[ITGIRL]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
f

Are you dyslexic?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by xylas)
No, bell curves tell you how they set time limits not why they set time limits.

So... If you have as much time as you need you could regain your thought.

4.5 hours is enough I think it's only reasonable. Until exams can be sat at home, with the problem of cheating overcome, this will have to do but it's a lot better than what we have now.

Exam clashes also need to be sorted out. If you're suggesting retakes complicate things, I don't think retakes should be allowed in a system where you have as much time as you need first time round.

As you admit below (red text), thinking under pressure should not be tested for. Standardisation would not be done on time therefore. Currently there is a lack of standardisation as certain people enjoy extra time over others. My suggestion is an obvious improvement.

I know what dyslexia is. Time pressure would not be a factor if everyone has as much time as they need. I would like to point out that a significant number of people who do not have a medical condition are granted extra time (slow handwriting, illegible handwriting etc.) and these differences will be removed in favour of standardisation if time was not constrained.

Thank you for agreeing on something that is very important to this issue. It should now be obvious for you that having time pressure eliminated is step in the right direction towards bettering the system we have now as it ONLY tests knowledge and skill.

It's ridiculous for you to have just been talking about logistics of time limits to now give a weak reason such as "reward laziness" to back yourself up. Laziness has nothing to do with exams that test knowledge and skill. If you're a genius who is lazy but knows a subject well and is able to demonstrate his knowledge then you deserve the highest marks.

Also, as Spicey said above, Dyslexics should currently tick a box or something to "standardise" exam results by showing they are not under the same conditions. Otherwise it lowers the standard of the qualification.

I'm not interested in arguing whether or not there should be time limits tbh. But here's my general thoughts anyway: it isn't practical, yes we're not testing time pressures but there shouldn't be too much pressure anyway because most people should be able to finish in that time. Resits would still have to be allowed, an unlimited amount of time does not mean an unlimited amount of knowledge - a friend of mine left a 2 and a half hour exam (that's with 25% added, was only two hours for me) an hour and a half early because she didn't know any more answers - she then resat and got a B. Also if someone misses a January sitting for extenuating circumstances and has to sit both in June, technically not a resit but still a scheduling complication.

In regards to dyslexia, the added time is to promote standardisation, to give them the same opportunity to pass the exam as a neurotypical has!

And can I ask you not to type in that colour, it gave me a headache.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by ITGIRL)
Are you dyslexic?

I don't really see why this is relevant.

[PhysicsGirl]

(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?

Arguments based on the idea that in "the real world", people aren't awarded "extra time", therefore they shouldn't have extra time in exams are usually quite flawed;
1) It's blaming the victim; it's saying you have a disadvantage, and you're going to have to live with this disadvantage for the rest of your life, and so learn to cope with it, take it on the chin and don't ask for help, don't ask for special treatment, because you're not going to always have it in every circumstance. This is a truly bizarre attitude. It's akin to saying you would only ever receive help if someone was around to give it, therefore you shouldn't ever ask for help, because you won't always get it and you might (oh the danger!) get used to it when it makes things better for you.
2) I have rarely been put in an environment outside of college where I am under such phenomenal pressure that I am entirely unable to take extra time to do something. People don't often force me to sit down, comprehend something whilst they watch and time me as I do it. No. I can interpret leaflets, letters, emails, reports, bus timetables, books, newspapers, adverts, webpages etcetera etcetera at my leisure. In the world of work, my disadvantage means I have to work longer hours, not that I contribute less. It means I have to work harder, employ coping strategies and organise myself better. And honestly, to everyone out there, when was the last time your employer said to you; "Right, I've got these questions I want you to answer. You have one hour, and you're not allowed to use any additional resources bar your own knowledge. GO!" Exams aren't representative of "real-world" situations. They really aren't.

Disclaimer of bias: I receive 25% extra time in my exams because I have dyspraxia (which isn't really that similar to dyslexia, but everyone seems to be attacking all people that are afforded extra time, so, yeah.)

