you are not dyslexic!
Scroll to see replies
I got it - extra time, laptop and a grand or so in other random funds for stuff 
All because i was too lazy to learn the 5 equations of motion and my exasperated physics teacher recommended me for a test
However...i was (and still am) dyslexic, just not for the reasons they suspected - and it does affect day to day life and no, you can't just 'stop it'.
Dyslexia comes in a million different flavours and severities - and the type and level of support provided needs to be looked into. It does exist and 'bad spelling' is only one of a million potential symptoms. It affects some severely, others can go on to get top percentile marks at uni because it does not affect that aspect.
I think it would be possible to bias the results of the test, but only if you knew exactly what each aspect of dyslexia each part of the test was testing for - score poorly in most categories and you're just 'thick' rather than dyslexic. Get top 5% in everything but only top 20% in short term auditory (repeating 10 digit numbers backwards) and you're dyslexic. Well, that's what it seemed to me (and why i got my paper...).
All because i was too lazy to learn the 5 equations of motion and my exasperated physics teacher recommended me for a test
However...i was (and still am) dyslexic, just not for the reasons they suspected - and it does affect day to day life and no, you can't just 'stop it'.
Dyslexia comes in a million different flavours and severities - and the type and level of support provided needs to be looked into. It does exist and 'bad spelling' is only one of a million potential symptoms. It affects some severely, others can go on to get top percentile marks at uni because it does not affect that aspect.
I think it would be possible to bias the results of the test, but only if you knew exactly what each aspect of dyslexia each part of the test was testing for - score poorly in most categories and you're just 'thick' rather than dyslexic. Get top 5% in everything but only top 20% in short term auditory (repeating 10 digit numbers backwards) and you're dyslexic. Well, that's what it seemed to me (and why i got my paper...).
(edited 12 years ago)
I get extra time and a computer for exams due to dyspraxia - that's impossible to fake, I've had regular tests and assessments since I was eight and have never had the diagnosis questioned. For dyspraxia the tests range from reading, writing to maths, puzzles, spot the difference things, building things and making patterns with cubes, standing on one leg, standing with your eyes closed, touching your nose with your eyes closed, playing darts, catching/throwing a ball, being asked to repeat a set of verbal instructions etc, being asked to get dressed, cut up food etc. Had to see a paediatrician for a full neurological exam and had to have all my reflexes checked - they made me lie on the floor whilst they tried to trigger startle reflex, moro reflex etc. Because I still display some of the relfexes that infants normally lose at about six months (grasp, suck, moro, startle I think), they've said there's no doubt that I do suffer from dyspraxia. Not possible to fake it!
Dyslexia I had screening for a few years ago and so did my mum - my mum can't read very well at all and does not see the words but the patterns between the words. She has to use coloured glasses and coloured paper etc. Tests involved reading aloud, writing a sentence, remembering facts and writing them down, and a spelling test. Probably quite easy to deliberately botch up but you'd have to be a right loser to actually do so..
Dyslexia I had screening for a few years ago and so did my mum - my mum can't read very well at all and does not see the words but the patterns between the words. She has to use coloured glasses and coloured paper etc. Tests involved reading aloud, writing a sentence, remembering facts and writing them down, and a spelling test. Probably quite easy to deliberately botch up but you'd have to be a right loser to actually do so..
The tests are designed to be very difficult to fake and are created by experts in educational psychology, medical doctors and the like. It does seem unusual for so many to get extra time, but there are a variety of reasons why students get extra time that are not limited to dyslexia.
It is a real problem that many students face, and if people are faking they are undermining the validity of the diagnosis of people who actually do have problems reading/writing.
It is a real problem that many students face, and if people are faking they are undermining the validity of the diagnosis of people who actually do have problems reading/writing.
Original post by Zangoose
Everyone can spell. You're just being lazy.
So concentrate.
No you're not. Like you said, sometimes you don't concentrate and this can be solved by concentrating more.
Above is a pretty disgraceful example of a severely ill-judged dyslexia self-diagnosis. It just supports the fact that this dyslexia business is a bunch of nonsense.
