<p>@ValleyofUnrest17: I agree about the ACT. I consider myself a quick worker and I was rushed in every section.</p>
<p>Oh yeah. the ACT is an awful test lol, the Reading section is impossible, as is the science. I had to BS nearly all the questions because I didn’t have enough time to even read the passages. pretty ridiculous if you ask me. but then again that’s most standardized tests. education isn’t one-size-fits-all </p>
<p>I also believe that the SAT is intended to measure academic ability. By design, it is written to test performance under significant time pressure. I don’t see how giving extra time to test takers with academic disabilities is fair to other test takers. So your score is better with 50% more time? So is everyone else’s, LD or no. My daughter has friends who are pretty good students who weren’t able to finish. If the college board wanted to test under non-time-pressured conditions, they would allow more time or have fewer questions such that the vast majority of students wouldn’t score better with more time. It would be possible for them to test in a non-time pressured way, but that’s not what this particular test is about. </p>
<p>Is this the best way to test students? I don’t think so. I think the current system uses questions which are too easy and then discriminates between top students more on their ability to work quickly and not make careless mistakes. That is, in fact, what they are testing for, and I don’t believe it’s what they should be looking for. I’d much prefer a harder, less time-pressured test. I think it would be better at identifying the top students, and I think there would be fewer issues for the kids who read more slowly, whether they have a piece of paper excusing that or not. I think it would have been better for my daughter. But that isn’t the system that is in place.</p>
<p>mathyone, until you have a learning disability, you really have no room to talk. my timed SAT in no way measures my academic ability; it just measures my ability to BS questions in a given time slot. but I agree with you on the second part. </p>
<p>@valley, actually, two young relatives of mine have LD’s (reading disability, one dyslexic, one more like a processing issue). And I would not support extra time for them on the SAT.</p>
<p>The fact is that the SAT is time-critical for everyone, not just those with LD’s. Your processing speed is part of your overall academic ability. In our state, the state-mandated standardized tests were given with essentially unlimited time, so that kids could show what they knew rather than how fast they could answer. But that isn’t what the SAT is about. As long as all other students have to deal with insufficient time, I don’t see that it’s fair to grant so much extra time to some students.</p>
<p>If you have a doctor’s note, you can get accommodation for College Board exams. It is kind of late at this point though, but if you could retake tests in your gap year, it would help.</p>
<p>The point of accommodations is that they level the playing field. When I went to an Ivy League school in the 90s, we had kids getting extra time on exams at the college. Did it make me upset that I didn’t get double time and managed to get Bs and Cs only? No. Don’t worry about it, try to get the accommodations.</p>
<p>Immasenior, maybe you are a senior citizen or a senior in HS: you appear not to understand what learning disabilities are, and maybe not disabilities in general. A student with a learning disability without accommodations is like asking a person with a broken leg to run a race. </p>
<p>It is not “schemey and dishonest” for somone with a disability to get accommodations. For example, I went to an Ivy League school, and many buildings are not accessible to wheelchairs. They actually have to change classrooms on occasion if they have a person in a wheelchair. Is that being “schemey and dishonest”? How about a deaf person not taking the listening portion of a language exam, and it not being offered in sign language? Or a blind person not being allowed to get an exam in Braille?</p>
<p>The sooner that the general public recognizes that disability beyond the obvious are still disabilities, and by law need to be accommodated, the better. Should the world not benefit from the best and brightest if they need reasonable accommodations?</p>
<p>In the OP’s case, first of all, you can’t get a completely untimed SAT and I believe that the standard limit on time is double time (twice as much as for non-disabled students). My recommendation is to look at the testing conditions as well - does it tire you to work for more than an hour at a time? Do you need to have only 2 hours of testing per day? You need professional help, namely a doctor, to work with you to determine what accommodations you need. If you think you need them but have no doctor’s note, you won’t get them. We went through this with my son, and even when we got a doctor’s note, it took over six months to get a 504 plan for him and but the College Board accommodations were quick.</p>
<p>PS - my son just got accommodations and he is a junior. The doctors’ notes, neuropsych exam, and 504 plan approval were instrumental in getting approval. He is not getting extra time, but is getting a different setting because of his LD.</p>
