<p>And to everybody saying that I'm in this because I personally feel threatened by the elevated scores of LD kids, will it help at all if I come back to this thread next year, as a college frosh, with NO PERSONAL INTEREST in the matter, and continue debating in the exact same position as before? Is that what it would take for me to prove to you that I'm arguing about this because I feel that it's WRONG, not because I feel like it hurts my chance of college acceptance (which I don't think it does)?!</p>
<p>Seriously though, how could that compete with your 36? Start worrying about yourself. If accommodations really did hurt we would have seen the consequences of it already.</p>
<p>Could you back up the claims that it is wrong? Either socially/philisophically wrong and or /detreimental to whom? Please site educational research to back up the claims rather than it being a 17/18 year olds lack of knowledge of learning disabilities personal opinion.</p>
<p>Actually, dvm, I've already gotten into Yale, a school I absolutely adore. I very well may end up there next year, and I guarantee you that I will NOT be an vengeful Yalie frosh (go bulldogs!). So why am I still here? Clearly not because I feel slighted or angry about not getting into the school of my choice. Rather, because I'm still as convinced about my opinions as I was before I found out my acceptance. Without any personal interest in this debate, I think my argument is stronger than it might be if I was worried about my chances of getting into X college.</p>
<p>I'm steering away from the question? No, I'm responding to your suggestion that if I come back next year to continue arguing this point, it will be because I am a dissatisfied college frosh at a school I do not love, perhaps because a LD individual "stole" my spot. That won't be the case, let me assure you.</p>
<p>I suggested something. So what? I was creating a situation in which you didn't get into the school of your choice. Congratulations on getting into Yale. (I'm serious)</p>
<p>Still, you need to answer our questions, just as we have answered yours. Don't you think that the supposedly harmful effects of accommodations on our society would have already taken effect? You know, like the suggestions on this thread of people dying from LD doctors?</p>
<p>What research has been released that LD people with accommodations were not ready for their careers? I'm listening.</p>
<p>That was WITH extended time. First time I took it without extended time I received 26. I did worst on the pre algebra sections and reading sections (only scoring 67 percentile in pre algebra and a measley 37% in one of the reading subscores)</p>
<p>I feel that is because I cannot read quickly enough nor understand the question sufficiently with any quickness. I'm pretty stoked about my 33 and hopefully will get me into the schools that I want.</p>
<p>I DID feel that I had more time than I needed. However I did need some. I would have been fine with 15-20 mins extra per test, but did not need the 30 mins I had on math and english.</p>
<p>That's nice. I have quite a few friends testing in the 27-28 range who can get about 34 if given twice as much time as is standard. Thankfully, they never sought accomodations because they understand that their slowness is something that they cannot escape by concealing the fact from college admissions people.</p>
<p>I think it depends...theres this girl I know, and College board didn't give her extra time on the SAT, Subject tests or AP tests. But ACT did.
So she got three times the amount of time as everyone else and got a 36. Her practice ACT was about a 28, which isn't bad....but that is such a big difference and IMO she personally shouldn't be able to brag, and I don't think she should have even gotten extra time. Her disability has to do with bubbling alone...it doesn't impact her intelligence, the girl got a 4 on AP calc!</p>
<p>I got a 30 on my ACT, and I think thats just as good as her 36 with three times the extra time.</p>
<p>Whatever you heard about "3 times extra time" is just a rumor because no such accommodation exists. And if her disability has to do with bubbling alone, why did she get extra time? There are a lot of inconsistencies here........</p>
<p>I'm not disputing the main point of your story that she got accommodations and then got a perfect score. I'm just curious as to if she really got extra time or not. Personally, I don't think she did if her disability was limited to bubbling alone.</p>
<p>Finally, I don't see anyway in hell a girl didn't get any accommodations from the CB, but got this "three times extra time" from ACT. It just doesn't make any logical sense.</p>
<p>P.S.- How's your research coming amb3r? LOL.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have quite a few friends testing in the 27-28 range who can get about 34 if given twice as much time as is standard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, Amb3r, my question is: how do you know that? You realize that ALL of your explanations and points are ALL based off of what you THINK. You only seem to speculate and theorize and then claim them as facts. Then when presented with an issue or point that is validated, you simply say that it is wrong with no proof of which and then evade the question. Good arguing skills I guess, but just admit that you are wrong.</p>
<p>By the way, I did brag about my ACT score a LITTLE bit at my school. But word got around quick. I didn't shy away from telling them I had extended time. There are a few people that are actually upset with me and do not think I deserve it. Whatever. Most people just quite simply told me "Good job!" - the mature response.</p>
<p>I needed the ACT to be a good score because my GPA is so low at 2.7. My GPA obviously does not reflect my intelligence or even closely represents my potential; however, I believe my ACT does.</p>
<p>I may try to test again and go for a 34--or a 36. Either way... I am already in the top 1% of the country in ACT scores. Any more points higher will only add fractions to the 99.38% from the 33. Hopefully colleges recognize that, and overlook my GPA in sight of my ACT score.</p>
<p>I know it because they have tried to take practice tests with unlimited time from prep books, and that is the range at which they score (and now I'm specifically speaking of two of my friends, who I helped tutor this past year and watched take these tests timed/untimed). They took practice tests from Peterson's book of real ACTs. That is their testing range, 33-34 when they can test with unlimited time (one even achieved a 35 on a try with unlimited time early on during prep). With the time restriction, which they practiced with for the majority of the time to simulate real testing conditions, they could not finish a few of the sections, and score in the high 20s. On the real test, one got a 27, one a 28. There are probably many students like this. The ACT is not hard (it's easier than the SAT), but time is the major difficulty moreso than with the SAT. Change the time element, and you're practically taking an entirely different test.</p>
<p>"And if her disability has to do with bubbling alone, why did she get extra time? There are a lot of inconsistencies here........"</p>
<p>that is exactly my point. She didn't deserve it IMO. Some people, yes they do need it. She is not one of it. So I do not believe SHE should be bragging at all, and I don't think she really deserves to be featured in the newspaper, on the news etc. I also don't think that it is appropriate for other teachers and administrators to be walking into our classes every few weeks to give her an extra something to reward her. I'm not saying she is stupid, without extra time I think she would have gotten between a 28 and a 31. I've had her in many classes and I've known her since elementary school.</p>
<p>" I'm just curious as to if she really got extra time or not. Personally, I don't think she did if her disability was limited to bubbling alone.
Finally, I don't see anyway in hell a girl didn't get any accommodations from the CB, but got this "three times extra time" from ACT. It just doesn't make any logical sense."
Well, thats what she said. (Though you can imagine she doesn't mention the conditions of her ACT often)</p>
<p>I don't know why she got the extra time, but I believe in HER situation, she didn't deserve it. Perhaps some people deserve it, but I do not believe she is one of them. I wasn't trying to offend anybody, or say that people with a real reason for needing extra time are less intelligent, and as I've said before, I do think this girl is intelligent.</p>
<p>i have add/adhd and have been on med. since 1st grade. honestly people dont realize that the disorder goes beyond being easily distracted, hyper, etc. i cannot gather my thoughts quickly, and that makes the essay difficult for me. the reading comp is also difficult to finish in the regular time, too. but yes, some ppl fake it. i dont, though.</p>
<p>Well, triple extra time isn't offered by any test agency, so you probably heard her wrong.</p>
<p>Also, you may be missing some aspects of her disability. Just because she's intelligent or you've known her since elementary school doesn't mean you know everything that could be in her psych evaluation. Heck, if I told my friends I had a form of autism, which I do, they would be thrown for a loop.</p>