So concentrate.
No you're not. Like you said, sometimes you don't concentrate and this can be solved by concentrating more.
Above is a pretty disgraceful example of a severely ill-judged dyslexia self-diagnosis. It just supports the fact that this dyslexia business is a bunch of nonsense.
I'm not looking for hate, just an explaination of the reasoning.
I don't understand why dyslexic people (or people sitting the exam in a foreign language) get extra time for subjects like english. The exam is designed to test your abilities, in the real world no one is going to give you extra time. Your boss isn't going to say "Oh okay I will give you an extra three weeks to do that". In subjects where spelling and grammar isn't assessed I can understand it, it is unfair to let it hinder the meaning of their written response but in English the entire point is to test your ability at english. I am an incredibly slow writer, that hinders my ability in exams massively (and yes I have done lots of work to speed it up) but I wouldn't expect extra time...
I don't understand why dyslexic people (or people sitting the exam in a foreign language) get extra time for subjects like english. The exam is designed to test your abilities, in the real world no one is going to give you extra time. Your boss isn't going to say "Oh okay I will give you an extra three weeks to do that". In subjects where spelling and grammar isn't assessed I can understand it, it is unfair to let it hinder the meaning of their written response but in English the entire point is to test your ability at english. I am an incredibly slow writer, that hinders my ability in exams massively (and yes I have done lots of work to speed it up) but I wouldn't expect extra time...
Original post by Alexander94
I'm not looking for hate, just an explaination of the reasoning.
I don't understand why dyslexic people (or people sitting the exam in a foreign language) get extra time for subjects like english. The exam is designed to test your abilities, in the real world no one is going to give you extra time. Your boss isn't going to say "Oh okay I will give you an extra three weeks to do that". In subjects where spelling and grammar isn't assessed I can understand it, it is unfair to let it hinder the meaning of their written response but in English the entire point is to test your ability at english. I am an incredibly slow writer, that hinders my ability in exams massively (and yes I have done lots of work to speed it up) but I wouldn't expect extra time...
I don't understand why dyslexic people (or people sitting the exam in a foreign language) get extra time for subjects like english. The exam is designed to test your abilities, in the real world no one is going to give you extra time. Your boss isn't going to say "Oh okay I will give you an extra three weeks to do that". In subjects where spelling and grammar isn't assessed I can understand it, it is unfair to let it hinder the meaning of their written response but in English the entire point is to test your ability at english. I am an incredibly slow writer, that hinders my ability in exams massively (and yes I have done lots of work to speed it up) but I wouldn't expect extra time...
because it's not the dyslexic's persons fault that their literacy abilities might be slightly less, on the other hand if the same is true for a non dyslexic then one could argue that it is their fault for not having revised properly.
its basically trying to show what their performance would have been truly like if they were not dyslexic. it also allows them more time to look through their answers and correct any mistakes.
exams are not supposed to represent real word scenarios, everybody knows that.
So it is a very complex subject and that the tests were not designed by a complete imbecile... So we're agreeing with each other then...? 
That doesn't change the fact that if you do adequate research (or get 'advised') you can figure out what the different tests are doing and act accordingly.
But, personally, i think that's a mute point. I reckon there'll be an unusually strong correlation between those tested and those that get dyslexia 'help' - way stronger than "teacher's ability to detect dyslexia when referring people for the test" could explain. I'd say the more people get a 'help' result, the more they'll tell their friends, who will also try and get referred/pay for a test. And, unless it would be career suicide to recommend it, they'll get 'help' - to keep the cycle going. More people = more tests = more money. It's business after all. Which perhaps explains why people whinge about the public school system getting dyslexia support at a disproportional level. Maybe they have the cash/knowledge/inclination to pay for the test privately (note above cycle) to get money, time and laptops for their kids. Just a theory...
Everyone is dyslexic, to an extent.
Tests are an art, where the assessor needs to analyse and make sense of the stats. And what can stats prove? Almost anything...
