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

Test Preparation
21

<p>You are all missing the point here completely. The SAT is a measure of your ability to test, in every sense of the test-understand and reading the passages, having a decent vocab memorized, critical thinking and solving etc all in a time limit. It is not a direct test of how smart you are, it is simply a representation of your testing ability. If you have a disability that makes you test poorly, then you test poorly, and your score reflects that. It doesnt mean you’re stupid or worthless in society or wont get good grades in college or anything. It just means you are bad at the sat or, taking tests.</p>

<p>I know plenty of people who get all A+ in hard classes but, for whatever reason, do poorly on the SAT. Thats just how it is. It doesnt mean they wont get A’s in college or that they are going to fail in life, it just means they didn’t test well in terms of the standardized test. </p>

<p>If you have a disability, there is no doubt you have the potential to be smart and ace every college course and everything you do in life. But if you do poorly in the SAT, the SAT with the standardized time, questions, etc, then thats just a fact of life. You obviously are not a good test taker with that disability so why should your score show anything different. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A Rock Band is an external issue and obviously wouldn’t be right to have playing during your test. If you have a constant ringing or rock band or voices in your head and that means you will not test as well as the next guy, then you you wont test as well as the next guy. Why should someone with ADD or such be given extra.ordinary conditions to make the testing more comfortable and easy for them? Its such a simple fact that for whatever of the many reasons (add, dumb, lack of effort, lobotomy, etc) that cause you test poorly, that’s just what happens. You are not a good test taker and shouldnt be portrayed as such with enriched scores produced with extra time and such.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The funny thing is, this example completely goes against your argument. The man with the prosthetic leg isnt asking the marathon officials to change the rules and shorten the length he has to run. He accepts his disability and strives to compete with the human-legged runners.
The ADD kid, however, decides he is disadvantaged and deserves special treatment by the CB officials and lets them bend the rules to suite him. He has the completely opposite attitude that the runner has. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>and chill i was using a hypothetical ‘if’ statement. Im not lazy nor do i think i should get more time. Quite the opposite and i think no one should get special treatment.</p>

<p>A disabled kid may have to work 2 or 3 or 10000 times as hard as the savant kid who gets everything naturally. Thats life. Thats how it is. We are not all equal and dont deserve to have everything twisted to make it equal. </p>

<p>Your college proffesseur sure as hell wont give you extra time to do all your assignments and assessments and your boss will definitely not let you take 2x the time to complete a project the average joe can do much faster. </p>

<p>Thats life. You should be trying to adapt to your environment not trying to make it adapt to fit all your personal needs and wants.</p>

<p>anyway, cheers</p>

22

<p>glad I posted this,
i’m enjoying these responses.</p>

23

<p>You’re not going to change your flawed opinion so I see no point in debating any further on the issue.</p>

24

<p>^me too, they have been very interesting so far.</p>

<p>I have to agree with FlamingMango’s post up there^</p>

<p>The SAT is meant to test a students ability to take standardized tests, and this isn’t simply limited to his or her intelligence. It also tests the person on how he/she handles distractions, pressure (pacing yourself in the little time that is given), and etc. I understand that it must be very difficult for students with learning disabilities to take these standardized tests, but that’s what these tests are meant for-a complete standardization so admissions officers can compare all students on an equal level, regardless of anything.</p>

<p>I am sure that if a student with a learning disability’s application will shine through, despite the possible “bad score” on tests such as the SAT & ACT. They can make note of the learning disability on their application and I’m sure admission officers will understand. </p>

<p>The point is that admissions isn’t purely based on standardized testing, so it’s not the end of the world if they receive a low score because they can use teacher recs, interviews, and essays to make their app stronger!</p>

<p>hehe I didn’t want to upset anyone before, so I didn’t really give my honest opinion. But here it is: nobody should be given extra time on the SAT (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHYSICAL HANDICAPS). Everybody has mental barriers to push through, though some people have it harder. It’s only fair. Please don’t rip on me lol</p>

25

<p>Where are you getting these hypothetical people from? Who’s to say that the amputee has X attitude, and the disabled kid has Y? </p>

<p>Only because I know his situation best, let’s use my brother as an example again. He’s a diabetic and when his blood sugar is low, he gets woozy, has difficulty focusing, needs to reread things a few times, etc. When his sugar is high, he has drowsiness, fairly severe dehydration, and overheating. I just don’t understand how you can justify that it’s unfair for him to be given some lenience.</p>

