<p>emaheevu, I believe you but am curious. Why does your work life work better? Can you take more breaks? Are the deadlines less tight? Can you use a keyboard more? </p>
<p>My son was tested for LDs back in elementary school and there was agreement something was going on, but not enough for an IEP. He had a 504 plan in middle school, but hated being pulled out of the classroom for extra time on tests (into a noisier room where others were getting oral instructions and the like) and I don’t think he ever got to use a keyboard which was the one thing that might have made a difference. When he got to high school he asked to drop the plan and we let him. He probably had some lower grades because of it, but reasoned that he wouldn’t get accommodations in real life. As it happens, his LDs (if that’s what they were) were pretty mild, and while he didn’t have perfect grades he got good enough grades to get into selective colleges.</p>
<p>Just to be clear, I am well aware some people really need accomodations.</p>
<p>I knew when I saw this original thread started that this would become a battle over the appropriateness of accommodations at all…</p>
<p>it’s outrageous that kids and their parents are faking adhd in order to be granted accommodations, as it is outrageous that kids and parents permit cheating on the SAT. Those two issues in my mind are more closely related. The legitimate use of accommodations for people who need them should not have to be defended time and time again.</p>
<p>"Your experience is different from experience of those who have ADHD. Having hard time to concentrate will have negative effect both at school and at work. "</p>
<p>By definition, it must include significant impairment in two or more settings.</p>
<p>Your original post has nothing to do with ADHD and LD. It implied that the only accommodations you requested were because of the difficulty writing for a long period of time, which in my mind should be accommodated because it has nothing to do with your ability to reason or do math. </p>
<p>Nothing in your post suggests that an individual should not learn how to cope with ADHD and LD. All I am saying that a child should start learning how to cope sooner, rather than later. Obviously you did, otherwise I don’t believe you would have been able to perform well at your job. </p>
<p>I said it before and I will say it again, even though this is not the path I’ve chosen for my son, I understand why some affected by ADHD and LD choose to accept accommodations. In fact, I am not really opposed to longer test times for those kids. But at the same time they should also understand that in order to be successful in life they should figure out how to deal with their handicap.</p>
<p>P.S. And once again, shame on those who fake it.</p>
<p>I don’t get the sense that anyone here is trying to make an argument against legitimate accommodations for people who need them. Some have said they chose not to avail themselves of those acommodations and all would like to take away the incentive that makes able students request extra time to improve their scores. Earlier quoted data in this thread pretty clearly says kids can be easily and successfully coached to trick educated observers. Identifying the accommodation would surely make marginal kids think twice about requesting non-standard testing. As Born2Dance94 said, this would work but discourage some kids who really could use the accommodations shy away from them.</p>
<p>Sorry, I have only read the first post but have found this to be a true circumstance. I did not realize this to be a trend. Are there any national statistics or detterents placed on this practice?</p>
<p>Where was the “data” about the students who clearly “trick educated observers”? I must have missed that post. There are doctors, unfortunately, who will prescribe without adequate documentation of a disorder like ADHD. Good evaluations typically include input from parents and schools, ans well as documentation of the duration and pervasiveness of the symptoms, plus testing. Yes, there was an article a while back in Psychology Today (which hasn’t been discussed here, much to my surprise) about “faking” symptoms, but again, comprehensive evaluations are increasingly including reliability/validity measures to ferret this out.</p>
<p>Yalegradanddad–I did see evidence of a couple of posters making the argument against legitimate accommmodations and asking those who shared using them to justify them.</p>
<p>Quote from Clandarkfire:
“Well, I imagine people will vehemently disagree with me on this, but I don’t think there is any reason to give people with ADHD, dyslexia, or similar learning disorders extra time on the SAT.
