How to get extended timeon the ACT...

Parents Forum Learning Differences and Challenges - LD, ADHD
41

<p>breaking promise (not to comment again), but I'm not here to argue.</p>

<p>The thing that I don't feel that many of you understand is WHERE most of the SAT/ACT accommodation abuses occur. Opportunistic exploitation doesn't happen in the majority of schools across the nation. It doesn't happen among populations where the costs of doctor visits and extensive testing are of any financial concern. Instead, I think that most abuse is clustered among the circles of the academic and economic elite. In Podunk, Tennessee, there will probably be only few people who have the resources, incentive, or initiative to seek accommodations. However, competitive prep schools outside of Greenwich and NYC will likely have a vastly disproportionate number of accommodated students. </p>

<p>As a rule, I think that the better the school, the more there will be abuse. It may be true that 99.9% of students would not choose to take a 6 hour test (as tanyanubin said), but IT IS THE .1% of ELITE STUDENTS WHO ARE GUNNING FOR THE ELITE INSTITUTIONS WHERE SAT/ACT IS A BIG DEAL, THAT WOULD PROBABLY take the full six hours. I don't think the general population is a major concern in regards to testing abuse. It is the smart, resourceful, competitive students (the ones who have a chance at HYP anyway) who will be exploiting the system.</p>

<p>The fact that I attend an elite private school might explain why the abuse rate is so high here. But, trust me, ABUSE EXISTS. I am PERSONALLY familiar with both complex SAT/ACT cheating schemes and accommodation abuse.</p>

42

<p>That has been my understanding, too. There have been plenty of articles revealing that elite schools are where the abuses occur. The thing is, that's exactly what makes getting accomodations for a real LD kid almost impossible. They've tightened up in the past few years.
My D's hs was not at all helpful with applying for accomodations. They questioned why my D needed them, despite her having a 504 in place for quite awhile. When the ETS contacted them, they either gave them wrong information or did not reply at all. Teachers who were supposed to email the ETS testifying that my D had been given extended time on her midterms did not reply. The person responsible for helping with applying for accomodations did not bother to read my D's supporting materials, and did not send the proper forms. That's why it took 2 years. I tried in every way to avoid fighting with the HS and the ETS. We spent $1200 on prep just for CR to avoid the fight, netting only a one point improvement, before the testing psychologist told us that her score would never go up with prep. It's a damn shame that people work this system and make it harder for the ones who need it. What kind of mindset is it that allows a person to tell themselves that it's ok?</p>

43

<p>Couldn't agree w/ you more about abuses in elite schools (including public magnet and gifted prgms). The competition for a seat a a top tier sch is totally out of control. And sadly, students/parents have conviced themselves that all's fair b/c "everyone's doing it," as if that could/should every justify lying or other disingenuousness to gain an unfair advantage.</p>

44

<p>I guess it panics people to think that, because there are relatively so few openings in an elite college class, each person in their school who "works the system" takes another potential seat away from them. I imagine that it is a strong incentive to do something unethical that they otherwise might not do. In that case, "everyone's doing it" really affects each person. There really aren't enough places to go around. What a ridiculous panic people get themselves into!</p>

45

<p>I'm not nearly as sympathetic. There are, indeed, relatively few openings at elite colleges, but one doesn't have to attend an elite college. And wanting to attend an elite college doesn't justify unethical conduct - - especially if the objective is to get into HYP, Wes, Amhers or Williams instead of Oberlin, Kenyon or Bates. (Friend's D still spends a couple hrs every night curled up in fetal position and crying b/c she "only" got into Bates.)</p>

46

<p>People without a LD are not able to understand the difficulties that LDed kids go through</p>

<p>Its easy to talk, but you have no idea what it is like to have ADD, ADHD, etc. One has to stay up later to complete their work, spend more time studying, stay up later, go to bed alter, be more exhausted during school, and all other consequences.</p>

