[cyfer]

(Original post by EMPStudent)
But that should be reflected on their marks. If they cannot read and write as well as people who are not classed as dyslexic, they should score lower marks. Just as how you'd expect a dyslexic novelist to sell fewer books than an author that is not dyslexic.

...or an epileptic photographer (yes there are photographers with epilepsy - completely illogical I know).

GCSEs are SUPPOSED to prepare one for real life hence you should not be given extra time because you wouldn't be given extra time to do a job in real life - or if you took longer you would not get promoted. If they had lower GCSE grades in the first place it would deny them those top end jobs that they wouldn't be able to get anyway.

Yes birth does count a lot for what you can make of yourself, no you cannot get anywhere with enough hard work. Society should stop trying to promote the fallacy of the latter.

Note: they would not sell fewer bulks, only produce less material on average and perhaps of a lower grammatical quality

[EMPStudent]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
No I wouldn't. What a ridiculous thing to say.

The most current leading theory of dyslexia is that they suffer with an inability to exclude perceptual noise. This could be the sound of someone else in the room tapping their pencil, could be the effect of a particular font or feature within the font or the tiny little black dots left by a photocopier which hasn't had the rollers cleaned recently. They struggle to write sometimes because of a co-morbidity with coordination issues. They would also struggle to read back their own handwriting because of the noise associated with that, it isn't straightforward typed letters which they can sometimes struggle with. They are still intelligent, they can still think words, it's the putting them down that is the problem.
If I was an editor for a dyslexic novelist I would maybe expect them to take a day or two longer than a non-dyslexic novelist when editing, particularly if I'd written my notes by hand. However, knowing a bunch of dyslexic people who always make essay deadlines; I would expect that if I typed the notes on the coloured paper preferred by them, the dyslexic novelist would still make their deadline. As I'm not giving them 2 hours to write the novel by hand, I don't see why they would be that much different to a non-dyslexic.
I also have personal experience that tells me that dyslexics make great proofreaders!

After you leave education, when are you ever required to read and write, by hand, essays and answers within a 1-4(ish) hour period again in your life? Exams should test knowledge and not ability to do exams, because you don't have to do them again. If a dyslexic person has the knowledge, why should they be penalised because they can't do something now that they will never have to be able to do again?

Because in a working environment you are expected to work as well as the next person. If you are dyslexic, as you have just informed me, you will be distracted by the littlest of things. Uh oh, Dave's using the coffee machine again, I'll put my pen down and finish writing when he's done with his cappuccino.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by EMPStudent)
Because in a working environment you are expected to work as well as the next person. If you are dyslexic, as you have just informed me, you will be distracted by the littlest of things. Uh oh, Dave's using the coffee machine again, I'll put my pen down and finish writing when he's done with his cappuccino.

Yes, you can work just as well as the next person. Because you can type away just like the next office worker.
And by the time you reach high school you've pretty much learned how to tune out the auditory noise things - they're called coping strategies. My mum and best friend both used to work in nurseries. In an otherwise silent environment, I'd be distracted by a coffee machine as well and I'm not dyslexic. If there was a constant-ish noise level you can block that out as a baseline and then the only distractions would be if someone suddenly started talking loudly - which again, you can block out eventually, but it would probably take a dyslexic person longer to do so. It's a deficit, not a complete inability.
The perceptual noise associated with distractions on paper is a much more pressing issue, because they're not consistent.

And again, you will never have to work in the real world in the same way you will have to in an exam, and exams should be testing knowledge and not ability to do exams; so why should they be penalised because they struggle to do exams?

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I had a friend who had a learning difficulty very similar to this where she could do well writing essays but not doing those multiple choice tests where you fill in the circles or doing stats exams, so she gets extra time in those exams only.

The point is that dyslexics have specific deficits in reading and writing so they are given extra time to make them equal to us. Interestingly, I have a friend who's handwriting is so poor because of her dyslexia she types her exams, and as a result gets 10% extra time (to account for the reading deficit, including both reading the questions and back over her answers when she is done) instead of the 25% most people get. She's an incredibly intelligent young woman with a fantastic memory, she just struggles with reading and writing.
A lot of people make the argument 'Well you wouldn't get extra time on an assignment at work', but that isn't comparable to exams in any way. None of my dyslexic friends get extended deadlines on essays or anything like that, because they don't struggle with that. What they struggle with is being asked to read, write and read over an essay in an hour - because reading and writing is difficult for them!

Should stupid people get extra time to make them equal to smart people as well?

[russkiy]

What I think is out of order is that a dickhead in my year gets 25% extra time for dislocating a finger on his nonwriting hand while another pupil who has had a severe cold, headaches ans insomnia gets nothing!

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Desire S

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
Should stupid people get extra time to make them equal to smart people as well?

Stupid people won't gain more knowledge by having more time in an exam. As exams are supposed to test knowledge, and not the speed of your reading and writing, why should dyslexics be penalised by not being able to show their knowledge (which they have providing they revised etc., to be diagnosed with dyslexia you have to have a specific deficit that is dissociated from intelligence and memory etc.) because they can't read the question or write the answer down quickly enough, when they will never have to write an essay in an hour at any point except in an exam?