Fact is, the SAT is a college aptitude test, designed to measure people’s success in college. If you can’t read fast enough or figure out problems adroitly enough on such a test, you’re going to have the same problems in college. Since colleges don’t know that the scores are not reflective of the student’s actual ability under normal circumstances, they expect the students to perform that well when they get to college. A year later, the kids at Harvard complain that they can’t keep up. I wonder why.”</p>
<p><strong>Can’t stand it…must join argument…</strong></p>
<p>“Fact is, the SAT is a college aptitude test, designed to measure people’s success in college. If you can’t read fast enough or figure out problems adroitly enough on such a test, you’re going to have the same problems in college. Since colleges don’t know that the scores are not reflective of the student’s actual ability under normal circumstances, they expect the students to perform that well when they get to college. A year later, the kids at Harvard complain that they can’t keep up. I wonder why.” </p>
<p>Actually, the SAT is a marketing tool created to give parents a false sense of security, students a false sense of superiority, and a great deal of money to the testing industry, which is primarily interested in perpetuating the myth that there is inherent value in a test. The SATs also serve to relieve universities of the work of actually knowing their prospective students, educating their current ones, and creating an atmosphere conducive to education and not competition. </p>
<p>If my S2 gets accomodations and a 2,80000000 on his SAT, it will not devalue yours, or the education you obtain and earn for yourself. So I don’t quite get the whole sense of outrage, apart of course from out-and-out cheating, which is baaaaad.</p>
<p>Where I picked this article up (a psychiatrist’s forum) someone posted…“maybe not Harvard, but Cornell”. I didn’t go there…</p>
<p>“Steven decided to dupe his doctor when he returned from his elite boarding school exhausted by the intense competition there. He needed an edge to help him, he felt…Eventually Steven, which is not his real name, was accepted to a top college in upstate New York, although he no longer takes medication, nor does he consider himself ADHD. The ADHD diagnosis, and the benefits that came with it, he acknowledges, helped him beat the competition.”</p>
<p>Yes, it takes more than a great SAT score to get into Cornell. Thus my disclaimer…I didn’t say it?</p>
<p>Really? If the SAT is so worthless, why do the vast majority of colleges - not to mention top-tier colleges - require it? Do you really know more about the test’s merits than admissions deans at 3500 colleges who choose to use it because they believe that it accurately reflects most candidates’ strengths in certain areas?</p>
<p>Granted, the SAT isn’t perfect, and it definitely doesn’t the admissions office everything about an applicant - but it certainly tells adcoms a lot about applicants’ ability to reason effectively, which seems to reflect their ability - in general - to perform in college. Plenty of studies have been done on this, if you’re interested.</p>
<p>And back to the point. If, for some reason, an applicant is unable to perform at a high level on some aspect of the SAT, then there is a good chance that that student will have the same problems in college. Sure, one can make accommodations their too - but in the long term, this will cause significant administrative difficulties for students with tight schedules, particularly when the admissions committee, which isn’t allowed to know whether an applicant has a particular learning disability, may not have the resources needed to accommodate certain cases.
Also, the reality of the situation is that once people enter the job market and progress through life, accommodations will not always be made, and certain disabilities will inhibit people from entering a particular field. It may be better, then, to steer people with learning abilities in a direction that best prepares them for a situation later in life when accommodations won’t be made.</p>
<p>^^ Yes, really. “Everybody uses it” is hardly a rhetorical slam dunk. I think universities rely on it because other universities do, and it’s easier. I understand that looking backward, an SAT score has a certain predictive value, but it is no holy document. It strokes snobby academics and funds testing centers. Yes, that’s what I think. I think standardized tests are relied on entirely too much in this country. (And because you would be remiss not to think it ---- I graduated with honors, fwiw. And yes, I have a son with an LD) So I don’t care about the accomodations, and don’t see that they are hurting anyone, but THIS THREAD was about cheating on them. Which is baaaad.</p>
<p>Again, I stand by my point. Accomodating a student with a learning disabilty does no harm to you. You will still get whatever scores you get. You still have the application package you have. If your hoity toity school still does not see fit to admit you, that is on them, not on a LD student in who-knows-where. </p>
<p>The reality of the situation is that once you enter the job market and progress through life, you will need to have an open mind, a compassionate heart, a work ethic that does not preclude working as a team, and many other things that cannot be quantified. It is also --shockingly! — true that managers can be annoying, coworkers can be exasperating, and colleagues can be slackers. You seem to assume a certain right of the intellectually gifted to climb a certain ladder at a certain speed, and are annoyed by these darn LD kids who are getting in your way. But in the real world, intellectual prowess is not usually the currency of the day.</p>
<p>I’ll PM you and anyone else who would like to know more specifics, I can understand why you’d be curious! I need to stop reading this thread, though, as anyone who has read my posts in the past knows, I need to practice learning to disengage from these arguments. :P</p>
<p>@ Greenbutton - Indeed, “everyone uses it” is not a rhetorical slam-dunk. Neither twisting every one of my arguments out or context and arguing against something I never asserted. </p>
<p>I can go find plenty of other studies that tell you exactly the same thing, but somehow I don’t get the feeling you’re interested. </p>
<p>You asserted multiple times that I somehow have personal beef with people with learning disorders because they “get in my way.” Really? Where did I say that? Nothing could be farther from the truth. My point is that the necessary accommodations won’t always be made. Do you really think an employer at a competitive business is going to give your son 50% more time to complete his assignments because it makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside, when he could just as well hire someone else at no cost to himself?
I realize that other factors, like work ethic, are just as important as ability, but that doesn’t mean that ability is not an issue worthy of consideration.</p>