That doesn't change the fact that if you do adequate research (or get 'advised') you can figure out what the different tests are doing and act accordingly.
But, personally, i think that's a mute point. I reckon there'll be an unusually strong correlation between those tested and those that get dyslexia 'help' - way stronger than "teacher's ability to detect dyslexia when referring people for the test" could explain. I'd say the more people get a 'help' result, the more they'll tell their friends, who will also try and get referred/pay for a test. And, unless it would be career suicide to recommend it, they'll get 'help' - to keep the cycle going. More people = more tests = more money. It's business after all. Which perhaps explains why people whinge about the public school system getting dyslexia support at a disproportional level. Maybe they have the cash/knowledge/inclination to pay for the test privately (note above cycle) to get money, time and laptops for their kids. Just a theory...
Everyone is dyslexic, to an extent.
Tests are an art, where the assessor needs to analyse and make sense of the stats. And what can stats prove? Almost anything...
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by MrHappy_J
its not a mental disorder its a learning disability, get your facts right. being dyslexic doesnt mean you're inarticulate or even necessarily bad at grammar and spelling. i dont even know why youd be posting on here seeing as you have such a poor understanding of what dyslexia really is. "lack of practice"- seriously??
edit: lol at the neg rep.seriously go away and do your research.
edit: lol at the neg rep.seriously go away and do your research.
Are you serious? He was saying that there is a difference between being dyslexic and being inarticulate, not that they're the same thing. He was wrong on the mental disorder part, but look on the bright side: we're not in the 1950's when dyslexics got caned.
Original post by brabzzz
So it is a very complex subject and that the tests were not designed by a complete imbecile... So we're agreeing with each other then...?
That doesn't change the fact that if you do adequate research (or get 'advised') you can figure out what the different tests are doing and act accordingly.
But, personally, i think that's a mute point. I reckon there'll be an unusually strong correlation between tose tested and those that get dyslexia 'help' - way stronger than "teacher's ability to detect dyslexia when referring people for the test" could explain. I'd say the more people get a 'help' result, the more they'll tell their friends, who will also try and get referred/pay for a test, and unless it would be career suicide to do so, they'll as get 'help' - to keep the cycle going. More people = more tests = more money. It's business after all. Which perhaps explains why people whinge about the public school system getting dyslexia support at a disproportional level. Maybe they have the cash/knowledge/inclination to pay for the test privately (note above cycle) to get money, time and laptops for their kids. Just a theory...
Everyone is dyslexic, to an extent.
Tests are an art, where the assessor needs to analyse and make sense of the stats. And what can stats prove? Almost anything...
That doesn't change the fact that if you do adequate research (or get 'advised') you can figure out what the different tests are doing and act accordingly.
But, personally, i think that's a mute point. I reckon there'll be an unusually strong correlation between tose tested and those that get dyslexia 'help' - way stronger than "teacher's ability to detect dyslexia when referring people for the test" could explain. I'd say the more people get a 'help' result, the more they'll tell their friends, who will also try and get referred/pay for a test, and unless it would be career suicide to do so, they'll as get 'help' - to keep the cycle going. More people = more tests = more money. It's business after all. Which perhaps explains why people whinge about the public school system getting dyslexia support at a disproportional level. Maybe they have the cash/knowledge/inclination to pay for the test privately (note above cycle) to get money, time and laptops for their kids. Just a theory...
Everyone is dyslexic, to an extent.
Tests are an art, where the assessor needs to analyse and make sense of the stats. And what can stats prove? Almost anything...
if you see a psychiatrist you are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental disorder.
if you see your gp you are more likely to be given a prescription.
i dont know what your point is.
Original post by TurboCretin
Are you serious? He was saying that there is a difference between being dyslexic and being inarticulate, not that they're the same thing. He was wrong on the mental disorder part, but look on the bright side: we're not in the 1950's when dyslexics got caned.
i think you need to re read his post, hes clearly ingorant on the subject and yet he chose to post here for some reason or another.
i wasnt aware that dyslexics got caned in the 50s lol.