<p>You’re acting like all the disabled kids are angrily marching and protesting, demanding that they be given all these perks. It’s CB’s test, and THEY as an organization decided that this is what’s fair for the testing conditions to be, for the test that they created.</p>

26

<p>@jasonfleb1, that was rude. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and you are demonstrating your own ignorance by saying FlamingMango’s opinion is “flawed”-who are you to evaluate this?</p>

27

<p>^It’s my opinion that his opinion is flawed. We could go back and forth all day. And who is he to take one of the few advantages a person with a disability gets in life? I think that issue is quite a bit more severe than me calling his opinion flawed.</p>

28

<p>@rebeccar, I am sorry that your brother has diabetes. I wasn’t targeting anyone (my grandmother had diabetes and died because of it, so PLEASE don’t make is seem like I hate people with diabetes), and if you hadn’t noticed, diabetes IS a PHYSICAL barrier, NOT a psychological one (e.g. the dizziness, etc.).</p>

<p>NOBODY implied that kids with disabilities are “angrily marching and protesting”. NOBODY. It’s swell that CB decided it was fair for these students to have extra time, but some people on here (e.g. ME) are stating their OWN opinions. Isn’t this what the thread is all about? Just a discussion/debate on the topic?</p>

29

<p>@aleader, I don’t feel threatened by kids who are given extra time either. I am happy with my scores. What they get has nothing to do with me. I simply feel that it is unfair for students with learning disabilities to get extra time on standardized tests, because that defeats the whole purpose of these tests. In the real world, they may not get extra time to complete assignments or to finish a project. </p>

<p>“I don’t feel threatened by the fact that those in wheelchairs can park in handicapped spots.” I laughed at this part-what does this have to do with ANYTHING?</p>

30

<p>“And who is he to take one of the few advantages a person with a disability gets in life?”</p>

<p>I have no idea what point you’re trying to make with the above statement. Please clarify how FlamingMango is TAKING “ADVANTAGE”… of anything?</p>

31

<p>Sorry if my posts seemed aggressive :). I definitely understand what you’re saying-- it’s measuring a person’s ability to take the SAT, and if something is causing them to have a lower grade, well, that’s the point of the test. I just feel like you can’t hold it against somebody if they were born with something that’s holding them back even if they’re studying insane amounts and have the CAPABILITY to get a great score if only they had a little more time to process; I’ll agree to disagree!</p>

32

<p>Don’t worry about it. I’m fine with people who have physical handicaps to receive extra time because it’s not something they can change and it also has absolutely nothing to do with their abilities to take standardized tests (which is arguably a game involving the mind, not the physical body). </p>

<p>It’s great that kids with learning disabilities study extra hard for these tests and I am sure that compared to the scores of other kids with the same learning disability/disabilities, their score will likely be higher.</p>

<p>Bottom line (my opinion): people who have physical disabilities should get extra time while people with learning disabilities should not.</p>

33

<p>Oh, and I should also point out that when I say learning disability, I am implying that it is a psychological disability. To clarify, what I mean is that if someone has some damaged neurons, that to me isn’t a learning disability, but a physical one. If someone has mental troubles learning (e.g. ADD), then that to me is a learning disability.</p>

34

<p>Is it safe to say that we don’t think kids with ADD should get extra time?</p>

35

<p>^In my opinion, yes. Kids with ADD should not get extra time.</p>

36

<p>Well… I come from a family with a lot of “poor test takers” by CC standards, but pretty good in the general population. Only one of us with an official collegeboard approved diagnosis, and he would hate extra time. My profession is often called upon to designate justified vs unjustified extra time, and I avoid it when I can. I don’t think it’s that black and white. I won’t be commenting further.</p>

37

<p>Honestly, extra time goes against the whole idea of standardized testing. If you set a standard bar for everyone and then lower it so the underperformers can get over it, what’s the point of the test? If someone scores badly on a standardized test because of a disability, that should be taken into account at the college admissions level rather than the testing level.</p>

<p>Granted, I realize that might be a bit idealistic, since colleges already have to sort through tens of thousands of applications without worrying about this factor on top of all that, but still, if possible, I’d much rather have college admissions, which are already subjective, deal with it than the tests, which are supposed to be objective. It’s not objective anymore when you have to make a decision on what is and isn’t sufficient reason to give extra time.</p>

38

<p>^I agree. The fact that extra time is given to kids with learning disabilities defeats the whole purpose of a standardized test. I am sure college admissions will take their disability into account when looking at their scores.</p>