47

<p>Getting extra time on SATs is only an advantage for kids with no learning disabilities if it improves their scores on average. Although I am a bit skeptical of studies published by The College Board (TCB) and ETS, the studies that I have seen suggest that extra time significantly increases the scores of test-takers with learning disabilities but does not increase the scores of test-takers without learning disabilities. Indeed, since TCB would probably prefer not to grant accommodations like extra time if it weren't really needed, it would have preferred that the study showed that extra time did not improve the test scores of students with LD's, this result is not really in what I perceive to be TCB's interests (which gives it a fair bit more credibility).</p>

<p>If I remember correctly additional studies that I have read, while SAT scores and GPA are good predictors of first year college grades, SATs are not good predictors of final college grades; high school GPAs serve as a better predictor of final college grades. SAT scores do not provide much information at all about success in post-college life. [I believe you can find links to these studies on TCB's website].</p>

<p>These tests measure a certain kind of mental acuity and are used by schools to screen students, but it is not clear that they are such a terrific screen. </p>

<p>Some people have slower processing speed, reading speed or writing speed. Some get tired over several hours of reading. The question is whether from a college admission standpoint, we should give these people extra time so that they can show both knowledge, reasoning ability, and test-taking skill. Dyslexics, for example, tend to have a significantly higher error rate when they are rushed. If there is an underlying variable that the test is supposed to measure (whether knowledge or reasoning ability), giving them a test that is too short for them statistically biases the estimate of that underlying variable. If we're not measuring underlying knowledge or ability of some kind, why not use a different screening test (e.g., how about consecutive number of times you can jump on a pogo stick). If we are, why would we want to use a test that provides statistically biased estimates of underlying knowledge or ability. </p>

<p>My father was a brilliant theoretical physicist. He told me the story of a physicist named John Bardeen, with whom my father worked early in his career. Apparently, if you asked Bardeen a question, he was unable to answer that question quickly. Indeed, he would usually come back the next day with an answer. That answer was typically unusually deep. Had Bardeen been judged based solely upon timed standardized tests without accommodations, he would have fared poorly. Was he unintelligent or not deserving of a spot at one of the best schools? Bardeen shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1956 for the invention of the transistor, without which we wouldn't have high speed computers let alone the internet, and again in 1972, for a well-developed theory of superconductivity. The HYPs and other elite schools now would be thrilled to claim him as an alumnus. My instinct is that timed tests are biased against people like Bardeen with certain processing, reading and writing issues and without accommodations would rule out students that the elite colleges would love to have. </p>

<p>College admissions has become increasingly stressful over time and I wonder if some of the snarky posts I see here from what I'd guess are high school students is a result of that stress. The process is itself unfair. Elite colleges have to choose one slot for 7 applicants who look very good on paper and so the odds of getting in to any one school are not that high. Nonetheless, I think we should recognize that talent and speed of processing/reading are not highly correlated. I'd guess that there are very few people who have ever participated in this site who are as smart as Bardeen was and very few who will ever contribute as much as he has. By the way, his father was the Dean of Medicine at University of Wisconsin and he was an undergraduate there. He worked and then went to graduate school at Princeton and, prior to receiving his Ph.D, was invited to join the Society of Fellows at Harvard (a high honor). He's only one data point, but I believe that if you look at the data in the aggregate on what makes people successful in life or even in college, there is no real reason to be so upset that some people with physiological/neurological wiring that causes them to read/write/process more slowly get extra time on tests.</p>

<p>There are two sad things about the reliance on this kind of testing. First, it takes a fair bit of work for kids with meaningful and significant learning disabilities to get appropriate accommodations from TCB. Well-educated and often affluent parents and or counselors from well-funded schools are much more likely to be able to navigate this obstacle-strewn path successfully. Kids from less privileged backgrounds are less likely to a) have been diagnosed with an LD; and b) to get accommodations from TCB. Second, as one of the posters has written, affluent parents who want to give their kids all of the possible advantages. They can pay a neuropsychologist to give them some testing to try for extra time, even though extra time has not been shown to make a difference for kids without LDs. That makes TCB much more wary of granting the accommodations and they now tend to initially deny lots of applications. Then, the parents with strong cases and the appropriate skills can go to battle with them and get the accommodations that their kids need. But other kids with LDs, without the ability to get that kind of help, don't get the accommodations they need to demonstrate their knowledge or reasoning ability. So, I think the unfairness in the process (other than the absurdly competitive nature of admissions at present) is that kids with LDs from less than privileged backgrounds probably report test scores that systematically underestimate their ability and knowledge.</p>

