Do you think extra time in exams is fair?

Scroll to see replies

Not necessarily. If they excel at everything else, and have the grades and relevant experience to match, they may have developed coping mechanisms to help them with remembering things or may just require a little more time. They'll therefore stand out in comparison to someone with an average memory and a lack of experience/ideal grades.

You can talk more explicitly about specific job roles at the interview process.

But then you're not going to mention it in an interview, that would be a very dangerous thing to do.

Even if you talk about what your role involves with the employer, you still don't know what you're using systems and processes wise until you use it. For example, Bloomberg; you can't have that explained to you and know how to use it before you've used it and learnt it yourself. It has over 30,000 functions. Or excel, another example where people think they know how to use it but are often required to really improve their knowledge of it once in the job in many financial services roles anyway. This is why probation exists. To see just how you'll cope.

Reply 201

xylas

Original post by cherryred90s

No we don't agree, but I'm tired of discussing this with you so we'll just leave it

Hahaha that's a good one

Reply 202

sue99

Original post by richpanda

why do you need it?

Why? You don't think ADHD, autism and anxiety are enough to be able to have extra time in exams?

Reply 203

cherryred90s

Original post by leavingthecity

But then you're not going to mention it in an interview, that would be a very dangerous thing to do.

Even if you talk about what your role involves with the employer, you still don't know what you're using systems and processes wise until you use it. For example, Bloomberg; you can't have that explained to you and know how to use it before you've used it and learnt it yourself. It has over 30,000 functions. Or excel, another example where people think they know how to use it but are often required to really improve their knowledge of it once in the job in many financial services roles anyway. This is why probation exists. To see just how you'll cope.

Right so during the probation period, you'll know if you can cope? If you can, you continue. If you can't, you leave and find something else.

Reply 204

cherryred90s

Original post by xylas

Hahaha that's a good one

Reply 205

username2385417

Original post by Kallisto

See it a bit different. If this has something to do with a handicap like autism, it is not an excuse in my opinion. And as far as I know autism like Asperger is a medically proven 'disease'...

Not talking about people with serious disabilities here, but I wonder what the difference is between two people of the same intellect, one of which writes slowly and one of which has been labelled with a learning difficulty because it has been observed that they write slowly? Both have brains that have been wired in a way that gives them equal intelligence yet slower writing speeds, but one of them is given extra time because they are deemed as having a recognised condition. Maybe the one with the recognised condition was labelled so because they displayed related traits such as difficulty with spatial awareness and difficulty in distinguishing left from right. But these problems aren't going to come into play in exams most likely, so you essentially have 2 people who are slow writers yet one of them gets 25% extra time because they possess other difficulties that affect not their exam marks?

Reply 206

xylas

Original post by cherryred90s

Reply 207

username2385417

Original post by cherryred90s

No it's not. It is your duty to make the employer aware if you know you'll struggle or need extra help in an important aspect of your job. If you don't tell them, they won't think anything is wrong and you'll be penalised for consistently being too slow, so you'll probably lose your job anyway.

Right so during the probation period, you'll know if you can cope? If you can, you continue. If you can't, you leave and find something else.

It's not your duty, and in the real world people do not do that. Hopefully you'd be deterred by a job spec that suggested you weren't suitable because of these things, but my point is that kids who've been awarded high grades because they've been assisted with extra time may believe they are capable of jobs that they just aren't capable of. It's actually not al that fair on the kid.

A failed probationary period has serious consequences whether you decide to leave or whether you are asked to by your employer. It's not some sort of test drive. It's on your CV forever.

Reply 208

cherryred90s

Original post by leavingthecity

A failed probationary period has serious consequences whether you decide to leave or whether you are asked to by your employer. It's not some sort of test drive. It's on your CV forever.

A probationary period is supposed to help you learn the dynamics of your job and whether it is suitable. If you leave because it's unsuitable for you due to a disability that your employer was aware of, it will not count negatively towards you.

Reply 209

username2385417

Original post by cherryred90s

We are talking about the real world and It is your duty. Your employer is not psychic. If they don't make reasonable allowances for you, it's probably because you didn't tell them about your disability.
How can you make the correlation that extra time = high grades? Because that's not usually the case.

A probationary period is supposed to help you learn the dynamics of your job and whether it is suitable. If you leave because it's unsuitable for you due to a disability that your employer was aware of, it will not count negatively towards you.

