[shezshez]

Your argument about the numbers thing is invalid, the term dyslexia is often used incorrectly as a broad term for people who struggle to process information, people can have dyscalculia which is problems reading and processing numbers. That is why they get extra time - because it takes people with dyslexia and dyscalculia longer to process the information in front of them.

[A Mysterious Lord]

Someone I went to college with is dyslexic, he told me on more than one occasion he didn't need extra time. I asked him why he gets it and he simply responded "because I'm entitled to it"

[Sapphirex]

I do agree that it is unfair, as one girl was allowed to use a laptop for her English exams instead of handwriting it...yet she's very bright o_O and only a small handful of people in my year are allowed extra time but not all are 'dyslexic' they get 25% more time. Dyslexic people are slower apparently in reading and understanding the question that's just to my knowledge, but I get how it is unfair!!!

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by ITGIRL)
People like her are the reason why are education system is flawed. Everyone should be given equal amount of time. This concept of being 'dyslexic' is just smoke screen for people who failed to read and write in primary school.

No, she has a specific problem that means she can't read black on white as well. Either she should get her exam papers printed in a colour she can read and be allowed answer booklets that colour as well or she should get extra time to account for the reading time that she needs. If she was working in an office she'd be able to have a coloured overlay on her computer screen to the same effect, so it only affects her exam performance and not her ability to know the things she's being examined on or her ability to work.
And if you think dyslexia is a 'smoke screen for people who failed to read and write in primary school' you quite clearly know nothing about dyslexia. Dyslexics have specific deficits in reading and writing and for a diagnosis to be given these problems have to be dissociated from other problems like low IQ. They also show a neurological difference, they lack the left hemisphere advantage (I think it's left, I read that paper two weeks ago and don't have it to hand to check) that a neurotypical person demonstrates. This accounts for their specific deficits; they're not just thick.

We are human we are equal. If you unable to do something then don't do it, if you know what the problem is work on it! Under no circumstance should people be given extra time.

Yeah, we're all equal. So nobody should be able to wear glasses, just sort out your eye problem. Wheelchair? Nah, just sort your leg problem.
Dyslexia isn't something you can get rid of. You can minimise it though coping strategies such as coloured overlays and, oh, extra time - but you can't just get it to go away. And as I said earlier, and keep mentioning, it's a SPECIFIC DEFICIT that doesn't apply to all situations, just reading and writing.

If you believe your condition warrants better treatment then they should make a special exam for these people. This special exam would allow people to differentiate between the two different people.

This is the stupidest idea I've heard, and I've been on TSR a while... If you had a neurotypical person and a dyslexic person who both had the same IQ, both performed equally well if you verbally questioned them on their course, both make their coursework deadlines on time and to the same standard, academically identical except for the specific reading and writing deficit etc. why should the dyslexic person be penalised or need to be differentiated between because of needing a coping strategy to deal with something they will NEVER have to do again in the working world?

[Add!ction]

I think some people genuinely have difficulty but they play on their dyslexia too much. People are too quick to blame mistakes on their dyslexia. I personally believe they are given too much extra time. How long is it before we stretch to other disabilities? I know a girl who achieved A and A* grades for her GCSE'S but as soon as she was diagnosed her A level grades dropped to E's and U's. Surely, she's had dyslexia all her life, it doesn't just suddenly come on.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
But for the purposes of exams, is the disability not equivalent to the extreme end of a distribution of differing reading abilities amongst the general population?

No. The general population usually fall under a normal bell curve, but to include dyslexics in this would show a positive skew, increasing the numbers at the low end. This is because the reading abilities of dyslexics do not fit within the normal distribution, they are specifically and abnormally low. Now normally this doesn't make that much of a difference when coping strategies are applied - coloured papers/overlays, specific fonts etc. But often these conditions can't be had in exams, so the extra time compensates for it instead.
But they don't fall in the normal distribution, no.

[stillgotlegs]

(Original post by EMPStudent)
I don't have a problem with finishing exams in time, I never said that. Maybe you misread what I wrote. I'm sorry to hear that you're dyslexic.

I'm not dyslexic, and you shouldn't be using it as an insult either.

[Jenx301]

(Original post by Sapphirex)
I do agree that it is unfair, as one girl was allowed to use a laptop for her English exams instead of handwriting it...yet she's very bright o_O and only a small handful of people in my year are allowed extra time but not all are 'dyslexic' they get 25% more time. Dyslexic people are slower apparently in reading and understanding the question that's just to my knowledge, but I get how it is unfair!!!

