Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    If I was an employer I would hire someone with high/normal processing speed(I would want them to produce as much work as possible in their 9-5 job to a good standard) and good concentration(I would want them to be focused on their work) over someone who had low processing and poor concentration if they had the same skills elsewhere..

    That right there is disability discrimination in the work place, something which is completely illegal. So tell me, how does it feel to be a bigot?

    (Original post by OturuDansay)
    Example: 2 people (Bill and Joe) hypothetically have the exact same intellect as one another, but Joe gets extra time. They both take an exam. Bill gets 36/50 and Joe gets 42/50. An A = 41/50 and a B = 35/50. Thus Joe receiving an A and Bill a B. Due to Joe's extra time he recieved a better grade even tho theyhypothetically have the exact same intellect as one another.Would you call that fair?


    How about i give you an example now? I'll use the names Bob and Steve

    Bob and Steve both are taking the same Psychology exam and the same IQ, but Steve finds it hard to recall information normally when under heavy stress so he will need extra time for reading and gathering his thoughts. Steve also happens to have severe Dyslexia and therefore will need extra time to correct a huge number of spelling mistakes.

    When Bob and Steve get their results Bob is still likely to get a higher score than Steve did even with the extra time. That's because the extra time is only worth 25%(The top amount of extra time you can get), and therefore Steve still didn't have enough time to answer all the questions and correct their horrendous spelling. This means that Steve will still lose at least 5% on every question due to poor spelling.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devinely)
    That right there is disability discrimination in the work place, something which is completely illegal. So tell me, how does it feel to be a bigot?





    How about i give you an example now? I'll use the names Bob and Steve

    Bob and Steve both are taking the same Psychology exam and the same IQ, but Steve finds it hard to recall information normally when under heavy stress so he will need extra time for reading and gathering his thoughts. Steve also happens to have severe Dyslexia and therefore will need extra time to correct a huge number of spelling mistakes.

    When Bob and Steve get their results Bob is still likely to get a higher score than Steve did even with the extra time. That's because the extra time is only worth 25%(The top amount of extra time you can get), and therefore Steve still didn't have enough time to answer all the questions and correct their horrendous spelling. This means that Steve will still lose at least 5% on every question due to poor spelling.
    Awww poor Steve.
    Steve is under a lot of pressure isn't he
    Steve has an unfair advantage over Bob and he still gets a lower score...Well I think Steve should look up to Bob and see how hard he works
    Spoiler:
    Show
    You have used the word "bigot" in the wrong context
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devinely)
    That right there is disability discrimination in the work place, something which is completely illegal. So tell me, how does it feel to be a bigot?

    How about i give you an example now? I'll use the names Bob and Steve

    Bob and Steve both are taking the same Psychology exam and the same IQ, but Steve finds it hard to recall information normally when under heavy stress so he will need extra time for reading and gathering his thoughts. Steve also happens to have severe Dyslexia and therefore will need extra time to correct a huge number of spelling mistakes.

    When Bob and Steve get their results Bob is still likely to get a higher score than Steve did even with the extra time. That's because the extra time is only worth 25%(The top amount of extra time you can get), and therefore Steve still didn't have enough time to answer all the questions and correct their horrendous spelling. This means that Steve will still lose at least 5% on every question due to poor spelling.
    Whilst it could be seen to be wrong you have to remember what he is basing his decision on:

    For example if I am hiring a juggler, just because I don't hire all the applicants who have no arms, I'm not being a bigot or being discriminatory - they just can't juggle, so obviously I'm not going to hire them to be a juggler. What you've got to remember here is that I'm not not hiring because of their disability, but because of the fact that they can't juggle - anyone who can't juggle won't be hired.

    So i guess it could argued that if the criteria for the job is being able to have extreme concentration, good work rate and high processing speed, one is not being discriminatory by not choosing someone with those qualities - even if it is because of their disability.