[RachelSophia]

(Original post by RedLizzie)
I think that you are vastly over simplifying dyslexia here. It is not merely having poorer reading or writing skills. Although this is a common component of dyslexia it is not the unitary symptom. Personally, as a dyslexic I think that my writing and reading skills are equal to most people of a similar academic level. The difference is the time it takes me to reach the same point. Thus the extra time allows me to demonstrate to exam boards and markers the knowledge and ability that I have. I also think that the derogatory and patronising tone of your comment is quite offensive. I have had to work incredibly hard to achieve my academic results and in September I will be starting work as an English teacher. This is testament to the results that I have achieved and the fact that dyslexia is not merely a manifestation of lower ability.

I didn't say you have a lower ability now did I?
The point I'm trying to make is that there could be so many different factors happening to me [someone who doesn't have dyslexia] causing my focus in an exam to dwindle or making it harder for me to read questions in the exam and therefore in all fairness i would need more time, but it would not be granted to me because i don't have dyslexia. Which is unfair. We could be of exact equal intelligence...

My views on this are as they are because i knew a girl in my GCSE Science group who was dyslexic, and we answered multiple choice questions, she had extra time to colour in circles and always mocked the rest of us because the extra time allowed to her to spend more time on calculations, go back and check answers several times and think about what she could improve. we were all racing the clock.

[Witty Username]

(Original post by RachelSophia)
I didn't say you have a lower ability now did I?
The point I'm trying to make is that there could be so many different factors happening to me [someone who doesn't have dyslexia] causing my focus in an exam to dwindle or making it harder for me to read questions in the exam and therefore in all fairness i would need more time, but it would not be granted to me because i don't have dyslexia. Which is unfair. We could be of exact equal intelligence...

My views on this are as they are because i knew a girl in my GCSE Science group who was dyslexic, and we answered multiple choice questions, she had extra time to colour in circles and always mocked the rest of us because the extra time allowed to her to spend more time on calculations, go back and check answers several times and think about what she could improve. we were all racing the clock.

But you mentioned migraines- if they affected your concentration seriously enough you would, the same with other similar conditions. The girl from your science class sounds like a tool if she was boasting the way you've described.

[Stray]

(Original post by RachelSophia)
The point I'm trying to make is that there could be so many different factors happening to me [someone who doesn't have dyslexia] causing my focus in an exam to dwindle or making it harder for me to read questions in the exam and therefore in all fairness i would need more time, but it would not be granted to me because i don't have dyslexia. Which is unfair.

The argument that because it's not perfectly fair we shouldn't do what's reasonable to make it fairer for the people who are most consistently disadvantaged is a straw man.

People with spLD aren't just disadvantaged in the exam, they have to put extra effort in to attain the same results nearly all the time - including revision and classwork. And that's their experience at school for the whole 13 or 14 years they attend!

We can make small adjustments such as working on a laptop to try to reduce that imbalance, but it's inadequate, so to give them an extra 30 minutes on a 2 hour exam hardly compensates for a whole school lifetime of working up hill, with systems that are rarely designed for their needs (most target neurotypical people) and so on.

Having a bad day (or week, or month) is not equivalent to spending year after year struggling with particular problems. None-the-less, if you have a genuine illness, crisis or personal problem during your exams, there is a process in place to allow that to be assessed and for adjustments to your grade to be made if appropriate.

As for your experience with the person in your Science Exam - extrapolating a general rule from a single case study is an indicator that you really need to focus your attention on your own understanding of scientific method. No?

[Safiyyah95]

(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?

Intellectual flaw? I'm pretty sure dyslexia does not mean you're less clever. They're given more time, because their disability is not seen as an intellectual flaw. Because it's not. And I understand if you're doing GCSEs or something were you don't have to write much, but in A level Math exams, there's quite a bit of writing involved. You just need to be more understanding.

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by Sam_1996)
To be honest,you shouldnt care what other people do and have,focus on your own exams.

Of course you should, you're basically competing against other people, that's the point of exams.

[alexs2602]

(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.

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.

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.

The ignorance in this post is too damn high.

[Moscardini]

I think the concept of extra time for those who don't have a genuine disability is stupid. I mean yes I think those with dyslexia should get it but those who write slow or have messy hand writing shouldn't. I have a friend who gets extra time because she has 'small hands' which I think is stupid.

