The most progressive country in the world

[aelf]

There's also a lot of jobs for which exam results aren't all that important. My own trade is a good example, but many fields are more interested in experience and your personal qualities than how well you did at school.

The military is only one employer (and, as you said, some jobs in the military aren't open to people with dyslexia). A lot of white collar jobs that graduates typically go for look at results.

And as much as I hate to state the obvious, it is completely wrong to artificially make certain people look more attractive to employers than they are with the motivation of keeping the unemployment figures down.

Like I said, more people on welfare.

There's also the fact that being a stickler about the duration of exams doesn't really help anyone here.

 

[Akka]

Like I said, more people on welfare.

Because the people not benefiting from these adjusted exam will magically find another job if a dyslexic get this one ?

 

[aelf]

The answer depends on so many other things. But there is a difference between being out-competed for some jobs that you have a chance of getting and being automatically locked out of them because you don't have what employers are looking for. That's why it's a good idea to have unemployed workers go for retraining even if there's significant unemployment.

 

[Oerdin]

Sweden of course.

In the news today -

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=4771495

What do you think about this? Aren't women in general better at language? Would that in case also be something to rectify in the test?

I honestly would have guessed Norway.

 

[REDY]

We shall differ:
1)Skills needed to finish school
2)Skills needed for job

Also people with dyslexia have levels of their disability and different problems. Some read well but have problems with writing, some opossite...I guess that discalculia is similiar.

I generaly dont see problem when these people have more time or calculators in school when its not abused.

 

[Flying Pig]

The military is only one employer (and, as you said, some jobs in the military aren't open to people with dyslexia). A lot of white collar jobs that graduates typically go for look at results.

Indeed, because they are looking for reading and writing skills! Most blue-collar, to use that disgusting phrase, jobs aren't interested in exam results. Also, as I said, nearly everything that could be categorised as a 'trade' isn't, either.

Like I said, more people on welfare.

That's not a reason. The best applicants for any job should always get that job - it's not the job of examining bodies to artificially inflate the grades of certain people to make them look more attractive.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

We shall differ:
1)Skills needed to finish school
2)Skills needed for job

Also people with dyslexia have levels of their disability and different problems. Some read well but have problems with writing, some opossite...I guess that discalculia is similiar.

I generaly dont see problem when these people have more time or calculators in school when its not abused.

People with other mental disabilities/diagnoses should also gain advantages to be able to compete with the rest?

What about those slightly less intelligent - could they get a a slightly easier test to keep up? Or would you need a diagnose to gain that advantage?


Also, again - these tests aren't the only way to get into a college...

 

[Flying Pig]

What about those slightly less intelligent - could they get a a slightly easier test to keep up? Or would you need a diagnose to gain that advantage?

That's precisely my issue. I don't see what the distinction is between someone who's dyslexic and someone who's bad at reading and writing, and therefore I don't see why one should get extra help and one emphatically shouldn't.

 

[Silurian]

And the calculations aren't checked?

If the calculations are wrong then they have to be redone from the mistake (unless it is trivial). If the mistake is near the beginning then it will double the cost of the calculations. Engineers need to be able to "see" when they make a mistake so that they can spot non trivial errors as they progress their calculations. If they cannot do this they cannot be an engineer.

But as Amiee said such a person would not chose to be an engineer.

But there are other jobs that require you to use maths and you are less likely to be checked or if you are checked it could put you in an awkward situation. If you get a job as a supervisor in a shop you will have to quickly cash up the money in the tills at the end of your shift or as the till operators change shift.

 

[aelf]

Indeed, because they are looking for reading and writing skills!

Nope, they aren't just looking at reading and writing skills, which, depending on the actual disparities, might not be all that important in the whole scheme of things.

Most blue-collar, to use that disgusting phrase, jobs aren't interested in exam results. Also, as I said, nearly everything that could be categorised as a 'trade' isn't, either.

