I don't think any one should get extra time on the SAT

Test Preparation
1

<p>The SAT is an equalizer. It shows what students across the country can do when tested in a standardized situation. When you eliminate controls on every test taker like time, you get results that do not reflect the actual results. A big part of the SAT tests how long you're able to sit in a chair at focus on problems. Giving extra time to students with disabilities gives those students an unfair advantage, and I disapprove of that.</p>

<p>This should be interesting...</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

2

<p>Students with disabilities are already disadvantaged when taking these tests… so I think it’s fair to give them some time. As you said “SAT is an equalizer”… it wouldn’t be fair that you, someone without disabilities, get the same amount of time as someone that is disadvantaged don’t you think?</p>

3

<p>Try being a student with a disability–hearing problems or limited mobility, for example–and see exactly how many unfair advantages these people are given in life. (Hint: zero.)</p>

<p>Teenagers with disabilities are probably one of the most marginalized groups in society because the usual lack of facilities, awareness and acceptance that every disabled person has to deal with is compounded by the fact that everyone around them is, well, an immature d***.</p>

<p>If more time on the SAT is something this world is willing to give them, then I’m all for it. Every single attempt to acknowledge the existence of disabled people in society is a good thing.</p>

<p>The fact that you feel ‘disadvantaged’ because an incredibly small group of people who already have so much going against them can stay in the testing room a bit longer than you shows a level of entitlement and lack of perspective that you should be seriously concerned about.</p>

4

<p>

Is that a prerequisite to doing well in college or in life? Really?</p>

5

<p>I have a disability. My eyes don’t work together, and as a result, I am a very very slow reader. But I don’t sign up for my extra time. The SAT tests how quickly students are able to read and analyze passages. Sitting in a chair for several hours and focusing on a test may not be something colleges particularly care about, but it is a large factor for many technically non-disabled students when taking the SAT. The last section I test is generally my weakest, because I’m tired, and jittery, and generally not in the mood. People with disabilities don’t get extra time in life. In the real world, if your boss asks you to get something done in an hour, and you need extra time because you have ADD and you can’t focus on it, your boss will probably fire you. </p>

<p>also, ghostt, are you saying that every kid who isn’t disabled is an immature #^&*(?
hefty generalization.</p>

6

<p>I do have slightly mixed feelings. I know some kid who gets extra time because he “has trouble focusing” ***?!? I mean that’s life, if you can’t medicate your focusing issue then you’re going to have to deal with it throughout your college life. Your prof isn’t going to give you extra time because you read slowly…have ADD etc…I find Ghost’s argument slightly backwards. You don’t argue anything actually, it’s more just an attack at non disabled people and the defense of disabled people. You do infact realize that people with learning disabilities get no slack in a real world work environment so why should they just because they are teenagers?</p>

7

<p>^Agree with above poster. I understand that some students have serious learning or physical disabilities and it’s perfectly fair for them to have extra time or different testing conditions to suit their needs. However, if someone just has trouble focusing or something similar, then they should not get extra time by any means! Everybody may have trouble focusing (I know I get distracted easily), but does that mean everyone should get extra time? No. I think students should only get extra time if they are diagnosed with a learning disability by a doctor, and only if it’s serious (no “mild ADD” kids should get extra time-then a majority of kids would be getting this also)!</p>

8

<p>I’m with Ghostt on this one. (S)he might be making a bit of a generalization by saying that teens are generally ignorant of and immature towards a disabled person’s plight, but, by and large, this is true. Teens are notorious for being self-absorbed, but the bottom line’s the same whether we’re talking 100% of kids, 75%, 50%, or 1%. Life is different and more difficult for the marginalized in ways the privileged can’t even begin to fathom. [After all, denying your privilege is a privilege in and of itself.] Plus, RainbowSprinkles and Aayaa1, you can’t make generalizations about someone (oh, that disability isn’t <em>severe</em> enough to merit more time) without knowing more about their circumstances. There is a difference between a kid who will not focus and one who cannot. And Aayaa, doesn’t it seem a bit hasty to declare that there are no colleges out there that will make allowances for learning disabilities? </p>