48

<p>I agree, and very well said</p>

49

<p>Thank you.</p>

50

<p>We all have own opinions, of course, but yours (post on previous page) seems to be somewhat unrealistic regarding actual disabilities. My d is visually impaired and when it comes time for her to take the SAT or ACT or AP exam, she will most certainl;y request and be giving time and a half. It will take her longer than that to read it all. Now if it were permissible to have the whole exam given orally to her, she would likely not need that extra time at all. Unfortunately, since she cannot see the little bubble dots to color in, someone has to do that for her which will take up that extra time. For you to deny that needed extra time or to insinuate that it is an "abuse" is incredible. It must be wonderful to be perfect.</p>

51

<p>Zimmer07 Your daughter may benefit from a (little known?) accomodation that the ACT board does have. I was told of this by a counselor from ACT Board (as our request for accomodation was being initially denied.) Your D may be able to write her answers directly into the question book and completely forego the answer sheet altogether. This accomodation can be on its own or in conjunction with extended time. It is my experience that all special requests to ACT are initially denied, so be prepared to appeal. Start early. Good luck.</p>

52

<p>You can also get the accommodation of writing answers directly into the test book for the PSAT/SAT/AP exams. This can be extremely helpful for students with certain LD's.</p>

53

<p>We all have strengths and we all have weaknesses.</p>

<p>Standardized tests should be taken with whatever strengths and weaknesses an individual may have without the benefit of any special accommodations. The results will thus be standardized, which is the main point of the test.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
Oh, wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if all testing was done without timing? If they just scheduled proctors to be there for 6 or 7 hours, and let every kid do their very best? Most kids would undoubtedly leave in the normal time frame---who would want to sit there for longer than the ridiculous amount of time the SAT takes already unless they had no choice?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>After a bit of thinking, I'm convinced that we have a difference of opinion over what the SAT is supposed to measure. I personally believe the SAT is intended to measure BOTH pure and applied ability. Pure ability, by my definition, is how deeply and accurately we think. Applied ability, by my definition, is how efficiently, flexibly, and quickly we work. Both are essential in college, and in real life. We take the SAT in order to demonstrate how ready we are for college, or essentially, how ready we are to begin our education as adults. Perhaps some LD kids can work at high accuracy and understanding if given time + XXX%, but I do not think it is reasonable to completely eliminate time as an issue in the SAT. Out here in the real world, time flows on at the same relentless pace, much as we might wish for breaks every now and then. Why should time come to a standstill for 5 years on Saturday morning? Perhaps accomodations will be made in college, but what will happen when an LD student goes into the hospital as a surgeon and expects two hours to deliberate the appropriate procedure when handed a dying patient, or is given one week to write a report for a law firm and extra time is not a possibility? I can barely think of any jobs where deadlines are not of critical importance, where 'extra time' can be regularly handed out to employees at no cost to the company (except, perhaps, for some non-profit organizations whose jobs are catered to people with severe LD). Someone earlier mentioned a very successful researcher with a processing handicap, and I think academic research is another kind of position where LDs do not have to worry so much about time (although most, even the brightest, are expected to do some teaching, which requires working on schedules). But I think most people generally agree that the majority of professions are heavily time-dependent. With that in mind, will SAT extra-time and additional accomodations that LD kids receive on the SAT, in HS, and maybe in college, continue to present themselves after we leave the educational system?</p>

<p>I also think there are some LDs for which giving accomodations makes a lot of sense. I have a friend who always writes very lightly and messily, and doesn't fill in bubbles heavily enough for machines to read. I think it's reasonable for him to be allowed to type up the SAT essay, to circle his answers on his sheet, and what have you. After all, in the real world, people usually type on computers rather than handwrite, and no-one has to bubble scantrons in the workplace. But I think that, concerning LDs for which we will probably never be completely accomodated later in life, including slow processing ability and the like, the SAT does need to reflect that certain students have those LDs.</p>