<p>PPS - you are you. If you would get Cs and Ds with no accommodations, but would get As and Bs with accommodations, that should mean NOTHING to someone with no disability and As and Bs. People just don’t get what it is like to deal with issues like seeing text backwards, forgetting deadines, and so on. And to the extent of being documented by doctors and psychiatrists. They think people are gaming the system, but colleges know that if the documentation is there, it is not “schemey and dishonest”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a kid is bad at math, do you give him easier math sections on the SAT to “level the playing field”? Obviously not, that is silly. Processing speed is a facet of reasoning ability. To accommodate for a lack of processing ability is as bad as giving easier math questions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand what learning disability is. Your ad hominem attacks are doing nothing to strengthen your argument.</p>
<p>Your analogy of a cripple running a race is actually very applicable, albeit extremely exaggerated. If the purpose of a race is to see who can run the fastest, it is expected that a cripple will finish last. He should not be given bionic appendages that give him an edge. If he is given these accommodations, it is unfair to the other runners who are competing against him with no accommodations. </p>
<p>As it pertains to the SAT, I guess I will have to repeat myself yet again. A test that is designed to measure reasoning ability should reflect reasoning weaknesses.</p>
<p>Also, please read the thread. We’re talking about standardized tests, not whatever situation makes me seem like an insensitive prick. More than once you’ve tooted your ivy league horn, even though it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Likewise, secondary and post-secondary education accommodations are irrelevant. We are talking about standardized testing. Do keep up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hmmm</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Show that you have read the thread if you decide to post again, otherwise I’m just going to ignore you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BS. Do you know what it means when a college is “competitive”? That means that applicants are competing against one another. Clawing their way to the top of their high school classes, beating each other out for positions of leadership, studying for literally days to get an SAT score that’s one hundred times a blackjack, taking on more than should be expected of any high school kid. You mean to tell me that it is fair to give some students an advantage when taking a test that is designed to set a standard by which to compare students from varying regions and educational backgrounds (not to mention different levels of reasoning ability)? Accommodating students destroys the standard. And on top of that, it is OK for an applicant not to report the disability to the competitive schools? Think of the kid who busted his butt to get a 2100 who is now losing to the kid who got a 2110 with double time. As far as adcoms know, these two applicants (who are competing against one another at this point) took the test in nearly identical environments, when clearly, they did not. That is ludicrous. </p>
<p>TLDR
Standardized tests that measure reasoning ability should be administered the same exact way for every test taker, with no accommodations made for a test taker with a reasoning disability. If accommodations are made that affect the difficulty of reasoning involved, the standard is broken and the test is useless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was pretty upset after taking the science portion of the ACT. I was expecting my background in physics, chemistry, biology etc. to be tested. However, I felt like I was being tested on how well I could read graphs. I really don’t get it.</p>
<p>@mathy I didn’t say your relatives…I said you. and I have to say, it’s pretty sad that you wouldn’t support extra testing for them, I’m sure they could flourish with it. </p>
<p>Thank you rhandco! I really appreciate your answer. </p>
<p>and immasenior, in the long run, processing speed doesn’t affect overall reasoning ability. it just hinders it when taking a timed test. </p>
<p><a href=“Resources for Gifted Children & their Families | Davidson Institute”>Resources for Gifted Children & their Families | Davidson Institute; read. </p>
<p>
Processing speed is a facet of reasoning ability.</p>
<p><a href=“http://extranet.das.pac.dodea.edu/principal/Professional%20Articles/PD%20Ideas/articles6thru10.pdf”>http://extranet.das.pac.dodea.edu/principal/Professional%20Articles/PD%20Ideas/articles6thru10.pdf</a></p>
<p>Your processing speed is a factor that determines how well you can store information. Storage is part of reasoning. If your processing speed inhibits you from storing information efficiently, you have a weakness in basic reasoning.</p>
<p>As long as the accommodations made for you are a part of your score report, I don’t see a problem with taking extra time. I just have a problem with two vastly different tests being reported as the same test.</p>