Just because someone is bright, doesn't mean they don't need a computer or extra time. Dyslexia isn't the only thing that gets people extra time- do you actually know for sure these people don't have other problems that mean they need a bit more support for their exams.

I may be biased as I get extra times and a computer (im not dyslexic but do have another condition) but it does get to me when people assume that we are taking advantage or that it's unfair. I tell you what, all the people who complain about this, I am pretty sure the dyslexics would give you their condition so you can have a bit of extra time in your exam. Would that make you feel better? because I know I would gladly give up my extra time in return for having no problems.

Just sayin'

[jennifex]

(Original post by kayjay)
It's silly that dyslexics get extra time, while bad handwriting can be penalised: so if a non dyslexic has really bad writing that can only be better with extra time gets punished despite knowing their stuff, then why should dyslexic people get preferential treatment.

And wrt jobs that would be difficult, I imagine any sort of job with a heavy Reading burden such as research, law and others dyslexia would be a disadvantage to the employer.

But bad handwriting isn't a disability. If you have bad handwriting, and you have an exam for which you are scored on handwriting, you can get better by practising. It's like saying people who can't think quickly enough should be given extra time, people who aren't as clever should be given extra tim, people who aren't as good at the subject should be given extra time. These are things which just vary between people. They're not disabilities, they are variations in normal ability.

People with dyslexia have a fundamental difficulty with reading and writing which is not going to get better with practice and is not their fault. Compared to their overall abilities, their reading and writing is lagging behind due to factors completely out of their control. Obviously they should still be able to demonstrate their abilities. I think you're being a bit harsh, as it's not like they don't still have to read and write at all, even with the extra time the exam will still be at least as challenging for them as it is for other people.

It's not like they are saying "have 100% on reading and writing for this exam because you're dyslexic!", they're just getting an extra 15 minutes or whatever to decode words. It's not a big deal!

[RalphsDisciple]

(Original post by McMurdo)
^ Dyslexic.

I'm not dyslexic, but I do have a dyslexic friend who was refused extra time because apparently, he's not dyslexic enough, and I know how much of a struggle he's been finding his exams.

[Hannah196]

how much extra minutes do dyslexic people get in exams?

[Jackso]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
I am dyslexic, I have never had any extra time in exams, I have never needed it. Exams are there to test ability, if mine is limited then so be it.

I get really pissed off with thick peoplpe who say "oh I'm not stupid, I'm just dyslexic".

1. If you did need the time then obviously you wouldn't be saying that. You must only have very slight dyslexic tendencies if you don't need extra time as the vast majority require it.

2. When trying to smugly look down at others and call them "thick", it helps not to follow up that word with a glaring spelling mistake.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by EMPStudent)
Surely that's not fair. Their incapability of reading and writing is an intellectual flaw, which will not be given an advantage in the real world at work. This especially annoys me in maths exams. It's mostly numbers, so it's stupid that extra time is given. It's like giving someone extra time to do their english exam if they can't count.

What do you think?

They usually get extra time because their inability to read properly does not allow them to demonstrate their true knowledge. In the world of work you'll probably find 5 minutes extra to understand something is not a lot. Dyslexia isn't really an intellectual flaw, people should not be held back by something which can be overcome and so get lost in the education system. Someone can be very clever and not be able to demonstrate their intelligence due to dyslexia.

I'm dyspraxic and I used to be dyslexic but I've overcome it now (as tested by an educational psychologist). It's basically a developmental disorder in a sense. In my younger years I rarely used my extra time but I did need it occasionally. It helped me keep up in the classes I was meant to be in. I'm an intelligent person now, dyspraxia is not a problem for me any more. I owe this to my good education which you're potentially saying I should had been deprived of by not allowing myself to demonstrate my true abilities.

I'm more angry by the countless number of people who are wrongly diagnosed with dyslexia and given extra time. People who really are stupid are given extra time for being stupid. This is much more of a problem.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Jackso)
1. If you did need the time then obviously you wouldn't be saying that. You must only have very slight dyslexic tendencies if you don't need extra time as the vast majority require it.

2. When trying to smugly look down at others and call them "thick", it helps not to follow up that word with a glaring spelling mistake.

The only people I called thick are those who are and use dyslexia as an excuse for it. I have been offered extra time but I turned it down. IMO, the majority of those who have extra time don't actually need it.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
That wasn't what I asked. I asked what job requires you to read, write and reread an essay within an hour? In most jobs the difference in reading and writing won't really be as noticeable as it would be in an exam because you're not under the same pressures. In fact, you never have to do anything exactly like an exam again, so why should your future in which your differences will hardly make a difference be affected because you struggle to do something you will never have to do ever again?