Original post by MrHappy_J
because it's not the dyslexic's persons fault that their literacy abilities might be slightly less, on the other hand if the same is true for a non dyslexic then one could argue that it is their fault for not having revised properly.
its basically trying to show what their performance would have been truly like if they were not dyslexic. it also allows them more time to look through their answers and correct any mistakes.
exams are not supposed to represent real word scenarios, everybody knows that.
its basically trying to show what their performance would have been truly like if they were not dyslexic. it also allows them more time to look through their answers and correct any mistakes.
exams are not supposed to represent real word scenarios, everybody knows that.
But it's not my fault I suck at Art and sport, I always have and I never will be able to draw (or run). I just think it gives a false image that they are just as able to compete in the real world.
Original post by MrHappy_J
if you see a psychiatrist you are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental disorder.
if you see your gp you are more likely to be given a prescription.
i dont know what your point is.
if you see your gp you are more likely to be given a prescription.
i dont know what your point is.
Exactly that.
And without any expert knowledge, i'd say it would be a rare GP that wouldn't advise you/prescribe you something, even if deep down they know it might not be necessary, because they usually have their oh-so-convenient pharmacy by reception, and you'll probably get the good there...
Same goes for Dyslexia tests, except their referral comes from Jack's mom talking to Jill's mom about the £2000 laptop Jill just got because she failed to make a load of shapes out of lego. More business... maybe she'll talk to Tom's mom. Not saying they all work like that, but i'll eat my hat if that wouldn't explain the public school bias and X% of the total annual tests!
And it goes deeper.... (ooooh, conspiracy...) The provider my LEA were forcing on me was charging 100% more for the laptop, dictaphone etc than even PCWorld and friends. The courses recommended had extortionate rates and taking them up with anyone other than supplier X was very difficult. I can only imagine in the mafia-esq actions behind the awarding of these lucrative supply contracts.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Alexander94
But it's not my fault I suck at Art and sport, I always have and I never will be able to draw (or run). I just think it gives a false image that they are just as able to compete in the real world.
erm what would you suggest? dyslexics deserve to have the same opportunities as everybody else. i certainly dont see myself as less capable or able to compete because of it in the "real world", whatever that may be.
yeah its also not my fault that i used to suck at certain subjects, but what can you do about it? everyone has subjects theyre good or bad at, they wont, cant, and should not give you extra time for that.
Original post by MrHappy_J
because it's not the dyslexic's persons fault that their literacy abilities might be slightly less, on the other hand if the same is true for a non dyslexic then one could argue that it is their fault for not having revised properly.
its basically trying to show what their performance would have been truly like if they were not dyslexic. it also allows them more time to look through their answers and correct any mistakes.
exams are not supposed to represent real word scenarios, everybody knows that.
its basically trying to show what their performance would have been truly like if they were not dyslexic. it also allows them more time to look through their answers and correct any mistakes.
exams are not supposed to represent real word scenarios, everybody knows that.
But what are dyslexic people supposed to do in the real world, when they won't be given extra time to check for spelling errors ect? I think it is good that they get extra support in school ect, but will they get extra support when they get a job ect? If not, then they are kind of left on their own, because sure they have proven if they were not dyslexic, this is the grade they are capable of achieving, but what next in the real world? I'm genuinely curious, are you given extra support or something? If not, it seems like a crappy system.
Original post by Alexander94
I'm not looking for hate, just an explaination of the reasoning.
I don't understand why dyslexic people (or people sitting the exam in a foreign language) get extra time for subjects like english. The exam is designed to test your abilities, in the real world no one is going to give you extra time. Your boss isn't going to say "Oh okay I will give you an extra three weeks to do that". In subjects where spelling and grammar isn't assessed I can understand it, it is unfair to let it hinder the meaning of their written response but in English the entire point is to test your ability at english. I am an incredibly slow writer, that hinders my ability in exams massively (and yes I have done lots of work to speed it up) but I wouldn't expect extra time...
