The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by RaptorStar
I am in year 10 and I have never heard of this thing, how do you qualify for this? lolz seems like a bait way to make GCSE's easier


I believe to qualify you have to have a registered mental or physical disorder, and then you have to take a short 30-minute test to see how fast you can read, process information and then write.

Unfortunately, many mental conditions such as ADHD and mild cases of autism are over-diagnosed, which leads to way too many people being eligible for the extended examination time, giving many an unfair advantage (myself included - but I'm not going to decline the offering).
Original post by ab2468
no, as someone said above, after finishing education you don't get extra time so why should you get it at school. Also lots of people with extra time really don't need and as the tests for it are easy to fail on purpose.


Firstly, its not easy to apply for extra time. theres a fairly rigorous process to getting extra time and its hard to cheat on. maybe like 1% of people wrongly get extra time but for the most part it is necessary (I just made uo that statistic to clarify what i mean).

Not being given extra time after education isnt always the case, and even if it is the case then what's the problem? They just wont get the job...

Let's imagine an absolute genius and potential Nobel Peace price winner has medically slow cognition. By preventing him extra time, you have prevented him from doing that course at Cambridge. By doing that, you have denied him his right to that certain education, and his oppurtunity to be able to do that groundbreaking research (in his own time - research has less time constraints).

You might think this is an exxagerated example, but Ive used it to illustrate the point that not everything is about time. The playing field should be level during education so everyone has equal opportunities after education. After education is a different matter like you said, but you can leave the filtering til then.
(edited 7 years ago)
Of course it's fair. What's unfair is that nature has put some people at a disadvantage in the first place. Extra time just equalises that.
Original post by FJ13
No.

Plenty of people in my school have absolutely no learning difficulties whatsoever yet can easily "qualify" for free time.


where's your medical degree?
Original post by Tinka99
"It's a perfectly valid reason actually" only if it affects your ability to be able to complete the exam in the set time limit. If every single person with autism was allowed to have extra time this would give them an unfair advantage over other candidates. Someone with Autism could be just as perfectly capable of completing the exam in the set time limit as someone without autism. Why should they be given extra time and not the other candidate? Gaining extra time just on the basis of a disability and using it as a grade booster is not fair and a clear exploitation of the disability. A disability should not be a direct passport to extra time difficulties associated that prevent you from completing the exam in the set time limit should.


I don't think you got what I was saying. You implied that autism alone shouldn't warrant extra time, right? So I am saying that there are some people with autism that do need extra time (as it is a spectrum) due to it affecting their performance. Not all but some.
Original post by GeorgeBushDid911
I believe to qualify you have to have a registered mental or physical disorder, and then you have to take a short 30-minute test to see how fast you can read, process information and then write.


No you don't always have to undergo a test. Well, I didn't. And if you have something like Dyslexia, it's written in your report how much extra time you should have.
It is, but nowadays it's been heavily abused. I knew a guy who didn't need extra time throughout GCSE's and AS and now we hit A2 all of a sudden he needs 'extra time'. Now that I don't rate...
I cannot claim to know the difficulties of anybody I know to have extra time, at least not to a sufficient standard to deduce if it puts them at an advantage or not, because I am not them, and I have limited understanding of the sorts of issues that lead to extra time. In general, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. So if someone seems quick-witted and fast at working in general, and gets insanely good marks, but they also get extra time, I'm not going to get all jealous and think "they're cheating the system!" cos frankly I have no idea if they are cheating the system and the odds are surely that they aren't anyway.

However I often wonder if I could have got extra time as I've suspected I have some degree of Asperger's for a while and in the early parts of exams I set off like a snail it seems, being very slow to understand and answer the questions (obviously this can have more of an effect in the shorter exam), but then the longer it goes I get more into it. Maybe that's just normal, I dunno. Also my handwriting is right on the precipice of being illegible and I've been told multiple times it could royally screw me (not exactly in those terms) in exams. It hasn't yet, but this term I think my writing has been particularly bad, so we'll see what my results say..
Original post by GeorgeBushDid911
To begin with, extra time is literally handed out to a huge amount people. From my experiences, I'd say a large percentage of people who qualify for extra time would in fact easily achieve a C grade or above without utilising the extended time period.
To top that all off, anyone can also easily get extra time by simply faking the eligibility tests and acting dumb (although I think the ruling has recently changed to combat this).

The idea of an examination is to actually test the mental capability of the person. If someone is unable to finish in the specified time, then they've failed the test. Everyone in agreement with extra time is under the impression that everyone should have the 'right' to pass the exams and that it's a matter of fairness and equality, when in actual fact, an exam is there to filter the mentally capable people from the slow and uneducated ones.


I understand some people who get extra time don't need it, but also it's not as simple as just acting dumb. There's a difference between processing information slowly or writing slowly to just being dumb. There may be some people who do get extra time without actually needing it, but then there's people who can claim benefits without actually needing it, or get surgery on the NHS without needing it but to rule it out completely would be setting up those who don't at disadvantage. The issue here with people not needing it is at the hands of the people carrying out assessments.

All in all, though, extra time is completely fair. It's not like there's more people who use extra time and don't need it, than those who do.

And you're completely wrong about everyone in agreement with extra time. Having extra time isn't ensuring that someone will pass or not. If they haven't revised enough, no matter the time they get, they won't pass. And honestly, that's silly. It's not the uneducated that get extra time, and the people who are slower SHOULD be able to get extra time so they aren't at disadvantage. Everything could be outside themselves. They could have had a lousy home environment, a mother who smoked during pregnancy, lack of healthy meals provided at home (or lack of meals at all) that cause them to be slow, putting any disorders aside. That is already putting them at disadvantage.