Example: I want to be an academic/university lecturer (I'm not dyslexic, but let's assume I am for the purposes of this example). I would have to read an awful lot, but I can print in different colours on different coloured papers or use coloured overlays to reduce pattern glare. When it comes to writing papers etc. I would be typing rather than handwriting, which isn't a problem for dyslexics as long as they have a dyslexic friendly font. The only problem I would really have would be reading student's essays in which I can't control paper colour and font type and size - but I could still use overlays and would be marking them in my own time, so it would only take me a little bit longer, and I could take them home with me etc. so that would pretty much equate to the extra 25%.
Real life example: My mum used to work in a creche. The only real reading she would have to do on the job would be to read children's books to the children. And children's books are incredibly easy to read, even for dyslexics. When she had to fill out paperwork there was only one thing that was filled out by hand, and it was simply a list of times each child was changed/fed etc. At a ratio of 1:4 1-3 year olds, her taking a second longer to write down each time for each child isn't going to affect her ability to do her job. The rest of the paperwork was done on computer - which she doesn't struggle with.
Another real life example: I have a dyslexic friend who is a waitress. She has to handwrite orders and sometimes be able to read a menu if someone else struggles to read it. By the time she'd been there a month she'd memorised the menu well enough to not have to read every word, and the shorthand that she wrote down orders in meant she could get her handwriting neat enough will a negligible difference in writing speed.
Example of a dyslexic novelist: They can still type, did you just ignore that bit. And I was referring to dictation such as to a digital dictation software for the original writing. I think I said edits would be the only thing that would maybe take a little bit longer, but if the editor types their comments or has really clear handwriting on a particular coloured paper, this can be reduced. And I know at least 2 novelists, and they're always early with their deadlines for edits, so no problems with it taking an extra few days!

Don't get too hung up on the idea that written information doesn't have to be interpreted fast. I knew someone training to drive ships who was dyslexic and used it as an excuse - he could not plot an accurate fix anything like fast enough. That entails taking down written information fast, then reading it back and plotting where the ship is - fast. If it's not done fast the safety of the ship can be jeopardised. I don't know whether it was down to his dyslexia or whether it was just an excuse, but there are examples of jobs where taking a little more time over things isn't acceptable.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
Don't get too hung up on the idea that written information doesn't have to be interpreted fast. I knew someone training to drive ships who was dyslexic and used it as an excuse - he could not plot an accurate fix anything like fast enough. That entails taking down written information fast, then reading it back and plotting where the ship is - fast. If it's not done fast the safety of the ship can be jeopardised. I don't know whether it was down to his dyslexia or whether it was just an excuse, but there are examples of jobs where taking a little more time over things isn't acceptable.

Yes, there are certain examples of jobs - dyslexics aren't allowed to join the Army for example - but they would be informed of this by a careers officer before they poured their efforts into getting qualifications that would lead you into these jobs. But there is no reason that a dyslexic person couldn't work as a teacher (my best friend's sister does) or as a crèche worker (as my mum used to) or a multitude of other jobs that all need qualifications and therefore require you to sit exams, but don't require you ever perform in that way again!
Yes, in some jobs you can't have extra time and they require certain skills that dyslexics have deficits in and so dyslexics can't do them, but similarly people with no legs also can't join the army... It's a disability, and it doesn't mean we should take their coping mechanisms away because there are some things/jobs they can't do. The majority of jobs they can still do, so it is important for them to get qualifications and not be penalised for something that won't affect them in a majority of jobs.

[TheSownRose]

Dyslexics aren't necessarily stupid, they're just slower in word processing. This may well be a disadvantage in the real world and, if it is, I daresay dyslexic people find their search for a job is affected by the appropriate amount.

However, exams aren't the real world. They're not testing real world efficiency, they're testing someone's ability to retain information and then regurgitate it on command. Because dyslexics aren't simply stupid, they have the ability to perform the task it just may take them longer to do it coherently, you do need some way of levelling the playing field.

But it does seem unfair that this 'luxury' only applies to dyslexics and a select few learning disorders. I have migraines that knock out word processing and I'm still a bit addled a few days later. I don't get extra time because I may need it to puzzle over words or form a sensible sentence.

To sum up: You do need something, but maybe the actual system should be re-evaluated?

