Do you think extra time in exams is fair?

No people shouldn't get extra time, people should be allowed to do the exams in alternative conditions to help with certain difficulties(just like an employer might do like using a laptop instead of writing on paper) but they shouldn't be given extra time.The reason for this is very simply why would an employer employ someone who produces less work in their 9-5 working hours compared to someone else who produce more work assuming that both people produce the same quality?This isn't some sort of discrimination if a disabled person(with any specific arrangements than I can make possible) can't produce work in the same amount of time and quality as a normal worker then I wouldn't employ them.

I have seen people posting how they need extra time because they take longer to process information but exams are timed and this means part of the assessment is based around how fast people can process information and answer questions so since this ability is tested on the exam then why are people who are bad at this given extra time?A lot of these disabilities are really just saying these people are bad at this skill or another and thus they should lose marks as a result.

That's so true! I totally agree with you!
If you can't write quick enough, learn to write quicker like EVERYONE else has to do and whom do not have extra time!
Unis also see if you have extra time for your a levels etc. which i wouldnt say is a good thing..

Okay....Korea has a literacy rate of 98%, one of the highest in the world. This is because they are so disciplined and they have the correct teaching methods; I don't think many people will have "Dyslexia" there...And if they do have "learning disabilities" they work very hard to overcome them. Being labeled with one of these "learning disabilities" is cruel; it makes people lazy and slower than what they were before being "diagnosed".
Apparently "dyslexia" came about due to middle-class parents having to make up an excuse for why there child is not as smart as the next one...
I'm not talking about physcial difficulties because that's a different matter.

That's so true! I totally agree with you!
If you can't write quick enough, learn to write quicker like EVERYONE else has to do and whom do not have extra time!
Unis also see if you have extra time for your a levels etc. which i wouldnt say is a good thing..

While I accept your point bout laziness as I have seen it happen, the ignorance in this post astronomical. Many people with SpLD's do work very hard to overcome them. Personally I have severe Specific Learning Differences so my extra time allowance if often bigger than that for other people with Dyslexia. However, I am far from lazy. I learnt to read on time.I went to secondary school with my peer group despite spending the last year of primary in hospital mostly. I left school with my peers obtaining A levels significantly above average despite mental health problems in my final year. I had to work significantly harder than many of my peers here. I am only now a year behind by my own choice as I knew I could achieve a bit better. My best friend who has moderate SpLD,s just graduated with a 1st from St Andrews for her Intercalated BSc. Now whilst I give you that the label dyslexia is pretty useless as it is now used too liberally- the statistical methods for Identifying SpLD's are robust. I have had no less than 3 independent assessments and all corroborated my cognitive profile to a high degree of accuracy. Maximum variance of 4 standard scores on IQ scale, which is very small. The bit about middle class parents is a myth. I also think that the line between Physical difficulties and learning differences may not be a clearly defined as you would hope. The other place I would disagree is that the labels are cruel, the label of an SpLD is not cruel. What is cruel and misleading is the societal attitude that disability is interchangeable with inability. Hence someone being disabled means they can not do something- therefore label results in laziness. However change that attained to label gives us a piece of information about ourselves. Hence now what can we do to improve it.

No people shouldn't get extra time, people should be allowed to do the exams in alternative conditions to help with certain difficulties(just like an employer might do like using a laptop instead of writing on paper) but they shouldn't be given extra time.The reason for this is very simply why would an employer employ someone who produces less work in their 9-5 working hours compared to someone else who produce more work assuming that both people produce the same quality?This isn't some sort of discrimination if a disabled person(with any specific arrangements than I can make possible) can't produce work in the same amount of time and quality as a normal worker then I wouldn't employ them.

I have seen people posting how they need extra time because they take longer to process information but exams are timed and this means part of the assessment is based around how fast people can process information and answer questions so since this ability is tested on the exam then why are people who are bad at this given extra time?A lot of these disabilities are really just saying these people are bad at this skill or another and thus they should lose marks as a result.

This is often because thats exactly what it is Definition of Dyslexia from Google:"a general term for disorders that involve difficulty in learning to read or interpret words, letters, and other symbols, but that do not affect general intelligence."Difficulty in doing something=low intelligence in that area so from this we can conclude dyslexics literally are dumb at reading but have normal intelligence apart from reading.What also confuses me is why these need more treatment and help than those who are generally just bad at reading and everything else as well how is it fair on them?