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Stupid people won't gain more knowledge by having more time in an exam. As exams are supposed to test knowledge, and not the speed of your reading and writing, why should dyslexics be penalised by not being able to show their knowledge (which they have providing they revised etc., to be diagnosed with dyslexia you have to have a specific deficit that is dissociated from intelligence and memory etc.) because they can't read the question or write the answer down quickly enough, when they will never have to write an essay in an hour at any point except in an exam?

Exams do have a time limit though. Some exams will reward people who can read poems/comprehension passages faster, who can work through maths problems faster, so I would actually believe that exams do test speed of reading/writing.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
Exams do have a time limit though. Some exams will reward people who can read poems/comprehension passages faster, who can work through maths problems faster, so I would actually believe that exams do test speed of reading/writing.

Well they have a time limit that is set by what is probably assumed to be a normal distribution of times that people will take to finish. Most people will finish within the time, some will finish early, some won't finish. The point is that dyslexics do not fall within that curve for exams.
And, as you probably won't ever be required to read a comprehension passage and a bunch of questions and then handwrite the answers to those questions outside an exam environment, why should you be penalised because you have a specific deficit in the reading and writing bit, but not the comprehension and answering bit - which is what is supposed to be being tested?

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Well they have a time limit that is set by what is probably assumed to be a normal distribution of times that people will take to finish. Most people will finish within the time, some will finish early, some won't finish. The point is that dyslexics do not fall within that curve for exams.
And, as you probably won't ever be required to read a comprehension passage and a bunch of questions and then handwrite the answers to those questions outside an exam environment, why should you be penalised because you have a specific deficit in the reading and writing bit, but not the comprehension and answering bit - which is what is supposed to be being tested?

These are fair points, and I was playing devil's advocate initially, but then such allowances won't be made for dyslexic people in the workplace etc. And also, exams are written so that there will be a normal distribution of marks. Surely really stupid people won't fall within this curve... they still don't get extra time though.

I would say overall, extra time does seem to make sense for me, but I can see arguments against it.

[McMurdo]

(Original post by RalphsDisciple)
Because the exam's aren't asking them to read and write perfectly and as quickly as possible, their exams are asking them to answer the questions. Just because they're dyslexic doesn't mean they don't know the material just as well as everyone else. They should have an equal opportunity to answer the questions as fully and as best they can.

^ Dyslexic.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
These are fair points, and I was playing devil's advocate initially, but then such allowances won't be made for dyslexic people in the workplace etc.

I would say overall, extra time does seem to make sense for me, but I can see arguments against it.

As I've mentioned earlier, what workplace requires you to work like you're in an exam?
While I understand some of the arguments against it, having studied dyslexia for my dissertation, none of them actually make sense. Dyslexics still meet coursework deadlines (or at least the ones I know do) - which would work on the same principle for doing assignments at work - and they still do general tasks. The only deficits related to the workplace I could see would be reading badly handwritten notes and taking a little bit longer to tune out outside noise (can be reduced with coping strategies that they'll probably have by then). So just write clearly for the dyslexic secretary (if I was dyslexic I most likely wouldn't be a secretary tbh) and they'll work harder when it's quieter and take their break if there's something they can't filter out (Mark down the hall's LOUD wife has popped into the office and her voice is annoying, a random example pulled from my stupid brain).

Edited to respond to your edit:

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
Surely really stupid people won't fall within this curve... they still don't get extra time though.

Like I said earlier, really stupid people (assuming by 'stupid' you mean with limited knowledge, poor memories etc.) won't get extra knowledge from having extra time. The dyslexics have the knowledge, they just need the time to write it down.

[joefoxon]

(Original post by cyfer)
Note: they would not sell fewer bulks, only produce less material on average and perhaps of a lower grammatical quality

Oh the irony...

[manchesterunited15]

I remember once seeing someone on here who employs people saying how employers are basically being tricked, because they're not told that someone's been given extra time so when they're working they're just slower than everyone else. So even though their grades would suggest that they would be just as good at the job, they're not.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by cyfer)
GCSEs are SUPPOSED to prepare one for real life hence you should not be given extra time because you wouldn't be given extra time to do a job in real life - or if you took longer you would not get promoted. If they had lower GCSE grades in the first place it would deny them those top end jobs that they wouldn't be able to get anyway.

Yes birth does count a lot for what you can make of yourself, no you cannot get anywhere with enough hard work. Society should stop trying to promote the fallacy of the latter.

As I keep saying, what job requires you to read and then handwrite and re-read an essay in an hour?

Note: they would not sell fewer bulks, only produce less material on average and perhaps of a lower grammatical quality

Why? They can still produce the words - they're dyslexic, not dysphasic - I don't know a dyslexic person who can't dictate or type to a normal standard and editors are there to fix grammar etc.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
I remember once seeing someone on here who employs people saying how employers are basically being tricked, because they're not told that someone's been given extra time so when they're working they're just slower than everyone else. So even though their grades would suggest that they would be just as good at the job, they're not.