[_Say_Goodbye_]

I'm not dyslexic, but if I didn't have extra time, I don't know how on earth I would cope with exams. Ever since I was young I've just been a little bit slower than other people. I took a dyslexia test at school and I scored distinctly above average in everything (reading, spelling and a couple of other things), however in the 'processing' side of the test, I scored way below average, which I don't know exactly what it means apart from the fact that I struggle to get anywhere near completing exams.

It's a system that may be abused on occasion, but the majority of people who take it, do in fact need the time in order to perform to their upmost ability, so yeahhh quit hating!

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Yes, there are certain examples of jobs - dyslexics aren't allowed to join the Army for example - but they would be informed of this by a careers officer before they poured their efforts into getting qualifications that would lead you into these jobs. But there is no reason that a dyslexic person couldn't work as a teacher (my best friend's sister does) or as a crèche worker (as my mum used to) or a multitude of other jobs that all need qualifications and therefore require you to sit exams, but don't require you ever perform in that way again!
Yes, in some jobs you can't have extra time and they require certain skills that dyslexics have deficits in and so dyslexics can't do them, but similarly people with no legs also can't join the army... It's a disability, and it doesn't mean we should take their coping mechanisms away because there are some things/jobs they can't do. The majority of jobs they can still do, so it is important for them to get qualifications and not be penalised for something that won't affect them in a majority of jobs.

Haha, dyslexia certainly doesn't stop you joining the Army! I know quite a few dyslexics in the military. It also doesn't require too much in the way of qualifications!
The problem is your argument cuts both ways. There are plenty of reasons for under-performing in exams, of which very few are compensated for, but dyslexia is one. Therefore those that perform slowly for other reasons are at a disadvantage to those who do get compensated. I realise that the world isn't fair and exams will never be a perfect system, but I'm not sure there's a huge amount of credibility to saying that some should have more time than others in timed testing. At the end of the day I don't really care much either way - in the real job the test is whether you can do your job, not whether you can give a reasonable excuse for not being able to do it.

Also I don't think it's very helpful to start labelling issues like this as a disability.

[ZOMFG_it'sCaiters]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
That wasn't what I asked. I asked what job requires you to read, write and reread an essay within an hour? In most jobs the difference in reading and writing won't really be as noticeable as it would be in an exam because you're not under the same pressures. In fact, you never have to do anything exactly like an exam again, so why should your future in which your differences will hardly make a difference be affected because you struggle to do something you will never have to do ever again?

Example: I want to be an academic/university lecturer (I'm not dyslexic, but let's assume I am for the purposes of this example). I would have to read an awful lot, but I can print in different colours on different coloured papers or use coloured overlays to reduce pattern glare. When it comes to writing papers etc. I would be typing rather than handwriting, which isn't a problem for dyslexics as long as they have a dyslexic friendly font. The only problem I would really have would be reading student's essays in which I can't control paper colour and font type and size - but I could still use overlays and would be marking them in my own time, so it would only take me a little bit longer, and I could take them home with me etc. so that would pretty much equate to the extra 25%.
Real life example: My mum used to work in a creche. The only real reading she would have to do on the job would be to read children's books to the children. And children's books are incredibly easy to read, even for dyslexics. When she had to fill out paperwork there was only one thing that was filled out by hand, and it was simply a list of times each child was changed/fed etc. At a ratio of 1:4 1-3 year olds, her taking a second longer to write down each time for each child isn't going to affect her ability to do her job. The rest of the paperwork was done on computer - which she doesn't struggle with.
Another real life example: I have a dyslexic friend who is a waitress. She has to handwrite orders and sometimes be able to read a menu if someone else struggles to read it. By the time she'd been there a month she'd memorised the menu well enough to not have to read every word, and the shorthand that she wrote down orders in meant she could get her handwriting neat enough will a negligible difference in writing speed.
Example of a dyslexic novelist: They can still type, did you just ignore that bit. And I was referring to dictation such as to a digital dictation software for the original writing. I think I said edits would be the only thing that would maybe take a little bit longer, but if the editor types their comments or has really clear handwriting on a particular coloured paper, this can be reduced. And I know at least 2 novelists, and they're always early with their deadlines for edits, so no problems with it taking an extra few days!

I'm no expert in dyslexia but in all of your arguments, you always mention overlays in different jobs, yadah yadah yadah. Instead of extra time, why can't they be give colour overlays or wear their tinted glasses? I really don't think extra is necessary for some dyslexic people. It is extremely unfair for those who are border line dyslexic to get as much extra time as those who are extremely dyslexic.