55

<p>That sounds nice, red sox 7327, but it is a little naive. Should a blind person have to take the test without the benefit of Braille or a reader? </p>

<p>Unfortunately, red sox 7327, although the Sox are a great baseball team, I think you are fundamentally wrong. The point of standardized tests is to measure one or more underlying variable or factor and they are designed to measure that factor or factors. If someone is blind, you don't get a measure of the factor unless you give them the test in Braille or read it to them. If you don't, the results are not standardized and are thus not useful. They used to give IQ tests in English to non-English speaking immigrants and then conclude that the whole group of immigrants was stupid. The primary stupidity was that of the person making an assessment of IQ using an English language test for non-English speakers.</p>

<p>Similarly, if you gave John Bardeen your version of a standardized test without extra time, he'd do badly. (See my post above). This would not provide an good estimate of the underlying factor the schools actually want to measure (or at least the test designer was seeking to measure). </p>

<p>If you want to administer a test that for a substantial fraction of the population that provides a biased estimate of the underlying factor it is trying to measure, you are not doing much that is useful. If all you want is some kind of screening device that doesn't measure much that is useful, OK. But, if you are really trying to assess problem-solving ability or analytical capability, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to rule out people who are strong on those factors because you have given the test in such a way that it provides biased estimates. </p>

<p>Why do you want the screening mechanism for college admission to be one that will keep out John Bardeen and others like him just because he needs extra time to get the truly deep analytical thoughts out? There haven't been a whole lot of Nobel prize winners in physics. There have been an extremely small number who have one two and I think only one who won one prize for an invention (the transistor) and the other for theory (superconductivity). He's an extreme case, but there are a reasonable number of people with very high IQ's or otherwise significant talent for whom taking the test under the normal conditions does not provide a measure of their problem-solving or analytical ability. Why would you want a mechanism that rules them out? </p>

<p>If your primary aim is to select people who can work fast rather than people who work well, then not providing accommodations to kids with processing speed-related learning disabilities or language related learning disabilities, your approach works just fine. For a significant part of the population, speed and a certain kind of academic talent are reasonably correlated. But, there are a bunch of other folks who are really bright and talented but cannot produce the results quickly. If you want to actually learn something about this, take a look at a book called Proust and The Brain written a Maryanne Wolf, a Tufts professor who studies the neuroscience of the reading brain. I have heard her argue that in general, dyslexics (who do a lot more processing in their right hemisphere) have tended to be our leaders and generals. Their strength is in pattern recognition, which is, I think, a large component of IQ. Many of these folks learn to read, but do so slowly because they are using the right hemisphere rather than the left hemisphere for some of the phonological processing. While this is inefficient for reading and thus they read slowly and would be penalized relative to IQ if they don't get accommodations, their overdeveloped pattern recognition skills cause them to be extremely good at solving problems. But, your approach will likely screen out a portion of the very brightest, most able kids. Can you explain why you think that is a good idea?</p>

<p>I think our elite schools strive to identify and educate those kids who are going to lead, do important things, play important roles in society. I don't think you identify them by screening on their the ability to answer questions quickly or without Braille or in a non-native language. </p>

<p>I have hired a number of kids from schools like Princeton, Harvard, and MIT and I'd rather hire a kid who thinks well than a kid who thinks fast. Interestingly, the best person I've ever hired came was a Math/Econ major UMass Amherst. He had learned to teach himself and to learn on his own and never stopped. He was not the quickest and he was certainly not the most glib. No knock on the other kids we hired, most of whom were very good. In that business, speed was important but quality of thought was much more so. I (and I think our society) would rather have the best kid rather than the quickest kid. If that is true, we ought to be designing our tests to measure the best and not systematically underestimate the capabilities of a significant subset.</p>