<p>@immasenior, the language you’re using suggests a misunderstanding. It’s not a privilege; it’s an accommodation. It’s similar to having a wheelchair ramp–the accommodations are there to level the playing field. If someone needed eyeglasses, you surely wouldn’t object. Someone who has a disorder that involves slow processing is in a similar situation: it’s not that s/he can’t do the work; it’s that the speed unfairly affects the student. The test takers are not being tested with “different rules.” The student still has to take the test and get the questions right. And FWIW, just in case you think the extra time is such a huge advantage, imagine spending 5 hours taking the SAT. It’s draining; most students don’t do as well when they’re tired. So they’re not getting this huge boost that’s imagined.</p>
<p>In terms of dishonesty: the alternative was that students with disabilities were readily identifiable, which was and continues to be stigmatizing. There are still plenty of people who think “disability” means “not really that smart” or “making excuses.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please read the thread again. This is the third time I have addressed this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never said that people with learning disabilities are incapable of doing the work.</p>
<p>
Everybody is subject to the same test and testing conditions, hence standardized testing. If somebody takes the test in different conditions, they are not subject to the established standard. How can somebody taking a nonstandardized test report it as a standardized test? It is unfair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know what you’re trying to prove here? That extra time doesn’t really help?? That is silly. I would be ecstatic to get double time so I could spend 15 minutes analyzing a CR passage or testing all possible answers for questions in the math sections. Applicants to competitive schools aren’t going to get bored or tired during the SAT. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are there not confidentiality policies about an applicant’s profile? I am simply suggesting that a disabled student should indicate his disability on his application, as well as any accommodations he received during standardized testing. He doesn’t have to tell the world. My guess is that adcoms have a pretty good idea of what a disability is. I would be surprised if there was a misconception out there among adcoms.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>Let’s focus in, everybody. Look at the thread title and read the OP. We’re discussing learning disabilities as they pertain to the SAT reasoning test. We’re not talking accommodations in a school setting. We’re not talking about physical disabilities. We’re talking about standardized tests.</p>
<p>I’ve tried to be thorough in my responses on these boards, but it’s getting difficult. </p>
<p>@immasenior, I’m pretty sure your mind is shut tight on this. But you might want to think about the fact that people with learning disabilities that need some extra time on tests also need more time to complete the same homework and study for the same exams you do. So just giving them some extra time or other accommodations on tests isn’t just giving them a free pass that you don’t get – they are already working harder than you are just to keep even with grades. They are very likely not using the extra time to “test all possible answers to questions” – they are going about taking the test about the same way you do. Because they have a disadvantage in processing, just the basic steps you do may take them longer.</p>
<p>If what you say is true that it is giving them an unfair advantage, then you would think that kids with disabilities would be gaining access to schools where they can’t succeed, then flunking out like crazy because they wouldn’t be able to do the work. I don’t see a lot of evidence of that among students and their parents out here – the occasional case, but does not appear to happen any more than a kid parties themselves out of school or drops out for other reasons.</p>
<p>In the “real world”, processing speed is not the most critical element of success in most jobs. I have a pretty good view of it, as I have worked as a consultant in many, many companies. You are pinning speed as the be-all and end-all of worthiness for college admission – and it isn’t.</p>
<p>That post summarizes your ignorance of the discussion pretty well.</p>
<p>THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE SAT.</p>
<p>
Irrelevant.</p>
<p>
Irrelevant.</p>
<p>
Irrelevant.</p>
<p>I have yet to give my opinion about high school students with disabilities and accommodations that should or should not be made for them. Most of what I have read in this thread has just popped up out of the blue.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>And no, I never have a shut mind. I have yet to see a counter argument that is even close to reasonable come up in this thread. Instead of taking this thread in 30 different directions, I would like somebody, anybody, to address the following text:</p>
