends that I have from upper class/upper middle class backgrounds whose parents have been able find doctors willing to recommend and say anything. Usually, they get qualified because of ADHD or ADD.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is just something I am seeing, but the amount of wealthy students qualifying for extra time is significantly disproportionate to the quantity of normal students receiving extra time.</p>
<p>You are trying to make a distinction when there really is none. Most people agree that intelligence is innate and a person has a capacity to improve his performance up to a certain extent, where that intelligence has its limits. Thus someone who is not that smart and cannot finish on time is disadvantaged by something just as innate as the person with a mental disability or handicap. They both shouldn't get extra time since that is how colleges evaluate how smart/prepared you are. I have no disability and I did extremely well on the reading/writing and always finished with time to spare, but for the math it would have been fantastic to get an extra 10 minutes to finish. My score would easily have been up 30+ points higher...but I do not complain about this because its life and its fair. My only point is every applicant should get the same treatment. Whats the difference if someone is dumb or has a mental handiacap? Their both innate and in life they both in many cases can not be helped (hint: no extra time in life) so let them take the test like everyone else.</p>
<p>I see what you are saying but the problem comes when you try to determine who has reached their intellectual capacity--there is no way to tell. On the other hand, mental disabilities can be diagnosed and so those kids can be given extra time. There is no way to tell if a person has reached his/her intellectual capacity so there is no solid ground to give them extra time.</p>
<p>Bescraze. the college admissions people are not stupid.</p>
<p>They know this, and that's why they determined that a difference of 30 points will not make any difference on whether or not you get into the college of your choice.</p>
<p>lol, i dont find that the SAT tests speed or anything. most of the sections i have about 15 minutes left to stare into space after i've checked my work 5 times</p>
<p>The people that need the extra time though NEED it just to get through some of the things that we can get through in the regular time. The extra time they get is probably spent trying to read the questions and work something out. So overall, they're really not at an advantage or disadvantage to score higher then others, when it probably is mostly spent reading. Besides, for all you know you could be dealing with the next Steven Hawkings who instead of not being able to talk, has Dyslexia and cannot read as well as others.</p>
<p>How can we distinguish between "dumbness" and a "learning disability"? Consider the fact that many students read below grade-level. For example, an 11th grader may read on the 10th grade level. Now conisder another 11th grader who reads at the 9th grade level and has been diagnosed with a "learning disability". The latter was diagnosed with a disability because their "condition" is "worse" than the former. They both obviously read below grade-level, so why should the student on the 9th grade level with a "reading disability" be granted more time than the student who reads on the 10th grade level?</p>
<p>It is unfair for any student to cheat, whether it is by faking a disability or any other means. With this I completely agree with the OP. But don't blame the poor kids who are really disabled. Let's clear up the fact that many dyslexic kids have high IQs and their slow reading is a perceptual problem, not one of intelligence, preparation, or education. </p>
<p>Learning disabilities cover a wide range of conditions and those who have such issues have been working at a disadvantage all their school lives. They deserve your sympathy, not your anger. If it takes you two hours a night to do your homework, they are spending 3-4 hours. Every night. Would you trade your lot with them to get a few more minutes on the SATs?</p>
<p>I suspect you wouldn't post here to vent about a student who is blind getting an accommodation because you understand why he can't read. You believe him. But you don't understand or believe there are other brain disorders that can also seriously impact perception. Perhaps it's time to learn about such neurological disorders and be better informed rather than heaping blame on kids who are already having a rough time.</p>
<p>You state there are a lot of rich kids in your school who are cheating the system, and some may be, but maybe they have legitimate disabilities. They may even deny it because, as we can see by all the posts on this thread, there is such an embarrassing stigma attached. But I hope in the coming years more and more kids (maybe even ones like you) will be discovering why it is taking them a little too long to get through timed tests and find some relief. With a wider understanding of these conditions, there could be benefits for all--not just those who are lucky enough to get tested today.</p>
<p>This thread is completely earnest. Take for example a girl who was salutatorian at my school two years ago. </p>
<p>There was absolutely nothing wrong with her test taking abilities, she just flat out cheated on the SAT and every other test. She never got extra time on hard tests in AP classes, but yet still received A's ( many times she just cheated off other kids in the class or received tests before hand). Before taking the AP Bio class she somehow managed to obtain a former students binder with tests used the year before, and many of the tests were re administered . Apparently cheating in school wasn't enough. She got prescribed for ADD and took both the PSAT and SAT under extra time regulations. She then became a NM semifinalist and received 2200 + on her SAT. The part that proves her stupidity and the effects of extra time is that her breakdown was something like 800 M 670 CR 720 W. Math is the section where time can kill you, i.e. silly mistakes. An 800 in math during normal regulations is thus quite impressive, but with extra time its a joke. CR requires comprehension that can only be obtained by someone who can really grasp dense test, and half the challenge is the time constraints.</p>
<p>I think the problem is not only the cheaters, but also how much extra time is alloted. While someone may have severe ADD, and another person may have mild ADD or dyslexia, they both are given the same amount of extra time. Although I still would not accept it, the concept of extra time would be more appealing to me if the amount of extra time alloted is based ont he severity of the LD so that the people with LDs are still time pressured like the rest of us. People who have mild LDs are put in the same boat as people with severe LDs This is needed especially for the ACT because the entire concept of ACT testing is based on time pressure. I have a friend who would probably get at 25-28 on the ACT (determined by practice tests), and he got a 35 due to the extra time. The SAT is not as time pressured as the ACT, and the only barrier to people not scoring well on the ACT is time while knowledge/reasoning play more of a role in the SAT. The minimum change that should happen is an asterisk put by the persons scores, or something to notify the adcoms that this person recieved extra time. Personally, I do not think that extra time should be allowed because it is a standardized test, and the extra time just destroys that concept of standardization (standardized = same for everyone).</p>
<p>madbean I completely understand what you are saying. I do sympathize with those individuals who genuinely have learning disabilities, but at the same time I still do not feel they deserve extra time on the SAT. In life there is no extra time. I have used this analogy many times and I think it is essentially the basis for my opinion. Colleges deserve to evaluate all applicants equally, with fair knowledge of all of the strengths and capabilities. Maybe a student with that disability would be better off getting that worse SAT score, going to that worse college and working on developing himself to his maximum potential. Because for that person, never again will he get this benefit of extra time in life and he/she needs to learn to cope with that. </p>
<p>I totally agree with the above poster.
This test measures where you fall nationally, so everyone, EVERYONE should be treated exactly the same to ensure fair results. And at a minimum put an asterisk next to the score so at least colleges know...</p>