Should people who took the test with extended time be allowed to brag?

Test Preparation ACT Preparation
41

<p>Mike, did you even read my post? I think the ACT/SAT is NOT just a test of intelligence. It's also a test of how quickly and versatilely you can think. Just because you can answer all the questions correctly given an indefinite amount of time does not mean you should get a high score. Lots of people can get much higher scores given extra time. Lots of people have trouble concentrating on long standardized tests. Heck, I got a 2400 and a 36 without extended time, and even I was very tired by the end (of the SAT, the ACT is more tolerable). Endurance and concentration were not given to me at birth. I had to work hard to make myself focus enough to perform consistently through long standardized tests, with the same rigorous time restraints from beginning to end only making things more difficult. Eliminating these factors (lack of focus? that's okay, we'll give you more time. getting bored and distracted? that's okay, time and a half. a slow test taker? that's okay, lets just give you more time than everybody else.) just isn't fair.</p>

<p>We understand that you can't finish the test under normal conditions. Guess what? A lot of Americans can't finish the ACT under the time restrainsts. That's why they exist. If there were no time limit, the ACT would be an extremely different test.</p>

<p>So standardized for the standard human.. are you saying we should maybe give people who are a bit more stupid a few cheat answers, because they are not of "standard" intelligence? Or perhaps for those from crummy high schools, we shoudl give a more generous curve, because they did not have the "standard" American education? Those are the claims you are making when you say that kids with so called standardized test taking impairments deserve accomodations. You are also saying that EVERYONE who slightly deviates from the norm deserves accomododations, including, like I said, those who are not as smart. Obviously, you can't agree with that. Why not? Because it's not fair for those who are more intelligent if we give a few bonus answers to those who are not. Then why is what you want to do fair?</p>

42

<p>@amb3r
I agree with you, but not bring intelligence into this.</p>

43

<p>i think people were right to remind us that people are given extra time for lots of ld's. I am dyslexic (diagnosed, I have my papers if people get all freaked out and say its all in my head). I have taken a full courseload of difficult APclasses, and will be val this year. I am saying this not to brag, but to show that I have managed to do pretty well inspite of my learnind disability. However, when taking tests like the ACT I need just a little more time. Not even on the reading section because I have worked very hard to read well "differently" (no need to get into that). However, unlike words number make sense in any order, when a 12 and 21 look exactly the same (somtimes) it forces the student to slow down and to constantly check work for slight errors such as these. This is a difficulty most students do not have to deal with. I understnad the agrument, but extra time is not an andvantage, but somthing that levels the playing field.</p>

44

<p>o but I didn't take it with extra time. I didn't know I could untill it was way too late
I still did ok, but my GPA is much higher than my test scores ( though I recieved no special accomadations throughout school)
a 30 but 4.68 just doesn't make sense out of context</p>

45

<p>I am not asking for cheat answers. You either know it or you don't. What I am saying is that everyone who DOES know the answers, but is physically/mentally unable to translate their thoughts onto paper in the same timely fashion as those who ARE NOT impaired in some way, should be given some sort of accommodation to counter-balance this handicap. Thus, maximizing their potential that they have.</p>

<p>A person who is unintelligent has a limited potential. Even with extended time, little difference in test scores is made. People who NEED the extended time, take full advantage of it, often times increasing their scores DRAMATICALLY. I read somewhere earlier of someone going from a 28 to a 34. Though, I've read of stories of people who went from a 23 to a 24 with extended time added....</p>

<p>I will agree with you that the test DOES require an ability to quickly think and make decisions, however, with an impairment that requires you to consume more time, additional time must be given.</p>

<p>Now the problem herein lies that some people may need ALL 50% extended time given, while MOST people only need an extra 15 minutes. Given that, it could be possible that people who don't need ALL the extended time, but need SOME extended time, COULD, indeed, have an advantage over those who do not have extended time at all. They are able to freely breeze through the test without pressure. I understand that. But realistically, there would be no way of telling just HOW MUCH extended time someone needs without being a little flawed or making the whole process much more difficult. Therefore, a constant extension was made of 50% for all extended time test takes. This only holds true for those with the (minimum) 50% increase. In other, more extreme cases, time may be unlimited. I believe these cases are for severely handicapped people (physically I am sure) that cannot physically answer questions and may need questions verbally read to them.</p>