Yeah, those poor employers being tricked into thinking they were getting someone who could read a question, write an essay and then reread it in an hour! Such an important skill in every workplace. Damn dyslexics tricking the system getting extra time!
Oh, wait...

(I know you didn't present this explicitly as your opinion, but this it what I would say if it was your opinion).

[plimsolls]

Hello Mr Authority on Dyslexia.

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Yeah, those poor employers being tricked into thinking they were getting someone who could read a question, write an essay and then reread it in an hour! Such an important skill in every workplace. Damn dyslexics tricking the system getting extra time!
Oh, wait...

(I know you didn't present this explicitly as your opinion, but this it what I would say if it was your opinion).

No, but if you're working for an 8 hour day, more of your time will be spent on reading and writing than another person with equal grades who didn't get extra time. You don't get a 25% longer working day do you...

[tpxvs]

(Original post by Ree69)
The two students with dyslexia at my school were ridiculously good at Maths and Physics A-Level. One's at Cambridge now studying engineering.

The fact that they're smarter than me (and dare I say most students) in such subjects and are given extra time does annoy me.

THis.


I have a friend who was atleast equally capable as I (just that he messed up his final exams and got AAB rather than AAA+ for medicine) but hes still doing a great course at a great uni. I'd probably say during lessons he was more probably more capable than me, hed explain concepts to me/basically teach me loads of stuff! it was always a bit annoying to see he had like 6 hours or something crazy to do each exam in while the rest of us had about a third that. He felt guilty too, but its one of those things isnt it - if your eligible why not take it kinda attitude. He was also allowed to take a drink/biscuits into the exam lol and hed chill and do the exam sloooowwwwwwwly, taking toilet breaks, getting more food etc. Although i dont mind as hes a good friend, bottom line is: its not fair.

I suppose in other cases where the studentt genuinely struggles it is a bit different. This friend of mine used to finish mocks quicker than most of us in lessons - he was just really bright, messed up a tad in the finals to not get straight As thats all.

As much as i want the world to be fair and equal for everyone... truth is, it doesnt work like that. If i was dying - I'd rather the doctor who doesnt have any mental/academic "defects" and can act fast rather than one that did. In the world of work, it should all change. This reminded me of PRince William and his job, hes no longer a prince when working.. Likewise people with health/academic problems should strive to better themselves in other ways. My other severely dyslexic friend is doing a pure maths degree in a top institute! It is possible to "succeed" in life, just focus on your strengths.... I think in this day and age we're trying to be too politically correct that its.. incorrect.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
No, but if you're working for an 8 hour day, more of your time will be spent on reading and writing than another person with equal grades who didn't get extra time. You don't get a 25% longer working day do you...

The reading speed of a dyslexic can be improved through coloured overlays and monocular occlusion (covering one eye) in most cases; I also can't think, besides office jobs where you would possibly be able to take your work home with you, therefore essentially adding the extra 25% to the working day if it is needed, when you'd have to read for most of your working day.
And I can't think of many jobs that require you to actually write by hand rather than type: waitresses would probably use shorthand so it wouldn't make that much of a difference, teachers might write on the board but they'd probably do that slow to make it clear or use a powerpoint if they have a smartboard, and secretaries might make handwritten notes but could just as easily make digital notes.

[tpxvs]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Stupid people won't gain more knowledge by having more time in an exam. As exams are supposed to test knowledge, and not the speed of your reading and writing, why should dyslexics be penalised by not being able to show their knowledge (which they have providing they revised etc., to be diagnosed with dyslexia you have to have a specific deficit that is dissociated from intelligence and memory etc.) because they can't read the question or write the answer down quickly enough, when they will never have to write an essay in an hour at any point except in an exam?

I wouldnt say this is fully correct. Like me, a lot of people may have had exams where they have enough knowledge to excel but they just didnt have enough time to put their knowledge on paper. PErsonally, i am a very slow reader but faster. When i first started taking exams at AS I always ran out of time and hence my results (from ordering papers back) showed iv got almost 100% on what iv answered, its just i ran out of itme to finish. Therefore, i tried hard to improve my reading and writing speed (some of my friends joke and say maybe im dyslexic - maybe i am, i mean i have never been tested!) But with practice i improved my writing speed drastically, reading however - my brain just cant handle it, its not a physical task. Maybe there are people who cant write fast either so they are overall screwed? And as they arent dyslexic , arent getting enough time to reach their potential in exams - is this fair?

Its not as simple as normal and dyslexic, i take it theres stage inbetween.. so surely how much time you egt should reflect this rather than normal time and fixed extra time. Maybe i do have a reading difficulty, yet iv had to try and find a way to compensate and get on with it because thats how the real world works anyway.. I cant say to my patient 5 years from now 'i know youre dying, but hang on let me just read this properly, will take me a while' ... :/ this is something that does worry me but iv been accepted to uni for medicine having got my As/A*s so maybe you can have flaws but need to overcompensate in other areas..?