<p>Standardized tests are, by definition, designed in a way such that every test taker is subject to the same questions and the same testing environment. If the testing environment is altered in any significant way, then the test is no longer standard. In any situation, is it fair to alter the testing environment for one test but still compare two scores as if they were taken in the same environment? If you can think of a situation, I would like you to justify your response. Explain why it is fair to compare scores for two different tests as if they were the same test.</p>
<p>Immasenior…the original purpose of this thread was to ask about extended time on the SAT. It’s gone wayyy off base, and if you were smart you’d stop banging it into the wall. you have your opinion, and everyone else has theirs. done, end of story. geez lol </p>
<p>Immasenior-
Yet conditions going into the SAT are not standardized and most colleges recognize this. Students from privileged backgrounds, who ostensibly have access to test prep and the ability to take the test more than once, have an advantage over kids whose families may not have the resources to do so or who may not even be sophisticated enough about the college admissions process to realize the advantage of doing extensive prep and multiple tries. I was at a prep school college counseling weekend with close to a dozen admissions officers from a variety of school, including Ivies, and in one breakout session we discussed the files of faux applicants. One of the things that came up with multiple files was that the admissions committee expected higher standardized test scores from the upper middle class applicants than from the first gen/economically disadvantaged applicants.</p>
<p>Colleges could go through each student’s educational testing history to determine where they’d like to give a similar bump to kids with LD’s who might perform brilliantly in a college setting despite poor performance on tests like the SAT, but they don’t have the time and resources to do so. The ETS has done that for them to some extent. It’s not perfect but it is a way to level the playing field with which colleges seem to be comfortable.</p>
<p>@valley, I have watched one of my young relatives struggling greatly in school. I saw her fall two years behind her peers when she was in elementary school because she just couldn’t read. She’s getting better help now and is making good progress. I hope you don’t think I don’t support other types of accommodations. She has a right to learn to the best of her ability just like everyone else. And to show what she knows in an appropriate way. I assume you’ve been getting accommodations for your testing at your school so that you can show what material you’ve learned in your classes. Most teachers don’t give heavily time-intensive tests anyhow, since they want to see what the kids have learned, not how fast they read.</p>
<p>But the SAT is a different kind of test and it is all about how fast you can work. This is how the test is designed, it is clearly deliberate. Whether or not you agree with that type of testing, that is what it is and I have to agree that it defeats the purpose to allow some participants extra time. Why not allow everyone as much time as they’d like, then? Would you support that? Or is it only ok if you get extra time?</p>
<p>@mathyone So what are you calling me selfish now? Seriously? Dear god, I’m sure that at your age you must have something else to do other than argue with a 17 year old girl on a college forum. this has gotten way off topic; I’ve already gotten the answers I came for, so I’m done with this thread. if you guys want to bicker, carry on, but don’t expect to rile me up. </p>
<p>I think Valley is smart to bow out at this point, as the conversation, as often happens, has swerved. I’ll just add one more thought.</p>
<p>This discussion makes me think of a kid I know with one leg. When he wanted to play soccer he had to petition the league to allow him to use his crutches on the field. He would not have been able to play well, and certainly would not have been able to compete without, quite literally, a crutch. By the time he was a senior he had made it onto the high school varsity squad, a team that won the state championship. Could other kids benefit from using crutches in addition to their two feet? Perhaps. Does this make the use of crutches by a kid with one leg an unfair advantage? No. It doesn’t make a second leg magically appear, it simply allows him to play with his peers and demonstrate what he can do. He tried out and made the team on the basis of his talent. He was also the only wrestler from the school to make it to the all-state individual tournament, doing so with no accommodations.</p>
<p><a href=“One-legged Soccer Player Scores Amazing Goal! - YouTube”>One-legged Soccer Player Scores Amazing Goal! - YouTube;
<p>@Sue22 Collegeboard can only control the actual test day. Just because two people prepare for the test in a different way doesn’t mean that the test is not standard. </p>
<p>@ValleyofUnrest17</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you aware of how forums work? Discussion happens. Disagreements are going to happen. If you don’t like the discussion, you aren’t obligated to respond.</p>