[In One Ear]

(Original post by Safiyyah95)
Intellectual flaw? I'm pretty sure dyslexia does not mean you're less clever. They're given more time, because their disability is not seen as an intellectual flaw. Because it's not. And I understand if you're doing GCSEs or something were you don't have to write much, but in A level Math exams, there's quite a bit of writing involved. You just need to be more understanding.

"They're given more time, because their disability is not seen as an intellectual flaw. Because it's not."

This really summarises for me whats so annoying about this topic; if you do not regard dyslexia as an intellectual flaw, why the hell do you think dyslexic people should get an advantage in an intellectual exam!?

Its a disability by definition because it impedes efficient cognitive functioning. That also makes it a flaw with regards to cognitive performance.

At the end of the day, we are not allowed to negatively discriminating (when dealing with job applicants/race/gender etc) yet we are allowed to positively discriminate for people with disabilities? Except at the end of the day that is actually just negative discrimination in disguise because by definition if you aid one party in attaining something (be it a job/exam grade) you make it harder for all other parties to achieve the same thing. It comes down to many suffering a bit or a few suffering more. Those given extra time in exams not only have an unfair advantage from the extra time, but they make it actively harder for all others to achieve their desired result by inflating boundaries due to their improved performance. I think at the very least those with extra time in exams (for whatever reason) should not have their scores taken into consideration when determining overall grade boundaries. The grade boundaries should be determined only by the majority taking the test under the same conditions.

[xylas]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not there should be time limits tbh. But here's my general thoughts anyway: it isn't practical, yes we're not testing time pressures but there shouldn't be too much pressure anyway because most people should be able to finish in that time. Resits would still have to be allowed, an unlimited amount of time does not mean an unlimited amount of knowledge - a friend of mine left a 2 and a half hour exam (that's with 25% added, was only two hours for me) an hour and a half early because she didn't know any more answers - she then resat and got a B. Also if someone misses a January sitting for extenuating circumstances and has to sit both in June, technically not a resit but still a scheduling complication.

In regards to dyslexia, the added time is to promote standardisation, to give them the same opportunity to pass the exam as a neurotypical has!

And can I ask you not to type in that colour, it gave me a headache.

Yeah, I realised it was a bad colour choice only after I posted

Well I do not agree with you that adding time for dyslexic people is an act of standardisation as it goes against the definition of a standard: "A level of quality or attainment". Unfortunately what you don't realise, and what you have not replied to, is that the quality of the qualification attained is reduced if some people are artificially allowed to get extra marks over the rest. This system gets abused as even if you are dyslexic, 25% for some is too much added time and for others still too little. Not to mention some people don't have it as bad as dyslexia but still get the full 25%. It is an arbitrary figure that is extremely unfair.

If you are not interested in arguing about time limits you are on the wrong thread as I am applying what is currently being given to some people (25% added time) and suggesting that everyone could have it to increase standardisation.

Your unlimited knowledge point is mundane as I am not suggesting everyone will get full marks in the test as this defeats the purpose of a test.

Thanks for your general thoughts, but what you have said about most people finishing under the time limit is not realistic. We have a problem now as it is all about exam technique (which is why you care so much about giving dyslexics support in this area; you are not suggesting they can have notes with them). My solution is practical and I know that it can't just be implemented instantly but after a year of gradual change it can be/ should be done.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by xylas)
If you are not interested in arguing about time limits you are on the wrong thread as I am applying what is currently being given to some people (25% added time) and suggesting that everyone could have it to increase standardisation.

Your unlimited knowledge point is mundane as I am not suggesting everyone will get full marks in the test as this defeats the purpose of a test.

Thanks for your general thoughts, but what you have said about most people finishing under the time limit is not realistic. We have a problem now as it is all about exam technique (which is why you care so much about giving dyslexics support in this area; you are not suggesting they can have notes with them). My solution is practical and I know that it can't just be implemented instantly but after a year of gradual change it can be/ should be done.