<p>You don’t argue anything actually, it’s more just an attack at non disabled people and the defense of disabled people. You do infact realize that people with learning disabilities get no slack in a real world work environment so why should they just because they are teenagers?</p>

<p>Oh, gee! I never thought of it this way! You’re right, those annoying people, griping about their disabilities and trying to sneak an advantage over we able-bodied folks. Let’s just get rid of wheelchair ramps and handicapped parking spaces, because that’s <em>life.</em> Tough luck, buttercup! I hope you realize how ridiculous it is to argue that a few extra minutes on a test for someone who needs it is somehow discrimination against you as an able-bodied person. I am also glad that you are such an expert on the matter.</p>

<p>I admire your strength, figureskater, and I hope I’m not coming across in a patronizing the-disabled-need-to-be-babied sort of way. It sounds like you’re determined and what you do works for you, but just because there are people who choose your path doesn’t mean we should force it onto everyone. I believe extra time (or insert x, y, z accommodation) should always be available for those who need it, even if that thing is generally unwanted, because the power to chose is what defines a democracy.</p>

<p>I’d advise the rest of you to check out some resources on (able-bodied) privilege and what it constitutes: [Unpacking</a> the knapsack of able privilege](<a href=“http://www.fsatoronto.com/programs/options/knapsack.html]Unpacking”>http://www.fsatoronto.com/programs/options/knapsack.html)</p>

9

<p>“Plus, RainbowSprinkles and Aayaa1, you can’t make generalizations about someone (oh, that disability isn’t <em>severe</em> enough to merit more time) without knowing more about their circumstances. There is a difference between a kid who will not focus and one who cannot.”</p>

<p>That is precisely what I mean by “severe” (which I didn’t even say, by the way. I believe the word I used was "serious’, a synonym of the word).</p>

<p>A serious condition is when a student CANNOT do something (e.g. focus) and a mild condition is when, for example, a student simply becomes distracted easily.</p>

<p>Standardized testing is meant to be an equalizer-I totally agree with this statement, but at the same time, I understand that kids with learning/physical disabilities are disadvantaged and in order for the situation to be fair, they should be awarded extra time. </p>

<p>aarelle, I am not being ignorant of the fact that there are students out there with learning disabilities. I am simply stating my own opinion (as you are entitled to do so, yourself), that students with mild learning disabilities (i.e. they are ABLE, but have mild difficulties) should not be awarded extra time. This would be very unfair to students with serious learning disabilities and also to students who suffer from mild learning disabilities and do not know/are embarrassed to report this to their physician.</p>

10

<p>Wait, if you have ADD you can get extra time on the SAT?</p>

11

<p>They should not be given extra time or any other help. If you have a disability or w/e that is very unfortunate but you shouldn’t be boosted along in everything just because of it cause in the ‘real world’ no one will.</p>

<p>No 2 people are the same and its not CB’s job to decide who deserves extra time or not. In PE class when we have to run 4 laps, the coach doesn’t say ‘ok all you obese kids only have to do 2 since your disadvantaged’. why should standardized tests be any different? If you have a serious disability and score low then that is an accurate representation ok your ability and colleges or wherever you apply will understand your position. But essentially cheating to misrepresent your testing ability is wrong.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay really? My brother has a lot of learning disabilities, in addition to diabetes which gives him extra time on its own. If you think he’s being boosted along in everything then you are SOOOOO unbelievably wrong. He’s already way behind everybody else and struggles to keep up with the rest of the class. I don’t understand where you’re getting this ‘boosting along’ thing from, as if disabled kids are just getting a free pass to sail through academia. It’s the complete opposite. Be lucky you don’t have any serious disabilities and quit worrying about them. Focus on your own grades.</p>