So you're saying they can only work in trade jobs? So I guess trade jobs are the big black hole that can absorb most people who are rejected for white collar jobs, huh?

That's not a reason. The best applicants for any job should always get that job - it's not the job of examining bodies to artificially inflate the grades of certain people to make them look more attractive.

Less structural unemployment is better. If there's a low-hanging fruit, like being more flexible with the exam format, why not go for it? It's not like employers actually want people because they get good results in exams. Results are just a signal, and they aren't a perfect signal, since a large part of it is about test-taking skills that aren't that relevant to most jobs.

That's precisely my issue. I don't see what the distinction is between someone who's dyslexic and someone who's bad at reading and writing, and therefore I don't see why one should get extra help and one emphatically shouldn't.

Differences in innate intelligence are also 'unfair', I grant you that. But I don't see why we should have less equality of opportunity when we can have more just because some people are always going to be dealt a bad hand that can't easily be alleviated.

Besides, some people who are just bad at reading and writing may be that way because they just didn't put much effort into them.

 

[innonimatu]

The answer depends on so many other things. But there is a difference between being out-competed for some jobs that you have a chance of getting and being automatically locked out of them because you don't have what employers are looking for. That's why it's a good idea to have unemployed workers go for retraining even if there's significant unemployment.

That's not a reason. The best applicants for any job should always get that job - it's not the job of examining bodies to artificially inflate the grades of certain people to make them look more attractive.

Aelf, I think you're sinking your own argument here, and Flying Pig got it right. Exams certify the ability to do some thing, the possession and correct application of some skill. If a person cannot, for whatever reason, have that skill, the exam should reflect that. And not be artificially adjusted to hide it. Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of examination. Welfare is a more rational answer to the problem of people with some job-related limitations than it would be this "progressiveness" of cheating the certification process.

And all this is unrelated to the actual fact that people cheat on exams as much as they can get away with...

 

[Flying Pig]

Differences in innate intelligence are also 'unfair', I grant you that. But I don't see why we should have less equality of opportunity when we can have more, just because some people are always going to be dealt a bad hand that can't easily be alleviated.

So would you give low-IQ people extra time in exams, to compensate for the bad hand that nature dealt them?

And all this is unrelated to the actual fact that people cheat on exams as much as they can get away with...

Oh, of course. I will say however that the current exam system is very difficult to cheat.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It really depends on what you are trying to determine. If the objective is to find those who can do best on existing standardized tests it is likely just fine. If the purpose is to determine who can likely succeed in an academic environment, however, it is obviously a very poor system for those who have difficulty taking such tests whatever the reason.

 

[aelf]

Aelf, I think you're sinking your own argument here, and Flying Pig got it right. Exams certify the ability to do some thing, the possession and correct application of some skill. If a person cannot, for whatever reason, have that skill, the exam should reflect that. And not be artificially adjusted to hide it. Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of examination. Welfare is a more rational answer to the problem of people with some job-related limitations than it would be this "progressiveness" of cheating the certification process.

You guys seem to have little idea what exams are like. It's kinda mind-boggling, actually. But I guess it's probably been some time since you went through them.

Officially, the purpose of examinations is mostly to test for knowledge and reasoning skills, not really reading and writing skills. That is why, except for language papers, examiners typically don't really care about spelling and grammatical errors, unless there are too many or they really change the meaning of what you're saying.

The time limit is there for practical reasons and to help test for knowledge (with the reasoning that if you know it, you know it, and you don't have to spend a lot of time thinking hard about it), but it also winds up rewarding strategic memorisation, which is not a terribly efficient way of retaining knowledge. A lot of the time, even essay structures and points are memorised, with only a bit of room left for tactical decision-making in response to differences between the actual questions and the questions prepared for. So I think there is definitely no loss in being more flexible with the duration of exams for those students who have certifiable problems with writing quickly (which does not mean that they have a problem with their reasoning skills or with knowledge retention).