<p>amb3r, I think you raise a good point. There are clearly jobs in which one needs to work rapidly and for which some disabilities would handicap performance. The business I was describing above was a hedge fund that traded in real time, and I'd definitely have taken the smartest kid over the quickest one. Law is an example of a profession that is much harder for someone who reads and writes slowly, although David Boies is a famous lawyer who is dyslexic and I worked with the General Counsel of a major British corporation who had worked his way up from lowly beginnings in Australia despite severe dyslexia. I think they may be the exception rather than the rule. However, I think that you may be overestimating the number of jobs in which the need to do rapid reading/writing is critical. Post-medical school, I don't see doctors doing extensive amounts of reading and writing. Effective salespeople need to be effective, but they do not necessarily need to be quick. I think that there are jobs, law among them, for which the ability to do academic-like tasks quickly enables you to rise, maybe to the top. Getting extra time in school may give you an unrealistic sense of your ability to succeed at such jobs. But whether it is biotechnology or hedge fund management or management, I'd rather have the system select for depth and capability rather than speed.</p>

56

<p>The majority of LD kids do not go into professions where your LD will not prevent you from succeeding. Like I already said, Bardeen chose research, where things are a bit more flexible. Research is a field where you can spend days thinking about one problem, which is apparently what Bardeen is most excellent at doing. Out of all possible occupations, research is the least practical and the most theoretical (not that I'm against research, not at all). For most other occupations, even Bardeen-type intelligence, which as you said is probably one in a million, just will not cut it when quick thinking does not follow. </p>

<p>About Braille. Yes, of course testing accomodations should be given for kids who are blind, because, like I said, those kids will probably be able to receive similar accomodations in the workplace, or to obtain them personally. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I think you're undercutting the value of "answering questions quickly". Yes, worded that way, it does seem quite trivial. But I'm sure you would agree that kids who can "answer SAT questions quickly" can also do a lot of other, more important things quickly, and that kids who can't figure out those answers quickly also can't do a lot of other things in a time squeeze. Concerning elite schools' interest in identifying kids who are going to "lead, do important things, play important roles in society...", essentially any job where an employee interacts with others has a time-component, and leaders ALWAYS need to interact with others, who expect to receive reasonably timed responses and communications. How can a leader lead if he needs extra time to make executive decisions? How can he even win an election to get into that position in the first place if he can't think fast enough to perform well in a televised debate? Leaders need to shine under pressure. So do most others who have 'significant' roles in society, which is what you say elite colleges look for. And for less prestigious jobs, I think time is very, if not more, relevant. Imagine a cashier, a librarian who needs to give help to a waiting customer, a waitress in a busy cafe, or a technician with 15 appointments to keep every day. They will underperform their colleagues if they need extra time, and the SAT should reflect a problem like that. </p>

<p>I'm curious - what field of work are you in?</p>

57

<p>Needing to answer a written question quickly is indeed a different thing than needing to synthesize information one has heard and give a thoughtful response. At the top, I think quality of thought matters a lot more than speed. I think the more folks are cogs in a machine -- like the technician with 15 appointments -- the ability to do simplistic tasks quickly will matter. They're still in Frederick Taylor's world. But, at the higher end, I think quality of thought and capability to lead matter more.</p>

<p>I think that kids with LDs will have to select their path more carefully and work harder to get to or near the top. But once there, if they've selected their path well, I don't think many LDs will stop gifted folks from excelling. But, it is important to distinguish among various kinds of LDs. Some people, like Bardeen, can't think fast but can think well. I'd hire Bardeen's equivalent at a hedge fund any day over 1000 great SAT takers, but not as a trader. Others can think fast but they can read and write quickly. John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, is dyslexic. He has trouble reading and writing but says he thinks in technicolor in a world in which most of his peers think in black and white. I don't think, for example, that there is any reason to assume that dyslexics (who don't read and write quickly) will not shine under pressure as long as the pressure is not to read and write quickly. </p>