<p>

People at your school with physical disabilities don’t get medical excuses from gym? I have a friend with a busted knee and she sure as hell doesn’t have to run 4 laps.</p>

13

<p>lol whoa this thread is getting way too intense. My opinion-and guys, this is all that it is, just my personal opinion-is that it’s okay for students with learning disabilities to get extra time (perfectly understandable), as long as they’re serious cases. In other words, if someone just has troubles concentrating on the task at hand (aka the majority of teenagers since we all have short attention spans lol), then they should not be given extra time!</p>

<p>EDIT (an added note): I understand where FlamingMango is coming from-the world out there can be cruel and people with learning disabilities won’t always have rules like CB’s to protect them, in order to ensure perfectly fair situations. However, this is life! You must understand, our world is no utopia. To make things more fair, though, I think it’s fine for people with serious learning disabilities to get a little extra time. It’s just hard for some people without learning disabilities to empathize and to relate to that. It’s sometimes hard for us to see a student who APPEARS perfectly normal (i.e. they have a learning disability) to get extra time. It SEEMS unfair, but in reality, this rule puts them on the same platform as kids without disabilities. IN CONCLUSION (lol sorry I blabbed a little), CB’s rule is justified, though some people do take advantage of this rule (I’ve known people who’ve done it :frowning: ) and I think these are the people who ruin everything for the people who actually have learning disabilities.</p>

14

<p>I don’t think it compares well to PE class. I’ll leave you all with this. If you get a job at some marketing firm or something after graduating college and you need to put together a presentation for some client in 2 days, he’s not going to give you 3 because you have ADD. The CB is giving you 3 which I don’t believe is realistic to a real life situation. I ain’t even mad though, I see kids all the time who blatantly abuse this rule that CB made. I’m not here to complain, just voicing my opinion.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>No need to flip this around on me… No 2 ppl are born the same just cause thats the way we are. I have mild dyslexia and im thankful for what im able to do but the SAT is a standard test and changing its rules just cause you know you wont do as well is not an accurate representation of yourself. If i have severe ADD and it takes me 2x the time to do a problem as the average joe then that should be reflected in my SAT score. The score is a measure of your TESTING ability. Not some deep reflection of who you are what you are capable. It is just how well do you TEST in a certain about of time. If you have ADD or w/e then obviously you wont test well, and of course you will score low. Its not a personal attack against you or a score of your value in life it is just a representation of your TESTING ability. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>ADD to Testing is completely different from Broken knee to running. I dont even understand why you bring up this example.</p>

<p>If you have a broken knee, you physically cannot run and you can harm yourself more by running. Having ADD/diabetes/w.e does not render you 100% incapable from taking a test and taking a test cannot harm you in anyway. You may obviously score lower than your non disabled buddy but of course thats going to happen. Why should Average Joe and sever ADD Joe get the same SAT score and same representation of testing ability when Average Joe is an obviously superior test taker.</p>

<p>anyway my 2cents</p>

16

<p>I think what everyone is missing here is that in College Admissions, SAT is going to be used as an indicator of your college readiness.
Let me restate that: The SAT is used in college admissions as an indicator of your knowledge base and general level of education. It is not used to determine which students are speedy at bubbling in circles. Colleges don’t care about that. They care to know generally what you know, which translates into how ready you are for college. </p>

<p>Take this example: A kid with ADD who is just as smart as I am is no less ready for college than I am simply because he cannot finish the SAT as quickly as I can. If he has the same mastery of knowledge that I do, it’s fair to say he has just as strong a chance of comprehending material during college as I have. If he needs extended time on the SAT to prove that he has an adequate understanding of the material and thus is ready for college, why not give it to him? Giving him more time is not providing him with answers or solutions he did not already know or understand. It’s just providing him with adequate resources to complete the task. Taking away this kid’s extra time is similar to taking away a paralyzed person’s wheelchair and saying, “My legs get tired too. It’s unfair that you think you shouldn’t have to walk. Try harder.” </p>