<p>If kids with learning disabilities score low on the SAT or ACT, then that’s what they get. It is what it is. Their score should reflect their testing capabilities along with their knowledge. It’s not fair for everyone else if a certain group of people receive extra time. It just can’t be justified unless someone has a physical disability.</p>

39

<p>For the record, virtually every mental disability or disorder has a physiological cause. ADHD is theorized to stem from a certain gene or portion of a person’s genetic code. Schizophrenia (I know it’s an extreme example) is caused by elevated levels of dopamine in the neural synapse among other things. In theory, mental disabilities are a type of physical disability, so this undermines the ‘let’s give physically disabled people less time and not mentally disabled people any’. In practice, I disagree with the notion of giving anyone extra time. As it has been stated before, people who need extra time on the SAT to perform similarly to those without a disadvantage will not be given this extra time later in life and thus artificially inflated scores arise from this situation which is no help to either the school or the student as the student will be unable to cope with similar time restraints in the future. </p>

<p>It would be far more impressive for a person with such a disability to perform extraordinarily well on the SAT without any time advantage. This shows that they have learned to overcome their disability and they can extrapolate on that with their essays, showing how they faced and conquered such a disadvantage, something that adcoms would probably embrace. </p>

<p>This is all assuming that the extra time given is noted by the collegeboard and that colleges who see the score also see this time. </p>

<p>Let’s say the kid takes the SAT with extra time and gets a 2000. They get the little mark that notes extra time was given, write about their disability in their essays, and finally send in their app. Adcoms read it and see that the kid has lived with a disability and needs extra help to succeed. </p>

<p>On the other hand, the kid could take the SAT with no extra time and get a 1700, and the same applies to the essays and then the Adcoms read it. They again see the disability highlighted in the essay and see that the kid needs assistance. It then comes down to whether or not the college is willing to give that extra help. The high score is mitigated by the need for extra time and the low one augmented by the forgoing of that extra time, so they are approximately even. </p>

<p>Ultimately, I don’t believe that having a higher score given extra time will allow the kid to be accepted to a college that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to get into. Even if the high score was a deciding factor, they could just as easily be passed over for someone who got the same score without using the extra time.</p>

40

<p>Rainbow sprinkles, I feel like you’re treading in dangerous water here. Why does someone with a physical disability deserve extra time where someone with a mental disability does not? Is it because mental disabilities are not as “real” as physical disabilities? That notion is ridiculous. Mental disabilities, from ADD to anxiety to depression to dyslexia are actually often caused in the same ways that physical disabilities are. All four of the things I mentioned are caused caused by heredity, genetic mutation, or outside factors, just like physical disabilities. The only difference between physical and mental disabilities is that you can see the physical. So why are people with physical disabilities so much more deserving of extra time?</p>

<p>Also, again, the SAT is an indicator in college admissions NOT of how well you test, but of your college readiness. Colleges don’t care about people who test well; they want people who will succeed in college. (That’s why Harvard would never admit someone who had a 2400 SAT but had his mom write his application! The kid is an awesome test taker, but obviously he isn’t ready to succeed at Harvard.) They evaluate these scores to find who has the highest chance at success because studies have shown SAT scores are directly correlated with graduation rate. </p>

<p>An incredibly gifted dyslexic student ready to apply to college may have all As on a transcript of tough classes and great ECs, butwhat if he can only swing a 400 on W section of the SAT that he can’t bring up working under the time restraint? What if he is actually a very gifted English student with stellar writing abilities, but he can’t perform to his ability under the time restraint because he has a MENTAL DISABILITY caused by a genetic mutation, which is therefore, not under his control. He still won’t get into Harvard. It won’t matter that he is actually prepared and could be incredibly successful in college given the opportunity. He won’t be given the opportunity because no Harvard admissions officer in his right mind would see a kid with a 400 W score and think that he could handle the rigor of a Harvard English course. In reality, the kid may have to devote more time to the English class than any other kid on campus, but because he could devote as much time as he needed he may in fact be more successful in the course than anyone else. </p>

<p>In not providing people with mental disabilities resources they need for success, you take away their opportunities to end up at a college that he or she could succeed at. You wouldn’t take a job candidate in a wheelchair to a building without an elevator and tell him, “No matter how qualified you are or how wonderful you would be at this job, if you can’t get to the fourth floor with no help, tough luck! This is what it’s like in the real world!” That would probably get you sued. Why? Because it’s wrong.</p>