I don't understand why dyslexic people (or people sitting the exam in a foreign language) get extra time for subjects like english. The exam is designed to test your abilities, in the real world no one is going to give you extra time. Your boss isn't going to say "Oh okay I will give you an extra three weeks to do that". In subjects where spelling and grammar isn't assessed I can understand it, it is unfair to let it hinder the meaning of their written response but in English the entire point is to test your ability at english. I am an incredibly slow writer, that hinders my ability in exams massively (and yes I have done lots of work to speed it up) but I wouldn't expect extra time...
Good on you, but you could legitimately get a keyboard for exam use.
I'd take issue with the assertion that the point of English is to test your ability at 'English,' if by that you mean the ability to read and write efficaciously. The point of English is to test your ability to evaluate literature. If someone is fantastic at critiquing literature I don't see why difficulties with spelling should prejudice that. Unfortunately, you are assessed on grammar (and spelling I believe) in English exams, so the system is prejudiced whether dyslexics get extra time or not. I think that's a bigger issue.
Original post by brabzzz
Exactly that.
And without any expert knowledge, i'd say it would be a rare GP that wouldn't advise you/prescribe you something, even if deep down they know it might not be necessary, because they usually have their oh-so-convenient pharmacy by reception, and you'll probably get the good there...
Same goes for Dyslexia tests, except their referral comes from Jack's mom talking to Jill's mom about the £2000 laptop Jill just got because she failed to make a load of shapes out of lego. More business... maybe she'll talk to Tom's mom. Not saying they all work like that, but i'll eat my hat if that wouldn't explain the public school bias and X% of the total annual tests!
And it goes deeper.... (ooooh, conspiracy...) The provider my LEA were forcing on me was charging 100% more for the laptop, dictaphone etc than even PCWorld and friends. The courses recommended had extortionate rates and taking them up with anyone other than supplier X was very difficult. I can only imagine in the mafia-esq actions behind the awarding of these lucrative supply contracts.
And without any expert knowledge, i'd say it would be a rare GP that wouldn't advise you/prescribe you something, even if deep down they know it might not be necessary, because they usually have their oh-so-convenient pharmacy by reception, and you'll probably get the good there...
Same goes for Dyslexia tests, except their referral comes from Jack's mom talking to Jill's mom about the £2000 laptop Jill just got because she failed to make a load of shapes out of lego. More business... maybe she'll talk to Tom's mom. Not saying they all work like that, but i'll eat my hat if that wouldn't explain the public school bias and X% of the total annual tests!
And it goes deeper.... (ooooh, conspiracy...) The provider my LEA were forcing on me was charging 100% more for the laptop, dictaphone etc than even PCWorld and friends. The courses recommended had extortionate rates and taking them up with anyone other than supplier X was very difficult. I can only imagine in the mafia-esq actions behind the awarding of these lucrative supply contracts.
i dont know where all the preconceptions came from, i took the test at first because i thought it might benefit me to have extra time in the exams, given the poor grades i got at AS level. not because i was going to be given a laptop and watnot, i didnt even know i could have one until they did the needs assessment.
i do agree with you though that given the amount of cuts that the government are making, it seems odd that dyslexic students still get all these extra provisions for free.
Original post by MrHappy_J
erm what would you suggest? dyslexics deserve to have the same opportunities as everybody else. i certainly dont see myself as less capable or able to compete because of it in the "real world", whatever that may be.
yeah its also not my fault that i used to suck at certain subjects, but what can you do about it? everyone has subjects theyre good or bad at, they wont, cant, and should not give you extra time for that.
erm what would you suggest? dyslexics deserve to have the same opportunities as everybody else. i certainly dont see myself as less capable or able to compete because of it in the "real world", whatever that may be.
yeah its also not my fault that i used to suck at certain subjects, but what can you do about it? everyone has subjects theyre good or bad at, they wont, cant, and should not give you extra time for that.
But some English tests are basically spelling tests, so why should they get extra time for something they are bad at? If dyslexic people are really that disadvantaged in exams then how would they not be disadvantaged in a job that required a good level of english (that they would need an english qualification for)?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