<p>Endurance and concentration were also not given to me at birth. Although, unlike you, I cannot "learn" these "skills", as you may call them. Just like a dyslexic person cannot "learn" to read correctly, or a color blind person, "learn" to see the difference between green and red. Do you think those people should be penalized for something totally out of their control, and yet of no REAL significance on their ability to retain, comprehend, analyze, or memorize material. They can still do all that, they just cannot process the input quickly. Personally for me, I often have to read a question 3 or 4 times before I even understand what the words mean. My mind goes numb occasionally, I cannot control this, and I seem to lose all train of thought and/or meaning of words. Should I be penalized for this? I feel that it is unfair for me to be tested on a test of knowledge, only to be shafted by the fact that I cannot answer the question quick enough, even if I know it, because of a disability that impairs my speed when taking tests.</p>

46

<p>As a child I was diagnosed with ADHD and had to take medicine for it. I am familiar with both parties of the argument, but this is just my opinion.</p>

<p>Over the years I have had to work hard just to get focused and do the simplest of tasks. I no longer take medication, but I drink about two-three energy drinks a night (mainly out of habit now, and taste) when I'm doing my homework. I took the ACTs without any accommodations when I could have chosen to take the accommodations, but I think accommodations for tests are unfair. The entire ACT test is based on timing, so of course people many people cannot fit under the time constraints, but thats just something you must work on.</p>

<p>I think almost all forms of accommodations should be abolished. However, some unique exceptions should be may be blind or with any other major hindrance.</p>

<p>People need to know how to deal with stuff with a time limit. In the future, when you are working for someone and need to get a job done by next week nobodies going to care that you need accommodations, so these people need to learn how to deal with it now.</p>

<p>I still find myself unable to focus a lot of times, but in the real world this excuse doesn't make a difference. Everyone's got their own problems and people need to learn how to just deal with it.</p>

47

<p>I have been lurking on this site for 6 months now and never felt the urge to post until today.</p>

<p>Some of you people are PATHETIC. </p>

<p>I've never read more self-absorbed, self-righteous, immature, socially inept comments together in one thread. Your comments exude insecurity.</p>

<p>To feel threatened by accommodations for people with learning disabilities is an all time low, even for obsessed CC'ers. And if you claim to oppose this "privilege" because people abuse it: grow up. I guarantee you that you will come across injustice in college, in business and in all walks of life. It's called the real world. </p>

<p>You want to talk about bragging:</p>

<p>"Heck, I got a 2400 and a 36 without extended time, and even I was very tired by the end (of the SAT, the ACT is more tolerable)."</p>

<p>The pompous, arrogant, underlying tone of comments such as "even I was tired by the end" are exactly what adcoms read in between the lines of carefully crafted essays.</p>

<p>Then you wonder why 2400/36, award winning geniuses are passed over for "mediocre" candidates?</p>

<p>Maybe what they're missing is that which can't be measured by an SAT, ACT or GPA. It's called the human touch, sensitivity, compassion.</p>

<p>Instead of complaining take the time to be grateful that you are healthy, and that you are fortunate enough not to require extra time or assistance at this time in your life. Oh yea, and be careful what you wish for, life has a funny way of turning the tables when you least expect it.</p>

48

<p>A high test score does not preclude compassion. I do not believe that compassion is always called for when it gives unfair advantages to certain people over others. In fact, accomodations often hurt people with LDs in the long run, and that is something that concerns me. It gives them unrealistic understanding of how things work in the real, corporate world. Accomodations will not be made when you are a budding intern working for a law firm with strict deadlines to meet and meetings to attend every day. Beyond physical accomodations, which again, I strongly support, I cannot imagine extensions and lighter workloads being given to those who have "disabilities". </p>

<p>Not everyone who receives accomodations will have unrealistic expectations. But accomodations are, in some way, encouraging these unrealistic expectations because the SAT/ACT way of doing things does NOT mirror the real world way of doing things. And yes, the SAT/ACT are not real-life sorts of situations, but the kinds of skills they require - time management, endurance, focus, some degree of intelligence, analysis.. etc.. these are relevant indeed.
And did I just see you say that since injustices happen everywhere in the real world, we have to learn to "accept them" and not try to SET THINGS RIGHT? Oh, well there's a genocide going on in Darfur, that's the real world, so maybe we shoudl start one here in America. As if we can't correct societal problems just because they already exist.. I'm loving this proactive, pro-justice stance of yours, buddy.</p>