    P.s - I do not believe this, but I'm just explaining why it could technically make sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think extra time is fine for people who actually need it. Same goes for special considerations and adjustment. I asked my school to apply for special consideration for my exams because I lost 2 close family members a week before the exams started. My school refused saying there was no point because the request would be rejected.
    On the point of the rich paying their way to the extra time It really does happen and it gets to me...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Only thing i find funny is that alot of the people in this thread would probably have the complete opposite opinion if they themselves had severe dyslexia or the like that meant it would be impossible for them to complete an exam without being granted extra time.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OturuDansay)
    Awww poor Steve.
    Steve is under a lot of pressure isn't he
    Steve has an unfair advantage over Bob and he still gets a lower score...Well I think Steve should look up to Bob and see how hard he works
    Spoiler:
    Show
    You have used the word "bigot" in the wrong context
    Er what? In both our examples we both gave the two people the same IQ and although neither of us mentioned it I presume we were both doing the examples based off of the assumption that they studied equally as hard? Therefore I can't say I understand your comment about Steve having "to look at how hard bob works".

    Also how the heck is being disabled having an unfair advantage? Here's a definition of disability "a disadvantage or handicap, especially one imposed or recognized by the law." The very definition of disability says a person is at a disadvantage so i'm unsure how Steve's suppose to of had the advantage?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Hmm well if I did I apologize.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martins1)
    Whilst it could be seen to be wrong you have to remember what he is basing his decision on:

    For example if I am hiring a juggler, just because I don't hire all the applicants who have no arms, I'm not being a bigot or being discriminatory - they just can't juggle, so obviously I'm not going to hire them to be a juggler. What you've got to remember here is that I'm not not hiring because of their disability, but because of the fact that they can't juggle - anyone who can't juggle won't be hired.

    So i guess it could argued that if the criteria for the job is being able to have extreme concentration, good work rate and high processing speed, one is not being discriminatory by not choosing someone with those qualities - even if it is because of their disability.

    P.s - I do not believe this, but I'm just explaining why it could technically make sense.

    While I can see from the point of view you are writing this in you have to remember the person I was initially replying to didn't mean it in the context you do.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sufiyan1999)
    I think extra time is fine for people who actually need it. Same goes for special considerations and adjustment. I asked my school to apply for special consideration for my exams because I lost 2 close family members a week before the exams started. My school refused saying there was no point because the request would be rejected.
    On the point of the rich paying their way to the extra time It really does happen and it gets to me...
    I feel very bad for you and am truly sorry for your losses, and hope that you are not doing too badly. I cannot believe that it would be rejected - that is definitely something which deserved extra time. I've never heard of the rich in my school paying their way to extra time as they would have to bribe doctors LOADS and it isn't even worth it in most exams for people without disabilities, who therefore have no need for it.
    (Original post by Devinely)
    While I can see from the point of view you are writing this in you have to remember the person I was initially replying to didn't mean it in the context you do.
    True, but at the same time I like to represent all sides of the argument - I just like putting one viewpoint out there - one that I too admit is valid, despite sharing your viewpoint.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martins1)
    Whilst it could be seen to be wrong you have to remember what he is basing his decision on:

    For example if I am hiring a juggler, just because I don't hire all the applicants who have no arms, I'm not being a bigot or being discriminatory - they just can't juggle, so obviously I'm not going to hire them to be a juggler. What you've got to remember here is that I'm not not hiring because of their disability, but because of the fact that they can't juggle - anyone who can't juggle won't be hired.

    So i guess it could argued that if the criteria for the job is being able to have extreme concentration, good work rate and high processing speed, one is not being discriminatory by not choosing someone with those qualities - even if it is because of their disability.

    P.s - I do not believe this, but I'm just explaining why it could technically make sense.
    Why do you not believe this it makes perfect sense?If a disabled person doesn't perform well enough at a test then thats the reason they are not getting hired not because they are disabled, to me increasing the time limit makes the test easier I think 100% of people would agree with this often employers deliberately make the timing strict and often brutal to screen out the worst applicants.

    I don't think employers should have to make the tests easier for disabled people, after all what are disabled people in the context we are talking about people who are less able at something now if that skill comes up in the test I want to test applicants on then I'm not going to make those who struggle at that skill not have to be assessed on that skill thats not fair on the applicants who can perform well at that skill.

    I would argue that extra time isn't a reasonable adjustment as thats a skill I will be testing hence the time limit.