No, you're going off topic talking about abolishing time limits rather than the topic of the OP which is: within the current exam system, why should there be extra time for dyslexics?
If you'd like to discuss abolishing time limits on exams, make your own thread and discuss that.

Well I do not agree with you that adding time for dyslexic people is an act of standardisation as it goes against the definition of a standard: "A level of quality or attainment". Unfortunately what you don't realise, and what you have not replied to, is that the quality of the qualification attained is reduced if some people are artificially allowed to get extra marks over the rest. This system gets abused as even if you are dyslexic, 25% for some is too much added time and for others still too little. Not to mention some people don't have it as bad as dyslexia but still get the full 25%. It is an arbitrary figure that is extremely unfair.

The point of giving dyslexics extra time isn't to artificially allow them them 'get extra marks over the rest', it is to allow them the opportunity to achieve the same marks as the rest if they have the same amount of knowledge.
And of course it's too much for some people and too little for others, do I have to go back to the bell curve idea?
I don't know what you mean about 'some people don't have it as bad as dyslexia'.
And it might not be 100% fair, and it is by no means flawless, but it doesn't mean it should be gotten rid of, because that would also be unfair (and I would argue more unfair).

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by PhysicsGirl)
Arguments based on the idea that in "the real world", people aren't awarded "extra time", therefore they shouldn't have extra time in exams are usually quite flawed;
1) It's blaming the victim; it's saying you have a disadvantage, and you're going to have to live with this disadvantage for the rest of your life, and so learn to cope with it, take it on the chin and don't ask for help, don't ask for special treatment, because you're not going to always have it in every circumstance. This is a truly bizarre attitude. It's akin to saying you would only ever receive help if someone was around to give it, therefore you shouldn't ever ask for help, because you won't always get it and you might (oh the danger!) get used to it when it makes things better for you.
2) I have rarely been put in an environment outside of college where I am under such phenomenal pressure that I am entirely unable to take extra time to do something. People don't often force me to sit down, comprehend something whilst they watch and time me as I do it. No. I can interpret leaflets, letters, emails, reports, bus timetables, books, newspapers, adverts, webpages etcetera etcetera at my leisure. In the world of work, my disadvantage means I have to work longer hours, not that I contribute less. It means I have to work harder, employ coping strategies and organise myself better. And honestly, to everyone out there, when was the last time your employer said to you; "Right, I've got these questions I want you to answer. You have one hour, and you're not allowed to use any additional resources bar your own knowledge. GO!" Exams aren't representative of "real-world" situations. They really aren't.

Disclaimer of bias: I receive 25% extra time in my exams because I have dyspraxia (which isn't really that similar to dyslexia, but everyone seems to be attacking all people that are afforded extra time, so, yeah.)

I'll go out on a limb here and say that you'd still expect to be paid for these extra hours you worked, and at the same time as a non-dyslexic person?

[xylas]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
No, you're going off topic talking about abolishing time limits rather than the topic of the OP which is: within the current exam system, why should there be extra time for dyslexics?
If you'd like to discuss abolishing time limits on exams, make your own thread and discuss that.

Are you going to restate your point that you have made already even though I told you that my answer is no to the OP's question and I am offering a solution. Is that so hard for you to understand? I will not make a new thread if there is already an active thread: don't forget I asked a question at the beginning and you answered it without saying it was off-topic then. Are you just saying anything because you can't defend your reasons against my solution to the problem (you have ignored my argument for there being a problem after two of my posts so I assume that you agree with the problem).

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
The point of giving dyslexics extra time isn't to artificially allow them them 'get extra marks over the rest', it is to allow them the opportunity to achieve the same marks as the rest if they have the same amount of knowledge.
And of course it's too much for some people and too little for others, do I have to go back to the bell curve idea?
I don't know what you mean about 'some people don't have it as bad as dyslexia'.

Okay, so at least you agree that what we have now is inefficient whereas you have ignored my solution completely which I have reasoned unopposed to be extremely efficient. You have contradicted your earlier post with the text I have underlined. As I have argued (again unopposed) again and again, exams nowadays are testing ability to think under pressure and exam technique weighs more than knowledge. Instead of ignoring my previous post where I explained that standardisation is in fact not maintained with some people getting more time than others, can you explain how it is at all fair for someone to get the same qualification which to any employer/ admissions tutor is the same when it was examined under different conditions?

