<p>I’ll try to address a couple of points that were general questions to all posters here, as they somewhat apply to me.
Compmom asked about some here that would deny certain accommodations to those with ld’s in her post 220.
I have not been critical of any students with ld’s at any college, other than the one young lady at P, who is supposed to be the subject of this thread. I am skeptical- notice please I said skeptical not certain, of the extent of her current disabilities and needs given what we’ve been told of the diagnoses and timeline. I am also skeptical of her claims because she has chosen P- certainly an extremely selective college, one of the most prestigious in the U.S., and presumably one of the most difficult and one of the most rewarding to those who successfully complete their degree there. I’d also add that how I feel now could change as more facts come out. I am commenting based on what we know so far.
I do not subscribe to the thought expressed here by some that(paraphrasing) “the school accepted her, so they must accommodate her”. In fact, I see the other side of the coin- “the student chose to go there, let her work into their system”. I think of it as “We are P. Here’s what we do. Who wants to join?” I do not agree that merely informing P of her disability(during app stage) obligates them to automatically give her any accommodation she requests. Referring to an earlier example, if I wanted to return to college, and during my app stage I told them I wanted to be on the basketball team, I would not expect them to be obligated to put me on the team if they accepted me. At 5’10" and 50 yrs old, I am at a disadvantage for making the team. I also do not mean that absolutely no accommodations should be given her. But she has some already in place, and as I understand the article has not yet been tested to see how successful what is in place may be. Legal term(not moral term) “Reasonable” is hard to define as it relates to this student. Is it “reasonable” that she be accommodated so much that she gets an A? Or a B? Or a C? Remember, this is P.; not our local community college.
One might say a C at P is = to an A at many many other less demanding colleges. Many young people don’t even attend college. So it’s tough to say how much is reasonable given the extremely tough road she has chosen. Merely being accepted at P is beyond the capabilities of many many other students, with or without Ld’s.</p>
<p>That also addresses a comment posted by shawbridge in post 250 that this thread is about kids with ld’s at elite colleges. I’d mostly agree with his statement, except that amend it by saying it is about 1 particular young woman at P. I believe that some have expanded the focus of this thread, and as a result, some have mistakenly felt slighted by a comment intended to refer to the one student in question. IF I were to say “she doesn’t belong at P”, some have mistakenly interpreted that as their child shouldn’t go to a tough college. Not the same thing.</p>
<p>Thanx to Consulation for agreeing that one bad grade on mid-term isn’t “irreparable harm”. Anytime a spokesperson tosses out such an outlandish statement it makes me skeptical of the validity of the claim.</p>
<p>Since I’m one of those that subscribe to something close to that thought… but what I really believe is that the school RECRUITED her, so they must accommodate her…In a sort of Faustian Bargain, and chance to beat Harvard (who won the women’s Ivy crown this year), Princeton recruited someone to help their team, all the well knowing: 1) the rigors of D1 sports; 2) the academic demands of their Uni; 3) the quality of academic competition of their Uni; 4) the recruit had self-disclosed learning disabilities.</p>
<p>^ in complete agreement with this. (My belief, too.) They took the risk with her special consideration admissions. They should have calculated the trade-offs (possible downsides).</p>
<p>That’s mistaking the purpose of accommodations. As Consolation noted, many freshman at Princeton will find first semester midterms harder than anticipated, and flub the test.</p>
<p>It’s not the grade – the issue is does she have time to complete the test? If she doesn’t complete but her answers are strong enough on the parts that she does that she gets a B – she might still have a basis to ask for extended time on future tests. If she does complete the test but gets a D or an F because she doesn’t know or understand the material, or lacks the ability to express her understanding on a written exam — that’s a different question entirely. I do understand that the reason she might not know the material or can’t write effectively might be due to her disability – but in that case, I would see her disability as one that disqualifies her from attending Princeton as opposed to one that can be accommodated. Accommodations should be allowed to enable a student who is ABLE to do the work to demonstrate that ability – they are not intended to allow a student who is UNABLE to do the work somehow manage to scrape by.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, part of the problem appears to be policies of college athletics. If Princeton is recruiting athletes because of their skill on the playing field, despite knowing that some of those students simply lack the intellectual or academic prowess needed to perform well in an academically rigorous environment – then shame on Princeton. (I’ll bet that there are other colleges with less rigorous academics and far [better</a> soccer teams](<a href=“Loading...”>Loading...) which might have been a better fit for a student with that profile).</p>
<p>I think elite schools with a reputation for rigorous academics ought to rethink their athletic recruiting policies – out of fairness to the other students who attend those colleges and the students they turn away. (Including many highly capable students who are also excellent athletes, even if not quite as strong on the playing field as a recruited counterpart). </p>