<p>The reason I pointed out that I got high scores and still felt the strain of the time restrains and the lack of focus is to make it clear that these are issues that affect almost anybody, anywhere in the spectrum of SAT/ACT scores. It is not true that anybody "breezes" through these marathon tests without being severely affected by boredom, distraction, and so on. These are things that all of us work very hard to suppress, with varying amounts of success.</p>

49

<p>Should a person born with low intelligence be penalized for something he cannot work to improve? Or should he be given accomodations to help him raise his score, since he has an unfair setback - lack of intelligence?</p>

50

<p>Amb3r, you are using backwards logic. You said the test helps test intelligence, yet you try to make a satirical point of saying people with lower-intelligence should be given accommodations in an attempt to debase my own points that I have already made.</p>

<p>The test measures intelligence like you said. So the test, therefore, should be based on MAXIMAL intelligence, one's potential. Your point does not make any sense. </p>

<p>And you keep saying that accommodations hurt the people who need them? ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Wow.</p>

<p>These tests help determine the quality of education someone receives. "Real-world" or not, a student should be granted an education equal in quality to their mind's intellect. When these people have jobs, they are not given tests that are timed and asked to be completed within an hour. No... FAR, FAR, FAR from the "real-world". They may have meetings or projects, but that can be counter balanced by working on them longer during the period of time you have to complete it. Because in the real-world, you are not working 24/7. You have breaks. And those people will have to give accommodations to themselves by possibly working during those breaks. Those breaks could be lunch breaks, or simply the time available to you once you have made your commute back to your living quarters. Either way, this test is hardly a representation of "real-world" situations.</p>

<p>I also agree with Daeshim. I never posted on these boards until today, simply because of the incredible misinterpretations the people here seem to have. I completely agree with everything he said in his post.</p>

<p>Amb3r, just worry about yourself.</p>

51

<p>I never said these tests are designed to measure pure intelligence. I said they are meant to measure applied intelligence; intelligence, as well as how capable we are of working under pressure and with time restraints.</p>

<p>Yes, I said they can hurt in the long run (obviously not in the short term), and I already explained why, so if you still don't understand, my explanation is in my last post.</p>

<p>In the real world, everything happens on a deadline. We don't have projects that run on indefinitely "until the person finishes working". Everything is timed. Real world project assignments are much like timed tests - just on a stretched scale. Yes, you can spend more time than others to make up for slow speed, but beyond a certain point, that becomes impractical, especially for high workload jobs where the normal worker is working long hour days. For instance, if I work at a company where we are expected to put in 10 hour workdays, and you perform at approximately "time and a half" standards (on the SAT/ACT), where are you going to find 15 hour workdays to catch up?</p>

<p>Even if someone can find the extra time to catch up to everybody else (and I do not find that to be possible in many cases), that will only be with an extreme amount of effort and dedication. I don't think that's the message we're communicating by giving out time and a half on standardized tests.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Amb3r, you are using backwards logic. You said the test helps test intelligence, yet you try to make a satirical point of saying people with lower-intelligence should be given accommodations in an attempt to debase my own points that I have already made.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm confused. The test tests intelligence, but it also tests other things, like speed. Giving time accomodations is equivalent to giving knowledge accomodations, because both speed and intelligence are being measured on the test.</p>

52

<p>By the way, I agree with everything azngamer said.</p>

53

<p>Does the test measure intelligence, or rather the knowledge one has learned in school? An argument could be made either way, but that’s not the point. The point is that an insane number of kids are diagnosed every year with disorders that lack empirical integrity, and believe me, being “diagnosed” is not a hard feat to accomplish. In fact, I am sure that you could walk into a doctor’s office today and walk out with a bottle of Adderall and a note granting you special accommodations in school. (I have a friend who, last year, faked ADD so that he could get high off of pills! He took the ACT with extended time and owned the test because, like someone already said, timing largely corresponds to utility on such a test.)</p>

<p>This kind of scenario happens far to often to be called a reasonable solution for those with “disorders”, and in the process greatly dilutes the score of those who choose not to trick a doctor. Enough is enough! The ACT needs to do something about this!</p>