<p>I've had a checkered career history. I started as a professor at Harvard. I worked at an investment bank and then in what would probably be called a private equity firm, although its investments went up and down the capital structure and were not just equity investments in established companies or later stage venture capital. After that, I co-founded several firms. One was a niche hedge fund management company, which I sold. The other, which I run, is a niche management consulting firm. Our clients arein a wide array of industries including pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, cosmetics, private equity, hospitals, telecom, ... . As a result, I work with senior executives at a number of companies and government leaders upon occasion. Some are big readers but an awful lot are much more verbal. They listen to their people debate an issue and make decisions thereafter. The hedge fund company was mathematically based and traded real-time. Speed both mattered a lot and didn't matter at all. Figuring out where at trading opportunity was and figuring out how to capitalize on it was relatively much more important than doing anything quickly. I've written a couple of books and am on the board of some small privately held companies. It would be harder for some people with ADD or dyslexia to write books, but not impossible. Based upon my experience, pattern recognition and the ability to respond effectively are much more important at the top than quickness in answering written questions. </p>

<p>Anyway, I think at lower levels in an organization, and in some fields, you are absolutely correct. But, I think that in many other positions, the effect of the handicap is relatively small and can easily be counteracted by skill in another area. My problem with using the SAT in a biased way is that the screening mechanism doesn't provide much opportunity to counterbalance it. If one believes Michelle Hernandez, standardized tests and grades count for roughly 1/3 each of the outcome. Grades, which are also reading/writing based and very formulaic, are so inflated in high school that they are an ineffective measure for discriminating between pretty smart people and extremely smart people. With some exceptions (Siemens science prize or chess championships), extracurricular activities don't provide a great method of discriminating.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
That sounds nice, red sox 7327, but it is a little naive. Should a blind person have to take the test without the benefit of Braille or a reader?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it's not naive. No one is advocating that a blind individual take the SAT without Braille. That is a circumstance in which the test-taker would otherwise be completely unable to show his/her ability.</p>

<p>
[quote]
the Sox are a great baseball team

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Indeed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They used to give IQ tests in English to non-English speaking immigrants and then conclude that the whole group of immigrants was stupid. The primary stupidity was that of the person making an assessment of IQ using an English language test for non-English speakers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK, but this country no longer does that so the point is moot. I don't advocate purposely screwing an individual. I believe an individual who speaks the English language, who can see, who has a pulse, and who has a pencil in hand should be able to show what he/she can accomplish - given that individuals strengths and weaknesses - on a standardized test.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why do you want the screening mechanism for college admission to be one that will keep out John Bardeen and others like him just because he needs extra time to get the truly deep analytical thoughts out?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would never advocate keeping John Bardeen out of college. Are you saying that the Bardeens of the world would not be able to get into college without time and a half on an SAT test? Of course you are not. Your SAT score is not the be all and end all of college admissions. As quoted on the premed board, "excellence is a panacea." Time and a half is not what decides whether or not an individual receives two noble prizes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, there are a bunch of other folks who are really bright and talented but cannot produce the results quickly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, there are literally hundreds of thousands of them and many do not get testing accommodations. There are MANY people taking the SAT who have weaknesses. There are MANY who can't finish the reading sections. If the weakness happens to be ADD then why should that individual receive extra time while the other kid with an unrecognized weakness - who cannot finish - is forced to do the best he or she can in the normal alloted time. When the national average for the reading section is ~500 there is undoubtedly MANY kids who are forced to hand in tests that are incomplete, not just kids with ADD and/or other recognized LDs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want to actually learn something about this, take a look at a book called Proust and The Brain written a Maryanne Wolf, a Tufts professor who studies the neuroscience of the reading brain.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've read it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, your approach will likely screen out a portion of the very brightest, most able kids. Can you explain why you think that is a good idea?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My approach would not screen out the very brightest and most able kids. If it did, you would have a rather large beef with the state of colleges in America and the way they select their students. I didn't create the SAT nor did I make mandatory that all colleges use it as a criteria for acceptance. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think our elite schools strive to identify and educate those kids who are going to lead, do important things, play important roles in society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Because this is in direct opposition to what you have stated so far. Prior to this statement it seemed as if you saw colleges as being shortsighted and only capable of accepting kids based on SAT merit.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have hired a number of kids from schools like Princeton, Harvard, and MIT and I'd rather hire a kid who thinks well than a kid who thinks fast. Interestingly, the best person I've ever hired came was a Math/Econ major UMass Amherst. He had learned to teach himself and to learn on his own and never stopped. He was not the quickest and he was certainly not the most glib. No knock on the other kids we hired, most of whom were very good. In that business, speed was important but quality of thought was much more so. I (and I think our society) would rather have the best kid rather than the quickest kid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Indeed. To go along with your point here, what an individual scores on his or her SAT should not have any impact on who you hire. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If that is true, we ought to be designing our tests to measure the best and not systematically underestimate the capabilities of a significant subset.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And the subset is indeed SIGNIFICANT and does not simply span the students with recognized LDs. I have no problem with designing admission tests in a different fashion that shift the focus away from speed. Unfortunately, the SAT is what it is and what it is is a standardized test that should be treated like one.</p>