    In general I don't agree with people's comments on here you should always the person who performs the best I couldn't care less if they were female,black,chinese,disabled whatever but I want the best to be employed and extra time and similar adjustments seem designed to help weaker candidates/employees just because they have some disability(their disabilities mean they are not good at something).
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devinely)
    Er what? In both our examples we both gave the two people the same IQ and although neither of us mentioned it I presume we were both doing the examples based off of the assumption that they studied equally as hard? Therefore I can't say I understand your comment about Steve having "to look at how hard bob works".

    Also how the heck is being disabled having an unfair advantage? Here's a definition of disability "a disadvantage or handicap, especially one imposed or recognized by the law." The very definition of disability says a person is at a disadvantage so i'm unsure how Steve's suppose to of had the advantage?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Hmm well if I did I apologize.
    I'm taking the pissss.
    Steve has the advantage because he has more time to complete the exam...how is that not an advantage?
    But I hear you say that Steve has got "dyslexia".
    Oh but I've heard "dyslexia" was created by the middle class because it was a clean excuse for why there child was not as bright as the next one. Or maybe that child with "dyslexia" is simply not that bright?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Why do you not believe this it makes perfect sense?If a disabled person doesn't perform well enough at a test then thats the reason they are not getting hired not because they are disabled, to me increasing the time limit makes the test easier I think 100% of people would agree with this often employers deliberately make the timing strict and often brutal to screen out the worst applicants.

    I don't think employers should have to make the tests easier for disabled people, after all what are disabled people in the context we are talking about people who are less able at something now if that skill comes up in the test I want to test applicants on then I'm not going to make those who struggle at that skill not have to be assessed on that skill thats not fair on the applicants who can perform well at that skill.

    I would argue that extra time isn't a reasonable adjustment as thats a skill I will be testing hence the time limit.

    In general I don't agree with people's comments on here you should always the person who performs the best I couldn't care less if they were female,black,chinese,disabled whatever but I want the best to be employed and extra time and similar adjustments seem designed to help weaker candidates/employees just because they have some disability(their disabilities mean they are not good at something).
    I can see where you are coming from but would advise you to phrase it more nicely - saying you don't care about disabilities isn't what you really mean and proabably is very offensive to many people.
    What you believe is that a GCSE is designed to test how much a person can get right in an hour - testing their writing/reading/thinking speed, their knowledge, IQ and individual abilities in that subject, regardless of anything which may affect the above, right?
    Now, while that is a valid way of seeing GCSE's, I, like many others, believe that GCSE's should solely test knowledge, IQ and abilities and therefore if someone with a disability and someone without have the same of the above, then they should get the same mark. Thus, the person with disabilities ought to have extra time to ensure that their losing time due to their disability isn't effecting their grade - thus levelling out the playing field.

    Hope you can see where I am coming from.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devinely)
    That right there is disability discrimination in the work place, something which is completely illegal. So tell me, how does it feel to be a bigot?





    How about i give you an example now? I'll use the names Bob and Steve

    Bob and Steve both are taking the same Psychology exam and the same IQ, but Steve finds it hard to recall information normally when under heavy stress so he will need extra time for reading and gathering his thoughts. Steve also happens to have severe Dyslexia and therefore will need extra time to correct a huge number of spelling mistakes.

    When Bob and Steve get their results Bob is still likely to get a higher score than Steve did even with the extra time. That's because the extra time is only worth 25%(The top amount of extra time you can get), and therefore Steve still didn't have enough time to answer all the questions and correct their horrendous spelling. This means that Steve will still lose at least 5% on every question due to poor spelling.
    The reason these people have the same IQ is because IQ is an incredibly flawed test and the bold bits highlight why why are these not tested on IQ tests?If we started adding SPaG and large portions of reading with time limits into IQ tests then dyslexics would then get their true IQ score which will be lower.

    Dyslexia has been shown to be due to problems in the language processing in the brain clearly this is a skill that should be assessed and students penalised if they are bad at it, I'm sick of disabilities being invented for people being bad at stuff we are seeing the same with dyscalculia.