The bell curve idea is not relevant so no please do not go back to it. What you do not understand (which is relevant) is that ANY deviation from the mean that can be avoided is a bad in the interest of standardisation. My solution removes these deviations so you should be interested, but you said you weren't for some contradictory reason that you are hiding.

You do know what I mean by 'some people don't have it as bad as dyslexia'. For the record it means 'some people can read questions quicker than people with dyslexia so can perform quicker in exams'. Quite a mouthful to say it like this though.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
And it might not be 100% fair, and it is by no means flawless, but it doesn't mean it should be gotten rid of, because that would also be unfair (and I would argue more unfair).

I have never argued that 'it should be gotten rid off'. My argument is that EVERYONE should have enough time. You keep trying to set up a straw man which suggests you have no substance behind your argument. Perhaps you're just very conservative and you think we should stick with the current system regardless of whether improvements can be made. Or perhaps you have a vested interest to keep some people getting extra time while others can't. Do you get extra time may I ask, because I do not and I belong to the majority.

[PhysicsGirl]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
I'll go out on a limb here and say that you'd still expect to be paid for these extra hours you worked, and at the same time as a non-dyslexic person?

Not really? The only industry I can think of that would relate to your argument would be something like construction, or mechanics, where you charge your customers for labour. Normally in jobs where there are specific deadlines to keep to, you're assigned tasks, and expected to get the task done. If you can't do it in the allotted time (i.e. your normal working hours), you do it in your own time- for example, if there's a presentation you are required to give that Friday, you're going to do it for Friday, even if that means working late for a week, and I highly doubt you'd be able to persuade an employer to pay you overtime for that. Plus, most jobs where there are strict, important deadlines are freelance, or paid per task, not paid per hour- i.e. a journalist that takes a week to finish their article isn't going to be paid more than a journalist who writes the same article, but takes only three days.
This is probably slightly off-thread topic though :-)

[Sam_1996]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
Of course you should, you're basically competing against other people, that's the point of exams.

Personally I think you shouldn't care.Exams arent a competion,you have to do the best YOU can.

[In One Ear]

(Original post by Sam_1996)
Personally I think you shouldn't care.Exams arent a competion,you have to do the best YOU can.

What? Exams most certainly are a competition. Your grade is directly influenced by the performance of others!

[Stray]

(Original post by In One Ear)
What? Exams most certainly are a competition. Your grade is directly influenced by the performance of others!

JCQ say that 15% of pupils receive extra time. Not all are for dyslexia - some have physical disabilities such as dyspraxia, CP, spinal cord injury, juvenile arthritis, severe visual impairments etc.

Within that 15% there will be a small number who have an accompanying impairment in their IQ (as part of a complex condition such as 22Q syndrome), but that the vast majority are evenly distributed, mirroring the general population's normal curve.

There's also no reason to believe that these students are either more or less diligent, or more or less well taught, than the general population.

Assuming that you're not arguing that all those people who get extra time are so smart / hard working that they only get As and A*s, their impact is distributed.

Thus, of that 15%, you are only "in competition" with those who are within the grade boundary you are aiming at, +1 and -1. Because of how the grade curves are fitted, the performance of students at the D/E boundary has no impact on the A/B boundary.

So, in a typical exam (excluding Latin / Greek / Further Maths etc which have untypical grade curves) at most only 5% of those being given extra time are impacting on your grade boundary. (Which isn't to say that they are having an impact of 5%!)

If you were to exclude that 15% who are given extra time from the grade curve it could not possibly shift dramatically - especially as they are likely to be evenly spread. The 'inertia' of the 85% of the population would be too great.

At most, taking away the extra time might shift the boundaries by a percent or two (while having a much greater distorting effect on the grades of those individual students).

If you're worried about a percent or two then your own result would be more strongly impacted by direct action (extra revision / better exam technique) to lift your performance relative to the 85% than worrying about how you compare with the 15%.