<p>And I also think that its a mistake to confuse the legal requirements of ADA with the ethical/moral quandary created by athletic recruiting. If Princeton recruits an athlete, they may well owe that student all sorts of support as part of the bargain they struck – but that still doesn’t rise to the level of an ADA mandate. (If I invite you to my house for dinner, I’ve incurred an obligation to feed you an appropriate, nutritious meal – but it’s not a legal obligation. If you arrive at my house a little bit late and I tell you that I’m sorry, but the food has already been eaten by the other guests — you aren’t going to be able to sue me, although you may be justified in expecting that I offer you something else to eat.).</p>
<p>concur with the recruiting aspect, calmom. (I frequently say the same for big time D1 football and basketball powerhouses.)</p>
<p>OTOH, if you invite me to dinner full well knowing that I have a food allergy and then serve that food unbeknown to me causing allergic reaction, are you then not responsible?</p>
<p>People really get confused at times about the rationale behind accommodations. </p>
<p>Also, good catch that the statement that the Ivies aren’t offering extended time (untrue as far as I can tell) wasn’t made by a Princeton lawyer, but was reported by the student’s representatives as having been made to the student. The Princeton lawyer made another arguably unwise statement but not that one.</p>
<p>Say the student recruited in this case has, say, 1600 SATs (with accomodations) and a less than rigorous HS transcript. Then, with the practice and travel hours require for the team, she finds herself on thin ice academically despite the accomodations Princeton was willing to extend. In this girl’s case, how can the impact of being an athletic admit and team member be teased apart from the impact of LDs on her academic performance, in that both involve competing demands on her time? And, is she underperforming athletically too? I fully appreciate the importance and benefits of appropriate accomodations, but in this instance, it might be that Princeton’s coaches, Admissions and the girl all erred in thinking that Princeton was a good fit for her.</p>
<p>Princeton’s retention and graduation rates are high, but not 100%. I KNOW Princeton will let go of an athlete who is failing–I saw it happen to a recruit from our HS; the truth is he was unprepared to do the work (and too prepared to party…) to the level required despite the “accomodations” that athletes get. If this kid had turned out to be more of an athletic star, might Princeton have made more of an effort to keep him? </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see the issues sorted out, and whether this lawsuit resolves in a way that affects accomodation policies as well as athletic recruiting and retention practices elsewhere.</p>
<p>I’m not an attorney, but I think if this young lady gets a B on a test, as Shawbridge(post 267) has used as an example(I did too, earlier), I think she’d be in for a mighty tough time pressing forward with her case that P was putting unfair restrictions on her by limiting her accommodations; unless of course every other student got an A. I understand the intent of ADA, I get that it isn’t for a specific grade. I used specific grades in my post to demonstrate the difficulty in assessing what degree of a disadvantage is no legal disadvantage at all? For practical purposes, I think if she were a B student at P, most would have great difficulty believing she was treated unfairly by P. Of course, in her case it seems she is suing even before the initial results are in.</p>
<p>As for the dinner analogy, how about this example? I invite all my S’s team parents to the local pizzeria after a big win for a meal, my treat. Some may be allergic to cheese, some may prefer Pepsi(not available) to Coke, some may want beer(available), yet others may not want to attend if some are drinking alcohol. Am I, as the host, legally responsible to offer all combinations to accommodate all that attend? Is the pizzeria? Or is it up to the invitees to choose to attend or not, and for those who attend they choose the menu as each of them see fit? Maybe I’m too much into personal responsibility, but I think that although I may have invited all parents, and tempted them with a free meal, the Pizzeria only serves what it serves, and each one must decide for themself if they want to attend.</p>
<p>As far as the recruiting, I’ll assume many here are correct that she was strongly recruited by soccer coach. But while that discussion/negotiation was going on, wouldn’t that have been the ideal time to make her enrolling contingent not only on whatever scholarship the school could offer if she played soccer, but also assurances she’d get all the classroom accommodations she felt necessary? Merely mentioning she has Ld to Admissions isn’t enough, imo. If that coach is trying hard to get her to enroll, that seems like a perfect time to me to get those assurances. There is no indication so far that she had any such conversation and assurances from the coach or A.D. I can agree the coach may have made it sound like a sweet deal, and that she and the parents went for it. imo they may have been short-sighted and didn’t choose the best fit. Surely her father as an educated, experienced attorney, should know as much or more than I do about negotiating.</p>
Well, it kind of depends on the type of test and the reason for the B – but lets assume that it is a multiple choice/short answer type of test (no long essays to get bogged down with), and that everyone else completes the test. An LD student with dysgraphia and dyslexia who reads and writes slowly takes the test an gets every single answer right, but only can complete 85% of the test before running out of time, an hence gets a B.</p>
<p>That’s the type of situation where accommodations in the form of extended time will allow an ABLE student to demonstrate their abilities – its not fair for that student to be denied the opportunity to earn an A because of the disability. On the other hand… that hypothetical student certainly doesn’t need a 100% time accommodation – if the student is able to answer 85% of the questions in, say, an hour – then that student probably could answer 100% in an hour and 20 minutes. </p>
<p>Obviously its not so cut-and-dried in most college exams, which often require more extended essays or are a mix of essay and short answer questions. Its hard to know whether the student runs out of time because of the LD or because of poor budgeting of time – so its more of a judgment call. Similarly, grading is not so cut and dried. Sometimes in a tough course the curve will get set low enough that a student who objectively did not do very well nonetheless earns an acceptable grade. </p>