    Its like I have a lot of difficulty with social interactions if this assessed in a test then yes I should do badly and the same goes for the rest of the stuff I am bad at.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for the condolences. This happened last year, I got through the exam season and did great without the special consideration.
    Well you'd think so but without giving too much away I know of someone who doesn't need extra time has taken steps to get extra time
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OturuDansay)
    I'm taking the pissss.
    Steve has the advantage because he has more time to complete the exam...how is that not an advantage?
    But I hear you say that Steve has got "dyslexia".
    Oh but I've heard "dyslexia" was created by the middle class because it was a clean excuse for why there child was not as bright as the next one. Or maybe that child with "dyslexia" is simply not that bright?



    By your reasoning Steven Hawkin and Enistein must have been idiots,because neither of them would be able to complete a paper within an hour time limit. Steven Hawkin wouldn't be able to due to how long it would take him to write each word using only the movement of his eye. Enistein wouldn't either because it's a well known that he had server dyslexia and would therefore need to take longer to write words correctly.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martins1)
    I can see where you are coming from but would advise you to phrase it more nicely - saying you don't care about disabilities isn't what you really mean and proabably is very offensive to many people.
    What you believe is that a GCSE is designed to test how much a person can get right in an hour - testing their writing/reading/thinking speed, their knowledge, IQ and individual abilities in that subject, regardless of anything which may affect the above, right?
    Now, while that is a valid way of seeing GCSE's, I, like many others, believe that GCSE's should solely test knowledge, IQ and abilities and therefore if someone with a disability and someone without have the same of the above, then they should get the same mark. Thus, the person with disabilities ought to have extra time to ensure that their losing time due to their disability isn't effecting their grade - thus levelling out the playing field.

    Hope you can see where I am coming from.
    If we want to assess what you want to assess then we have got to give everyone enough time to write their answers and then those with disabilities will also have enough time and do better, so a more reasonable solution would be to give everyone a lot of time.However, its likely that most people's scores would increase quite a bit(very common for people to not finish an exam or have to rush through and not have time to check answers, actually the last part is often extremely common I have experienced it a lot and checking answers would likely boost marks and very hard questions can be done with more time, sometimes my homework took hours to do but I ended up getting it mostly right they didn't usually give as hard questions in the exam though) and I think while those with disabilities would see their scores increase massively.This would mean a massive dumbing down of the examinations.

    Actually I have a good example for you to consider in my University computer practical exam I got 60% and I got 100% for everything I did(harder than you think often small parts being wrong on certain cases cause you to lose a lot of marks it did for my computer coursework), the timing was the issue simply too little time to do the test my friends also got nowhere near to completing the exam.Disabled people here would have had a massive unfair advantage to get extra time because they are slow when thats exactly what most people struggled on in this exam.

    You have got exactly what I meant but I have always viewed fast thinking as a sign of intelligence and a skill that is assessed in exams and in real life also.At school you often had games/tests that specifically tested how quickly you could do something like maths calculations quickly in your head which I usually did well on and you got your times tables tests timed I think and I was usually first finished with all of them correct and people saw the person who finished first as most intelligent and we also see it on game shows like countdown.

    Extra time is also clearly being abused people with dyslexia with maths talents have succeeded in the past before it was recognised as a condition so they still succeeded without extra time, in fact I went to a talk by a scientific inventor who nearly got kicked out of school because they were appalling at English(much later found out he was dyslexic) but his Science and Maths papers were excellent so he ended up being accepted.However, dyslexic students are being given extra time on exams where they do not need extra time(example of this can be found on TSR I believe where cleverer people at certain subjects got extra time).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This is an absurd question. Of course some people deserve extra time. If they are starting from behind due to their health restrictions then they should be given adequate time to compensate, otherwise it just isnt fair.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devinely)
    By your reasoning Steven Hawkin and Enistein must have been idiots,because neither of them would be able to complete a paper within an hour time limit. Steven Hawkin wouldn't be able to due to how long it would take him to write each word using only the movement of his eye. Enistein wouldn't either because it's a well known that he had server dyslexia and would therefore need to take longer to write words correctly.
    Does Hawkin have a learning disability.... no he has a severe physical disability which is very much a different thing.
    I could argue all night about this but I will not.
    Extra time should only be given to people under severe circumstances. And that's that.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by OturuDansay)
    Extra time should only be given to people under severe circumstances. And that's that.
    That's already the case. It's not given to anyone just because they have a disability. They have to have a reason for it.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    For some subjects yes, definetely, like english and if you have a disability.