The people who you deem 'slow' could go on to do great things. A girl who gets extra time because she can't write fast may get the grades to go to university and because a doctor, and save many people's lives. A boy who gets extra time may go on to university and then invent something that we need in this world. The extra time doesn't give them an advantage over everyone else, it just gives them the chance to show their capability, which most people can do in less time.

Also, with the test being in timed conditions, IT'S STILL TIMED. It's not like they have all day to complete a test. They still have to complete it in timed conditions. A friend of mine is dyslexic and suffers with anxiety and she sometimes can't even finish her work in extra time, if she doesn't understand the question or can't remember the key scholars.

Everyone seems so bitter about it. Worry about yourself.
Reply 409
Original post by Gaya Ramanathan
I don't think you got what I was saying. You implied that autism alone shouldn't warrant extra time, right? So I am saying that there are some people with autism that do need extra time (as it is a spectrum) due to it affecting their performance. Not all but some.


I completely agree that some people with Autism deserve extra time but not all. I am sorry if I misunderstood your statement but you were not very clear with what you were saying. You said "It's a perfectly valid reason actually" and I thought you were referring to the spectrum as a whole of being a valid reason and implying that all people on the spectrum deserve extra time, rather than only some.
Original post by Tinka99
I completely agree that some people with Autism deserve extra time but not all. I am sorry if I misunderstood your statement but you were not very clear with what you were saying. You said "It's a perfectly valid reason actually" and I thought you were referring to the spectrum as a whole of being a valid reason and implying that all people on the spectrum deserve extra time, rather than only some.


Ah no worries then, just a miscommunication.
Reply 411
Original post by RaptorStar
I am in year 10 and I have never heard of this thing, how do you qualify for this? lolz seems like a bait way to make GCSE's easier


You can't just get extra time you need to have a psychological disorder or some sort of disability. You also have to undergo tests for extra time and those test results should prove you actually need it. I get 25% extra time for all my exams I am in year 11.
I think the majority of the time it is fair, however in a few of my exams I've witnessed people with extra time write as much as me before the extended time which suggests maybe they never really needed it in the first place.
(edited 7 years ago)
This is exactly what I have, but dyslexia and dyspraxia too.

At my school exams when I went in prepared so I wasn't freaking out I got not just 1's (Scottish system so that would be a A) but 100% in most things.

I am now in my thirties and the amount of people who assume me to be thick as I have bad posture and stutter a little and look down on me is high despite my actual IQ being high.

My biggest problem is I have such a bright mind but bad at processing it down so I need focus its why I excelled at college but struggled at university as they wanted more structured content rather than just well researched content,

Some would say that my lack of concentration and such is just a flaw and thus I can't do any better and therefore extra time or such is being easy on me so people who don't have that problem are just "better" at things and its nothing to do with disability.
Reply 414
Exams need to test your KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING, and NOTHING ELSE.

If you understand and know the subject content you should be doing well because of that. You shouldn't be penalized for not being quick enough to express your knowledge.
Original post by _JJ
Exams need to test your KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING, and NOTHING ELSE.

If you understand and know the subject content you should be doing well because of that. You shouldn't be penalized for not being quick enough to express your knowledge.

UNDERSTANDING.
So if people take longer to understand what the question is asking of them that is their weak area but they shouldn't be given extra time as that is what exams are all about. Lol.
I have a severe visual impairment so I get extra time in my exams and there's no way I would finish without it. Those saying that extra time isn't necessary if we had a large print paper, that's not true. It takes me so much longer to read everything as it's not like I can just skim over it I have to use a magnifying glass as glasses don't help with my condition and that severely slows me down. I also get really tired because it's a strain on my eyes so I see the time as vital. I understand things and I think it would be unfair to put people with disabilities at a disadvantage by having them do an exam in a time limit that's physically impossible for them through no fault of their own. Also I know that it doesn't put me at an advantage because I always ask my friends how much they wrote and I almost always write the same or less. I know it's hard to understand some disabilities on the surface but please try and think about any underlying difficulties it may cause people!
This post has really proved how ignorant people can be. Even if the system is abused, it is incredibly difficult to falsely get extra time as a lot of those who do have disabilities, hence they have proof that they are not lying.
How can people expect those with disabilities to be as capable as them in exams when it comes to timing. Surely a physical disability would prevent a person from being able to write at the same speed as someone who does not have a condition? Or they may not even be able to write at all so may have to verbally tell an examiner or assistant their answers to questions and have them write it down.
Please put yourself in the position of people in those circumstances and then see if you think the same.
Original post by Chmbiogeog
UNDERSTANDING.
So if people take longer to understand what the question is asking of them that is their weak area but they shouldn't be given extra time as that is what exams are all about. Lol.


Those with learning difficulties are likely to take longer to process their thoughts and gain understanding, it doesn't mean they can't understand at all.
No people shouldn't get extra time, people should be allowed to do the exams in alternative conditions to help with certain difficulties(just like an employer might do like using a laptop instead of writing on paper) but they shouldn't be given extra time.The reason for this is very simply why would an employer employ someone who produces less work in their 9-5 working hours compared to someone else who produce more work assuming that both people produce the same quality?This isn't some sort of discrimination if a disabled person(with any specific arrangements than I can make possible) can't produce work in the same amount of time and quality as a normal worker then I wouldn't employ them.

I have seen people posting how they need extra time because they take longer to process information but exams are timed and this means part of the assessment is based around how fast people can process information and answer questions so since this ability is tested on the exam then why are people who are bad at this given extra time?A lot of these disabilities are really just saying these people are bad at this skill or another and thus they should lose marks as a result.