59

<p>red sox, I don't have time to try to untangle your arguments. Let me just say that I was picking extreme examples because people using a similar argument to yours did indeed, by not adjusting their testing, discriminate in a statistical sense against a category of talented people. They were using the test in a "standardized" way as you wish to do. Like you, but less sensibly, they didn't vary the test conditions to match key segments of the population that would cause the test to be biased for sub-populations. I think they were making a logical error and so were you. Just as with more readily visible disabilities, so with less easily visible but still real disabilities. But, I am happy to agree to disagree.</p>

<p>Did you like Proust and the Squid?</p>

<p>Incidentally, I never argued that SATs are or should be the be-all and end-all, but merely that given the current policies at elite schools (I was not dealing with state schools), standardized tests are overweighted because grades are inflated and extracurriculars are, with some exceptions, do not provide significant information. Thus, your screening method would keep some of the brightest kids out of the most elite schools. That is the issue I was addressing. Thus, while elite schools strive to pick the cream of the crop, grades and ECs provide less information than they could and thus too much reliance is placed on standardized tests. I'm pretty sure that they are aware of this and uncomfortable with it, although they relish having USNWR showing their extremely high average SAT scores.</p>

<p>Of course, if the SAT were a non-discriminatory test that provided an unbiased estimate of key underlying factors, I would likely, as an employer, be interested in the information it provided. I think the evidence suggests that it is a decent predictor of freshman year grades but not final college grades and is not particularly useful in predicting post-college success. </p>

<p>With regard to the hiring issue, we agree. amb3r was arguing that virtually all jobs seem to require the ability to work quickly and under pressure and that kids who needed extra time on standardized tests would not be able to meet that standard. ("How can a leader lead if he needs extra time to make executive decisions? How can he even win an election to get into that position in the first place if he can't think fast enough to perform well in a televised debate? Leaders need to shine under pressure. So do most others who have 'significant' roles in society, which is what you say elite colleges look for. And for less prestigious jobs, I think time is very, if not more, relevant. Imagine a cashier, a librarian who needs to give help to a waiting customer, a waitress in a busy cafe, or a technician with 15 appointments to keep every day.") Thus, he seemed to be arguing that by discriminating against kids who need extra time to read and write or other kids who need extra time to process, we were properly screening for important positions in society. While I can certainly think of positions like that, my experience with senior executives and in other businesses like hedge fund management is that there are many crucial positions in which speed of reading/writing or speed of processing is secondary. All other things equal, I would agree, fast is better. but Maryanne Wolf makes a case that all other things are likely not to be equal.</p>

60

<p>There is a huge difference between accomodating for blind students and accomodating with giving extra time. Braille does not give the blind students much of an advantage...extra time does.</p>

<p>Last year, I took a practice ACT home for homework. We were given as much time as we desired to use to take it. I averaged only about 10-15 minutes more on each section.. however my score was a whopping 35 (2 more questions and I could have gotten a 36). On the real ACT however it took MANY tries to get my high score of 32 (other scores being as low as 28). If I were to get extra time I could have a perfect or close to it. Is that fair?</p>

<p>The ACT measures ability and EFFICIENCY. While I do not disagree that there should be a measure other things such as insight and quality of thought given enough time, the ACT should not be used as such. In any case the college at least should know, and treat the ACT and the extended-time ACT as two different tests, as that is what they are.</p>