But that's just not how it works in the hiring process. It is not a 'duty'. You have the legal responsibility to inform your potential employer of any unspent convictions and you must report the dates of your employment history correctly, but there is no duty to explain that you have a slow processing speed. Just as well because you'll unlikely get a decent job after admitting to being a slow thinker, for whatever reason.

A failed probationary period and a stint of only 3/6 months on your CV is not going to look good. And as unfair as some may think this; if you went to a potential employer and told them that you left your last job after 3 months because you were not suited to it because you were a slow thinker, you would be really sabotaging your career chances. Regardless of your reasons, it's a red flag who you don't meet probation in the eyes of most employers. And this is why it doesn't happen in the real world.

Reply 210

XCharlotteDoyleX

In so many ways, no.
I go to a private school and honestly half the people in my year (11) half extra time.
not many of these people even have dyslexia or an issue with processing, the school just gave them it and I honestly dont know how they are getting away with it. I have asked many people and their reply is 'because im dumb they gave it to me' which makes no sense as it doesnt improve your knowledge by having it.

Reply 211

XCharlotteDoyleX

One girl in my year gets all A stars and nothing else, yet she has extra time and doesnt even use it half the time!!!!

Reply 212

jamesthehustler

i used a laptop in my exams and was given extra time but never needed to use it
so i'd say the laptop was a massive help the extra time not really

Reply 213

cherryred90s

Original post by leavingthecity

There's a responsibility to explain that you have a condition that will affect your work. If you feel that it's not relevant, then of course you don't have to tell them if you don't want to, but if you know it will directly impact upon your work, you have a responsibility to tell them so that they can make adjustments for you. It would be illegal for them to turn their nose at you if you feel that you can still fulfill your job description. It's not just about 'slow processing speed' it's about having a condition that means you have a slow processing speed. There's a difference.

A failed probationary period and a stint of only 3/6 months on your CV is not going to look good. And as unfair as some may think this; if you went to a potential employer and told them that you left your last job after 3 months because you were not suited to it because you were a slow thinker, you would be really sabotaging your career chances. Regardless of your reasons, it's a red flag who you don't meet probation in the eyes of most employers. And this is why it doesn't happen in the real world.

It's not about being a slow thinker. It's about having a disability. its not a red flag because by law, it would be discriminatory for an employer to reject you solely on that basis.

Reply 214

username2385417

Original post by cherryred90s

But you would be, quite categorically and measurably a slow thinker regardless of cause.

Yes if you had a severe impairment then you'd need to talk to your prospective employer, but most people are not severe and have no obligation to mention it. If they did, an employer could argue that they required someone who could process information quickly to make fast decisions, for example, and that the person with a slow processing speed, whilst not their fault, is not suited to the job. In the same way that a double amputee could not be a manual labourer. It's not discrimination, they just can't do the job.

I'm sorry but out there in the real world you don't have the benefit of all these exceptions being made for you, and often you are not treated in a particularly compliant way because you do not have the power to challenge an employer without negatively affecting your own prospects.

Reply 215

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by leavingthecity

Yeah, fair enough. From this point of view it can be considered as a handicap in the future. Lack of spatial awareness might be very likely, distinguishing from left to right rather unlikely. I guess there are more handicaps than known at the moment. Either way, it depends on how this slower writing speed can be reasoned as a disease or handicap in general.

Reply 216

Tinka99

Original post by Mazzy95

I agree people should only have extra time if their condition actually relates to needing extra time, not just because they have a condition which in other peoples cases relates to needing extra time. (If that makes sense.) e.g. someone having ADHD but it not actually affecting their ability to sit an exam but getting the extra time anyway because they have a condition in which with some/a lot even of people would need the extra time. I didn't mean that I thought you thought that all autistic people abuse the system I more meant the kids at your school that you were talking about. Obviously you will know a bit about their conditions if you are friends etc. but do you know for sure that they don't really need the extra help. Sometimes things can look different from various perspectives.

It's kinda obvious when they are sitting down and taking the mickey out of those ridiculously easy extra time tests and saying how easy failing them was.

Reply 217

Tinka99

Original post by leavingthecity

But next to no one is going to hire someone who tells them that at interview.

And a job spec will tend to say things like "input orders into such and such database/system" which sounds easy enough but unless you've used it before you're going to have to learn a whole new system, probably several.

Employers cannot discriminate against a person according to the equality act 2010 and if they do it's against the law. I know some employers don't want to hire disabled applicants as it can bring a whole new hassle on themselves especially with the adjustments and all of the other stuff the applicant may need, so might find it wiser to hire someone who does not have a disability. If you feel you don't need adjustments and an disability will not affect you at work there is no need to reveal it but if you do you would have to.