    But I'm in AS at the moment and people without extra time struggle to finish and people with it get an extra 30 minutes and they always finish. Sometimes i find it completely ridiculous and unfair.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    If we want to assess what you want to assess then we have got to give everyone enough time to write their answers and then those with disabilities will also have enough time and do better, so a more reasonable solution would be to give everyone a lot of time.However, its likely that most people's scores would increase quite a bit(very common for people to not finish an exam or have to rush through and not have time to check answers, actually the last part is often extremely common I have experienced it a lot and checking answers would likely boost marks and very hard questions can be done with more time, sometimes my homework took hours to do but I ended up getting it mostly right they didn't usually give as hard questions in the exam though) and I think while those with disabilities would see their scores increase massively.This would mean a massive dumbing down of the examinations.
    How is this a dumbing down of exams? It's the exact same material, so its not being dumbed down, although giving everyone adequate time would make it easier - NOT dumbed down. And the reason we have a time limit is because otherwise in English, RS, History and Classics literature people would write an absolute tonne - which would be impossible to mark. All that is happening with extra time is that people are recieving what is essentially the same aount of time in proportion to their writing speed. Person A is no less intelligent than Person B because they broke their hand and so have a slower writing speed... The same is true of those who just naturally have slow writing speed. That's why science/maths exams are very rarely ever time pressured - because they are testing ability and knowledge, and people won't write tonnes even with extra time. In time pressured exams, it's only there for practical reasons.
    Actually I have a good example for you to consider in my University computer practical exam I got 60% and I got 100% for everything I did(harder than you think often small parts being wrong on certain cases cause you to lose a lot of marks it did for my computer coursework), the timing was the issue simply too little time to do the test my friends also got nowhere near to completing the exam.Disabled people here would have had a massive unfair advantage to get extra time because they are slow when thats exactly what most people struggled on in this exam.
    But they wouldn't because although in actual time they get more, due to their disabilities, their time in proportion to their writing speed is therefore the same as yours is - and often its actually less. Imagine if you started an exam and literally after reading the five word question in a few seconds, continously write at full speed, getting everything correct. However, despite knowing exactly what more you needed to write down, you PYSICALLY could not complete the exam on account of your writing speed. Imagine how frustrating that would be and how frustrated you would be, having revised and worked hard for the exam, and knowing that you KNEW all the asnwers but your writing speed let you down. Exams should not be a test of writing speed, but genuine intelligence...
    You have got exactly what I meant but I have always viewed fast thinking as a sign of intelligence and a skill that is assessed in exams and in real life also.At school you often had games/tests that specifically tested how quickly you could do something like maths calculations quickly in your head which I usually did well on and you got your times tables tests timed I think and I was usually first finished with all of them correct and people saw the person who finished first as most intelligent and we also see it on game shows like countdown.
    This I can understand - if you think of thinking speed as a sign of intelligence, I can understand that.
    Extra time is also clearly being abused people with dyslexia with maths talents have succeeded in the past before it was recognised as a condition so they still succeeded without extra time, in fact I went to a talk by a scientific inventor who nearly got kicked out of school because they were appalling at English(much later found out he was dyslexic) but his Science and Maths papers were excellent so he ended up being accepted.However, dyslexic students are being given extra time on exams where they do not need extra time(example of this can be found on TSR I believe where cleverer people at certain subjects got extra time).
    The abuse of a system does not mean it should be abolished. It means we should improve the system. You can't just give up on all people with disabilities because the system isn't working - that is not their fault...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Study tools

    Rosette

    Essay expert

    Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

    Thinking about uni already?

    Thinking about uni already?

    See where you can apply with our uni match tool

    Student chat

    Ask a question

    Chat to other GCSE students and get your study questions answered.

    Creating

    Make study resources

    Create all the resources you need to get the grades.

    Planner

    Create your own Study Plan

    Organise all your homework and exams so you never miss another deadline.

    Resources by subject

    From flashcards to mind maps; there's everything you need for all of your GCSE subjects.

    Papers

    Find past papers

    100s of GCSE past papers for all your subjects at your fingertips.

    Help out other students

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.