Studies have also shown that it is caused by defects in brain processing which is just simply more evidence that it means low intelligence in reading.

This is often because thats exactly what it is Definition of Dyslexia from Google:"a general term for disorders that involve difficulty in learning to read or interpret words, letters, and other symbols, but that do not affect general intelligence."Difficulty in doing something=low intelligence in that area so from this we can conclude dyslexics literally are dumb at reading but have normal intelligence apart from reading.What also confuses me is why these need more treatment and help than those who are generally just bad at reading and everything else as well how is it fair on them?

Studies have also shown that it is caused by defects in brain processing which is just simply more evidence that it means low intelligence in reading.

Unis do not see if you have extra time or not, his information is protected by the Data Protection Act. Only JCQ +/- the exam board know dependant on the percentage. There are not legally and do not release this information.

Yes they do, the exam boards send more than just you grades....It says in their terms and conditions. Also UCAS mention it as well. The Data Protection Act does not cover what information people can give to one another. Actually the Data Protection Act is worse for people with extra time because it states that "All data must be accuarate, adequate and non-excessive", so people have to know if the exam boards are willing to share that information in which they do.

I have ADD and severe slow processing. This means it takes me longer to write, harder to concentrate for a long period of time on one thing and basically longer to transfer knowledge from brain to paper which is a side effect of having mild cerebral palsy. This was diagnosed two months into year 13. Throughout my GCSE's and AS's, teachers were completely puzzled as to why I was getting C's, D's and E's despite having a high IQ and getting top grades in untimed questions. For example, in my ICT paper, we were given 2 hours and 15 minutes (plenty for an 80 mark paper), and the questions were fairly short, I finished on time and achieved an A, however, on my politics paper, a mark a minute, a missed out a 40 mark question because I didn't have time to finish it, yet I achieved nearly full marks in the questions I did complete resulting in low grades. Does this mean I am any less intelligent than the person who completed the paper within the time frame?

I now have 50% extra time in my exams, this doesn't give me an advantage believe me, it puts me at the same level as the reasonably competent student and allows me to get the grades that I am capable of. I get why people don't think that extra time is fair, but how frustrated would you be if you spent months revising for exams that you were well capable of acing only to be stopped half way through.

I find that the 'work life' argument is rather weak. Yes we are all given deadlines to some extent, but how often are employees sat down and told to reproduce a year or two's worth of revision in a tight time frame? It cost my parents £400 to 'diagnose' me which is there to try and deter students from abusing the system (although I am aware it still happens) and my mother was also diagnosed despite being in her 50's with a six figure salary so there is a prime example of how unrealistic your argument is.

So, to entertain your point of view, maybe a career based on strict deadlines and high concentration for long periods of time isn't for me,but guess what, theres thousands of careers out there and I'll choose one that suits my working style, however education in this country does't work like that and considering I applied to russell group universities, I gathered A-Levels would be the most realistic option.

Standardised testing has it's flaws and with my conditions, I suffer as a result of those flaws. Extra time shouldn't be awarded to those who don't need it, that is a kick in the face to me and those who work incredibly hard to finish in the snappy time frames and those who don't finish a lot of the questions(I did have a college friend who ended up not being able to complete many of the questions and my mam didn't finish I think most of her O Levels). However, the ignorance about extra time is appalling, and maybe you ought to face the realisation that standardised testing is the problem and not extra time. Shouldn't exams be about knowledge rather than speed of completing the exam?

If you had extra time in your exams, (for those who don't already have it) do you genuinely think you would get significantly better grades?

Giving people extra time makes the test easier(99% of people would probably agree), it makes it substantially easier for people like you as thats the skill you are bad at no longer being tested.I think most students would agree that finishing the test in time is actually a difficult skill that many struggle with and end up not finishing questions or not completing them properly due to rushing and silly mistakes and not enough time to think through the question(I didn't finish 2 of my University exams I didn't miss out that much though).If you got the most difficult exam questions and gave everyone more time I think a lot of people would have cracked them and got them right.