If a applicant is applying for a job which requires specialised skills (e.g. input things in a database) then they would have to have the relevant qualifications regardless of disability.

Some people don't want to hire disabled applicants and that is one of the harsh realities of the big wide world. Discrimination exists no matter how many acts and laws are put into place and always will as it always has, but we need to find ways to get around it.

Reply 218

Mazzy95

Original post by xylas

Alright I've been away for a bit and have quite a few replies so apologies if this post is long.

I don't have all these disabilities no, whatever you meant by that. I don't know what you mean by 'truly understand' either. I understand what these disabilities mean regarding the ability to take exams but I don't need to know absolutely everything there is to know on the subject. Neither do you.

Actually I haven't judged anyone or commented on specific people. I just think extra time in exams is unfair in certain situations.

There are people with autism on this thread who believe autism is not enough of a reason to have extra time. Therefore if they know so much according to you, are you gonna accept what they say? That's the problem with using appeal to authority arguments like the one you just used.

You come across as quite ignorant actually. I agree with you that some people deserve help taking exams. Why exactly are you so irritated?

I call you ignorant because of your attitude so you then call me ignorant back. Very clever of you. Typical TSR response to deflect the same insult right back to me. Why don't you enlighten me as to why you think I'm so called ignorant. I am actually the exact opposite. I' a very open minded, nonjudgmental and empathetic person.

What I mean by truly understand is only someone who has been through an experience can truly understand what it's like to go through it e.g anything from having autism to being adopted to being in a car crash. I think it is an incredibly arrogant part of human nature to come across as though you understand that experience the same amount, or even more than someone who has actually been through that experience. You can learn about, know people who have gone through it and empathize with people that have gone through an experience. But I believe you cannot truly empathize and understand an experience to the same extent until you have gone through it. That's why people tend to empathize more with those that share experiences that they themselves have gone through.

Actually yes you did - to Peroxidation who was explaining why their autism meant that they needed extra time in exams. You were very ignorant and dismissive towards them. A common anomaly that most people on the autistic spectrum tend to have is difficulty with COMMUNICATION. Writing is a form of communication. You have to write in an exam. Hence help such as a scribe or extra time etc. Maybe read some more about autism than the NHS definition you copied and pasted into one of your previous posts. Because based on your previous post to Peroxidation you genuinely think that you know more about autism than someone who actually HAS autism because you've read the NHS definition off of a website. RIDICULOUS AND ARROGANT.

I don't know I don't think I've seen those posts, I haven't read every entry on this thread however Autism has a broad range of difficulties. Just because someone with autism doesn't have a difficulty that means they need extra time doesn't mean that ALL people with autism are the same. That again is a very ignorant post. I understand it's human nature to try and put a diagnosis/ condition into one box but actually every individual is different. They may share some common anomalies with someone else with their condition but that does not mean that they share every aspect of their condition with everyone else that has that condition.

Do you have something against autism? Because I'm confused as to why you are repeatedly saying that someone is entitled to having extra time for a variety of conditions but not if they just have autism. You say they have to have another condition alongside autism in order to be entitled to extra time. What exactly is about autism that means they aren't entitled to extra time? Like I said primarily it is a communication condition and a key part to an exam is COMMUNICATING to the exam moderator the knowledge that you have learnt.

Reply 219

xylas

Original post by Mazzy95

Spoiler

"Why don't you enlighten me as to why you think I'm so called ignorant. I am actually the exact opposite. I'm a very open minded, nonjudgmental and empathetic person."

Ok since you asked I will enlighten you:
1) you judged me by calling me ignorant right off the bat, before I had even said anything to you.
2) you displayed zero empathy when you said "you can't understand these disabilities until you have them" That is the opposite of empathising.
3) if you think you're open-minded why do you get irritated with differing points of view?

With that out the way I will try to give what you are saying the benefit of the doubt despite this first impression.

Ok so you think that you can speak for Peroxidation?? Don't you think that contradicts everything you have said - the part about not being able to understand what someone else has gone through??? How do you know anything about me or what I know about autism? How dare you call me arrogant?!

You are one of the most hypocritical people I have ever met on this forum.

You then make your first relevant point to this thread "Just because someone with autism doesn't have a difficulty that means they need extra time doesn't mean that all people with autism are the same." I have said this before and I agree with this.

My main point is that just because you have autism doesn't automatically mean you should have extra time. Will some people with autism need extra time? YES.

See how completely wrong you were about my posts? That's why I think you are ignorant.