<p>Imagine walking into your testing room and finding that there is a rock concert being held in the adjacent room. Wouldn’t you want some sort of extra time to make up for this deficit? That’s what it’s like to have a learning disability, especially ADD. </p>

<p>One more example- My good friend is probably much smarter than me, but she has severe anxiety. In school, she manages to swing high grades on tests because she is used to classroom tests and knows what specific subject to study. (She knows whether she should be studying geometry or algebra or trig, which is impossible to say as the SAT and ACT are a very fluid mixture pulled from each of these three.) After twelve years of taking classroom tests, she can generally remain calm. However, the ACT and SAT literally give her panic attacks. Given the extra time, I am sure she would have time to calm down and really show what she knows. Nevertheless, she has not been able to use extra time (our school is quite poor at working with students to accommodate needs) and as a result, her ACT score is a good four points below mine, despite the fact that she is smarter. It’s kind of ridiculous.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Tell me then. If i am just a slow test taker or just plain lazy then do i deserve extra time cause i dont finish the SAT as quickly? Or is that a right only given to people with certain ‘disabilities’ that CB decides? If i just suck at tests i can still do well in college, no? Then why dont i get special treatment? </p>

<p>This is turning into a debate of whether or not the SAT is a good test for determining college readiness and not if some people should get more time or not,.</p>

18

<p>^Because, medically, there is nothing standing in your way of improving your scores and the time in which you can finish the test. My friend has dyslexia, he gets extra time but he sure as hell deserves it. He’s one of the smartest people I have ever met but it takes him longer to read and write because of his DISABILITY!</p>

19

<p>What Jason said. Straight up. It would be impossible for you to perform to your full potential, as I said earlier, if a rock band were playing next door to your testing room. Having a disability such as ADD is similar. </p>

<p>You wouldn’t take away a prosthetic leg from an amputee and expect him to be a fair contender in a test of speed. Without a prosthetic leg, he could not demonstrate his full strength or ability, and he couldn’t demonstrate his readiness to run bigger marathons. The notion that you would take away his prosthetic is absolutely ridiculous. </p>

<p>However, you would never allow a person who was just lazy and refused to train or a crappy runner (this is comparable to your example of a lazy, bad test taker) to have both of his legs amputated and replaced with prosthetic legs to prevent lactic acid buildup. That would be RIDICULOUS, and no one would condone it. Why would it be ridiculous? Because the man had two perfectly good legs, and he would have been absolutely capable of training to run the marathon had he been willing to put in the time and effort. Similarly A lazy or bad test taker could improve a score with time and effort. </p>

<p>I know this example could be called weak because it would be ridiculous to expect someone to have both legs removed to run a marathon, etc. but it is a ridiculous example to suit a ridiculous notion- of course lazy or bad test takers should not be given extra time. They are capable of improving without these resources. </p>

<p>I think the fundamental disagreement here is not whether or not the SAT is a good indicator of college readiness but whether those with mental/learning disabilities deserve the same accommodations in the the classroom and in testing that people with physical disabilities get on a daily basis. My opinion is that it is unreasonable to argue that they don’t. </p>

<p>Personally, I have no reason to NOT want them to. I go into standardized test and do my very best. As a result, I have scores that I am very pleased with. I do not at all feel threatened by the fact that others have been provided the resources they need to perform at their full potential. I have been allowed the resources I need, why shouldn’t they get what they need as well. I don’t feel threatened by the fact that those in wheelchairs can park in handicapped spots. In my opinion, it’s the same basic principle.</p>

20

<p>FlamingMango, your laziness is NOT the same as somebody with dyslexia. Stop whining. People with disablities would be THRILLED to be in your situation. They need to work twice as hard as you do, and you’re saying that being lazy is the same thing?? I don’t understand why you’re acting like you’re the one being treated unfairly.</p>