<p>But the point is that the accommodations are supposed to level the playing field, not give the person with the disability a leg up. That’s why I think it makes some sense for the college to begin by offering some limited accommodations with the idea that they will see how it goes and make adjustments down the line if necessary. I also question whether the accommodations should necessarily be the same in every class. My dyslexic son used to have problems with reading but exceptionally strong math skills – his teachers used to get annoyed because he had a tendency to blurt out the answer to any problem given in class before others had had a chance to work things out. He didn’t need accommodations in college, but if he had – I think his needs on a chemistry exam would have been very different than his needs on a history exam.</p>
<p>“But the point is that the accomodations are supposed to level the playing field, not give the person with the disability a leg up.”</p>
<p>I’ve never met one kid with a real learning disability who didn’t drop the accomodations as fast as they possibly could. Because of her testing, D is eligible for books on tape, but she struggles through the reading like everyone else. why? I don’t know. It adds to her work, but she does it. She is eligible for extra time on tests but has not taken it once this year. Why? I don’t know. The only thing she has used is her voice recognition technology for the writing. Why? Because she can’t write a legible paper without it.</p>
<p>I tend to believe that the students themselves tend to be the best judge of what will help them. They rarely ever actually want to use these crutches in order to be able to walk like the guy next door. FWIW</p>
<p>Also, the Ivies aren’t going to be able to get rid of extra time, anyway, as long as they take federal money for research. Research universities aren’t as independent of federal regulations as people might like to think. So, I highly doubt this is really a new Ivy policy.</p>
<p>Newsflash: Princeton has grade deflation, and a B is an excellent grade comparatively speaking. There are a maximum number of A’s possible in any given class. Students without LD of any kind find the competition and the curve generally challenging. There is not much cause for complaint if you get a B in any circumstances.</p>
<p>Suppose that tomorrow, Princeton instituted a new policy that all exams, for all students, are of the 24-hour, “take-home” variety (and somehow also ensured perfect academic integrity of such exams)</p>
<p>Would you say that the value of that Princeton degree has been altered in the slightest?</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>If you answered “no”, then you do not believe that being able to complete an exam in a very short period of time (i.e. 80 minutes in class) is an essential component of a Princeton education. Thus, it is a reasonable accommodation to request that requirement be relaxed, since it is not essential.</p>
<p>jubsc, the flaw in your argument is that it’s not just about experiencing a Princeton education, but it’s also a competition for grades. If it is not important how long an undergrad is given on a test, then they should allow everyone to take that as long as they want or as long as the slowest person.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that LD students shouldn’t be granted relaxed time limits for tests, but not based on the logic provided in your post.</p>
<p>There’s a difference between giving LD students tools to help them learn and assessing their performance in a different way. I don’t know of anyone that is opposed to the former. No one thinks books-on-tape give LD students an advantage over mainstream students.</p>
<p>The problem then isn’t with my argument, it’s with the exam.</p>
<p>If the value of the degree/GPA is truly not changed by switching to a “take-home” system, then that degree/GPA should not be reflecting the ability of any student to complete an exam “faster” than the others. </p>
<p>For example, take two “normal” (i.e., non disabled) students. Student A has 80% understanding of the material but is fast at exams. Student B has 100% understanding but is somewhat slower. If an exam requires a student to work fast, and student A gets a better grade than student B, that means the exam failed to contribute to the value of the degree/GPA.</p>
<p>What you are really finding fault with is that the system isn’t supposed to benefit those who are naturally faster, but it does.</p>
<p>Well, regardless, if that is your argument, then anyone should be able to have a long period of time to finish their exams, LD or not.</p>
<p>The problem is that speed is important, and sometimes is an indication of how well you know the material (esp. in technical areas.) So it makes sense to grade partly on speed. To test creative problem solving and writing ability, I think it’s best to do that with homework and projects.</p>
<p>Of course there are practical issues to consider, and it’s nearly impossible to be fair to everyone. </p>
<p>But that doesn’t change the fact that if degrees/GPA’s are supposed to be reflective of something other than the ability to do fast in-class exam work, then that in-class exam work should not emphasize that aspect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the other half that my argument didn’t encompass (i.e., when it is intrinsically part of the value of the degree/GPA that a student be able to do fast in-class work)</p>
<p>However, it is noteworthy that some schools (I am thinking of Caltech in particular) do in fact follow the “take-home” exam system as described, and I have never, ever heard anyone devalue a Caltech degree or GPA on that basis. On the contrary, Caltech degrees are among the most prestigious in technical fields.</p>
<p>Thus, I personally feel it is very difficult to make the claim that such in-class exam work is intrinsically part of a university degree.</p>
<p>Actually, Caltech’s take-home exams are still timed exams. The only difference from other schools is you can take them when you want and you are responsible for timing yourself.</p>