I am a strong believer in doing more graded assignments than exams. Exams are a good way of instilling and testing for a different kind of discipline that is required in the process of preparing for them, but I don't think they reflect your abilities as a high-level thinker as well as graded assignments do. In that regard, I don't think they are a terribly accurate indication of how well you'll manage as a worker in most normal white collar jobs.

And all this is unrelated to the actual fact that people cheat on exams as much as they can get away with...

All the more you shouldn't rely on exams to be the be all and end all in terms signaling a student's abilities.

So would you give low-IQ people extra time in exams, to compensate for the bad hand that nature dealt them?

That's not what I said. I said that it makes no sense not to be fair with a group of people just because there's going to be another group that is still not going to be dealt with fairly despite your best efforts.

 

[Yeekim]

All the more you shouldn't rely on exams to be the be all and end all in terms signaling a student's abilities.

Because no-one ever had somebody do his graded assignment for him?

On topic: I can understand, how someone who might be a natural math genius could fail a math test, because he is, for some reason, an extremely slow writer and thus can not finish in time. Maybe he has recently injured his right hand and needs to write with left one or something like this.

In that case, giving extra time would make sense, because his failure would have nothing to do with math skills and if we did not take this into account, the test results would not be reliable. On the other hand, someone with dyscalculia has deficiencies which are related precisely to math skills - and this should show in test results.

 

[aelf]

Because no-one ever had somebody do his graded assignment for him?

Sure you can. But people have also had others take the exams for them.

As far as I know, cheating is not a significant problem with either exams or graded assignments.

On topic: I can understand, how someone who might be a natural math genius could fail a math test, because he is, for some reason, an extremely slow writer and thus can not finish in time. Maybe he has recently injured his right hand and needs to write with left one or something like this.

In that case, giving extra time would make sense, because his failure would have nothing to do with math skills and if we did not take this into account, the test results would not be reliable. On the other hand, someone with dyscalculia has deficiencies which are related precisely to math skills - and this should show in test results.

I don't think anyone is saying that they should be passed no matter what or awarded extra marks to make up for their handicap. I'm just not sure giving them some extra time constitutes a failure to test for math skills properly.

 

[REDY]

People with other mental disabilities/diagnoses should also gain advantages to be able to compete with the rest?

What about those slightly less intelligent - could they get a a slightly easier test to keep up? Or would you need a diagnose to gain that advantage?


Also, again - these tests aren't the only way to get into a college...

I guess that experts will know better than I. Do you find any sense in giving deaf people voice instructions or giving blind people tests written on paper? People with mental disabilies are not that different. Their abilities shall be well tested if you will take right approach. If they just need more time or having calculators, I dont see how someone shall see problems and giving such absurd questions.

 

[aelf]

Looking at it again, I still can't find meaningful details from the article, partly because it's so damn badly translated. But it does compare the "custom test" that is to be created for dyscalculics to the one for dyslexics. The example it cites for the latter involves reading out parts of the paper. And, from what I know, dyslexics get extra time, but they essentially do the same paper.

I don't know if people are under the impression that the paper itself is made easier or something. I think it's really silly to take issue with the fact that dyslexic people are read out parts of the paper and get some extra time. That has very little bearing on how knowledgeable they are in the subjects being tested.

EDIT: In addition, if maths scores are important in university entrance exams, even for courses that don't require much math skills, then that also makes it silly to insist that dyscalculics get no exceptions.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's not what I said. I said that it makes no sense not to be fair with a group of people just because there's going to be another group that is still not going to be dealt with fairly despite your best efforts.

OK, but can you answer the question as to why dyslexics deserve extra time while low-IQ people don't?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

OK, but can you answer the question as to why dyslexics deserve extra time while low-IQ people don't?

It's easier to sympathize with a group where the disadvantage is clearly defined, as in a diagnose. Dyslexia is a handicap while low IQ is just bad luck, until they map out the brain further and manage to diagnose all mental disabilities.

Aelf - how did you get into your university?