54

<p>What is more important, Amb3r, the speed at which you can make decisions or the quality of them? If you put so much emphasis on speed, then technically, I could just bubble in all the answers and finish first, before anyone else, so I could get a higher speed score, right?</p>

<p>And on a side note, what is your problem with allowing these students an equal opportunity of education that is of higher quality in their academic standards?</p>

55

<p>To me, it's not a matter of which is more important, but rather the truth that if you miss one of them, even a surfeit of the other will not do you much good. </p>

<p>In certain professions, speed is almost a non-issue. One example that comes to mind is a research position at a college. These are the types of people who can think long and hard about difficult questions, without any real time limits on when they need to produce X or Y result (setting aside some details for now). Even for these researchers, there are teaching duties and other tasks with time-limit nature, but they are relatively simple to handle for a person of a certain intelligence.</p>

<p>But the SAT is aimed towards the average person, the standard person as you called it. For the standard person, the job in his/her future is heavily time dependent, and also heavily dependent on knowledge and skill.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And on a side note, what is your problem with allowing these students an equal opportunity of education that is of higher quality in their academic standards

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My main quibble is not with giving these students high academic opportunities. I wouldn't deny anybody the opportunity to learn advanced material. But I feel that certain accomodations misrepresent, by dint of inflation, the applied intelligence and ability of testtakers who receive accomodations. This creates an unfair unbalance for the majority of testtakers who do not receive accomodations. In an ideal world, everyone can receive a top-grade education. But the truth of the matter is that admission to many colleges is competitive, and that is where these kinds of things begin to make a difference.</p>

56

<p>altectech i think you are missing the whole argument on speed. The ACT test measures how quickly you can absorb the knowledge, process it, and show that your know the information (by way of bubbling in). The absorbing and processing part is based both on speed and intelligence. You cannot have one without the other on this test. Both are required and aid in one of these areas (more time for a test, or even extra help by ways of cheating[more knowledge]) shouldn't be allowed. </p>

<p>90%+ of the people I ask will say the hardest part of the ACT is being able to finish. This doesn't mean all these people should get more time. It's just the nature of the test. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. I have received a 32 without any accommodations for my ADHD and I am 100% sure I can receive a 36 with extra time, I'm sure a lot can. </p>

<p>Your argument on maximal intelligence or what not would be good, but the stuff the ACT tests is not meant to see your maximal intelligence. It is to see how ready you are for college, and college tests also have their own time limits.</p>

<p>Answering your question:
By giving them more time, they are not giving students an equal opportunity of higher education. They are making it unequal because kids without these special accommodations that cannot get into those same schools would essentially be cheated. Also, this idea that these students should have an equal opportunity is flawed because most of the time poor areas cannot afford (or even know about) tests for these disorders. This creates an unfair advantages for rich people. </p>

<p>If these people cannot prove themselves worthy of being at these top universities why should they be there, when others are more qualified and willing to work harder to improve themselves?</p>

57

<p>amb3r:</p>

<p>Your reference to your high score in the context of this thread, and particularly in your post #48, serves no purpose other than to brag. While you may have experienced the normal stress that as you indicate, affect almost anybody, obviously time restrains and lack of focus had no bearing on your score; which is precisely what affects the score of those who do have learning disabilities. </p>

<p>Compassion is the ability to show understanding and consideration for those who are less fortunate than oneself, and it's usually accompanied by a genuine desire to alleviate or reduce that suffering. It is not something that equates with giving someone and advantage of any kind.</p>

<p>Are you basing your opinion on facts that indicate that there are more people abusing accommodation in standardized testing than those who actually need it? If you are, please share them as they would shed a different light on the topic. </p>

<p>To say that accommodating people with LD can give them an "unrealistic understanding of how things work in the real, corporate world" is condescending to say the least. Are you familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act? It is not limited to people with physical impairments, and as a matter of fact, very reputable corporations go to great lengths to be in compliance and they do accommodate employees by restructuring jobs and modifying work schedules.</p>

<p>And no, you did not read correctly; what I said was "I guarantee you that you will come across injustice in college, in business and in all walks of life. It's called the real world." It refers to the fact that unfortunately, it is often necessary to make laws, decisions and provisions that will protect and assist those who need it, although there will always be those who will unjustly take advantage and abuse. It's called doing something for the grater good. </p>

<p>I never mentioned or implied that injustice should be ignored, or accepted, those were your comments. The fact that I believe that depriving people with LD would be an injustice, is precisely why I chose not to ignore your comments and voice my opinion. </p>

<p>Your reference to Darfur is not even worth a response.</p>

<p>I really hope college will serve to broaden your horizons and see the world through different eyes.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
Compassion is the ability to show understanding and consideration for those who are less fortunate than oneself, and it's usually accompanied by a genuine desire to alleviate or reduce that suffering. It is not something that equates with giving someone and advantage of any kind.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is exactly my point. Compassion is the ability to show kindnass and sympathy for those who are unfortunate. SAT/ACT acommodations have nothing to do with compassion. They give people advantages. Like you said, giving advantages is not a hallmark of compassion. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you basing your opinion on facts that indicate that there are more people abusing accommodation in standardized testing than those who actually need it? If you are, please share them as they would shed a different light on the topic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Plenty of people in this thread have already elaborated on how easy it is to abuse the system. However, that is actually not what troubles me. Yes, the current system is too easy to abuse by faking a LD, and the remedy would be to tighten up requirements for accomodation, but I still would not support a reformed system. I don't believe in accomodations for disabilities that are not physical. </p>

<p>
[quote]
To say that accommodating people with LD can give them an "unrealistic understanding of how things work in the real, corporate world" is condescending to say the least. Are you familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act? It is not limited to people with physical impairments, and as a matter of fact, very reputable corporations go to great lengths to be in compliance and they do accommodate employees by restructuring jobs and modifying work schedules.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I can say is this: no company is going to bend over backwards to give special accomodations to an employee who requires more time to do everything. How is that of benefit to the company, if a handful of its employees are given extensions on assignments? Companies do not exist to provide opportunities for those who require accomodations. Is it not their perogative to choose the candidate who works quickly AND well over the candidate who works well but not quickly? Or is it illegal for them to choose candidate A over candidate B?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your reference to Darfur is not even worth a response. I really hope college will serve to broaden your horizons and see the world through different eyes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You assert that I am being condescending towards those with LDs, when I am not. I am merely pointing out the possibility that providing accomodations at this level will espouse many to expect accomodations at the next level: the corporate level. In RL, I know of people for whom this exact progression of events has happened, and it is sad to see. On CC, I have heard stories of similar things happening - unrealistic expectations and unpleasant job prospects for those who were performing comfortably in high school, standardized tests, and college with the benefit of copious accomodations. This is the reality of things. Meanwhile, your statements to me reek of condescension. I think this is a prime example of pot calling the kettle black.</p>

59

<p>Alright, so why don't we just disallow accommodations in High school, since that wouldn't be preparing them for "the next level". And also let's just apply that to Middle School and Grade School even. ADD will simply be an understood acknowledgment of why you are a lousy student. No reason to help these students. If we help them this early, then they won't be able to understand how it will be for "the next level".</p>

<p>Honestly... I remember in 3rd and 4th grade how INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT it was to learn cursive hand writing NOW, because we'll be using it all the time in middle school. Guess what? We didn't EVER use it.</p>

<p>I remember my middle school teachers trying to be a little bit harsher to us, because high school teachers "just don't care." So they would be mean and not really help us so that we would be used to it for high school. Guess what? High school teachers were the nicest teachers I've ever had, along with being the most helpful.</p>

<p>Special Ed. kids get special accommodations that is tailored for them. They manage to get a higher GPA at my school because of this. Would you complain about it?</p>

<p>This is the same for students with LD's. However, the accommodation most likely wouldn't be as severe, but nonetheless, still a playing field leveler. </p>

<p>You see, I thought you were making a valid point when you said there was much opportunity for abusing the system. What makes me the most upset about your statements, is that you suggest that absolutely no accommodations should be given, whatsoever. However you do allow the "physically" disabled students. But are the LD students also not "physically" disabled, except on a molecular level?</p>

<p>Amb3r, I really wish you knew what it was like with these disabilities. Honestly, I think you just don't believe they exist, and think of them more as an excuse that rich people have made up in order to get further in life. I know you'd see it the other way if you knew.</p>

60

<p>my friend who is hearing impaired receives extra time on standardized tests and exams we take in the classroom. i don't really understand why, though, because as she wears a hearing aid, she can hear just fine...i think that seems kind of unfair.</p>