The most progressive country in the world

[aelf]

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.

This. It's not really 'sympathy', though, just the fact that a relatively clearly defined condition is easier to accommodate in manner that is specific to that condition.

Extra time isn't given to dyslexic people to make the paper easier (i.e. less rigorous or whatever) for them per se, but to give them the time they need to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. On the other hand, giving extra time to people with low IQ is neither being specific in accommodating their 'condition' nor as likely to be effective at helping them.

Aelf - how did you get into your university?

I submitted my results (I didn't take maths at that level) and a personal statement.

 

[Silurian]

On the other hand, giving extra time to people with low IQ is neither being specific in accommodating their 'condition' nor as likely to be effective at helping them.

How do you know that extra time will not help them with their 'condition'.

 

[aelf]

How do you know that extra time will not help them with their 'condition'.

I was tempted to respond in an accommodating manner, but this just strikes me as stupid, given that I think people are just refusing to understand at this point.

For one, I'm not sure your question can be said to be pertinent at all to the post you quoted. I mean, just read the post again. If you still don't get what I mean, then you should be able to see that giving extra time makes no difference for people who don't understand to begin with. Dyslexic people, on the other hand, don't lack knowledge or understanding of a particular subject because they are dyslexic, and as long as exams are meant to test for knowledge and reasoning skills, there's no reason to penalise them just because they can't write or read as quickly as normal people due to their handicap.

 

[Silurian]

I was tempted to respond in an accommodating manner, but this just strikes me as stupid, given that I think people are just refusing to understand at this point.

For one, I'm not sure your question can be said to be pertinent at all to the post you quoted. I mean, just read the post again. If you still don't get what I mean, then you should be able to see that giving extra time makes no difference for people who don't understand to begin with. Dyslexic people, on the other hand, don't lack knowledge or understanding of a particular subject because they are dyslexic, and as long as exams are meant to test for knowledge and reasoning skills, there's no reason to penalise them just because they can't write or read as quickly as normal people due to their handicap.

People used to think that Dyslexic people were just stupid.

Do you have any evidence that people with lower IQs will not do better in a test if they are given longer to take the test.

 

[aelf]

People used to think that Dyslexic people were just stupid.

Do you have any evidence that people with lower IQs will not do better in a test if they are given longer to take the test.

No. I merely reasoned from the fact that half an hour or an hour of extra time for an exam is very unlikely to make a significant difference for people who find it a challenge to understand the subject being tested in the first place. I think it's kinda obvious. Feel free to point out why it isn't.

 

[Silurian]

No. I merely reasoned from the fact that half an hour or an hour of extra time for an exam is very unlikely to make a significant difference for people who find it a challenge to understand the subject being tested in the first place. I think it's kinda obvious. Feel free to point out why it isn't.

People’s intelligence and its nature vary greatly.
Some people are slower at understanding things but they do understand them in the end.

Are their some people with Dyslexia are so bad that that extra time in an exam will not help them?

If so why do you assume that there are not some people with a lower IQ who would not be helped with extra time?

 

[aelf]

People’s intelligence and its nature vary greatly.
Some people are slower at understanding things but they do understand them in the end.

Yes, but not in the space of an extra hour or half an hour. I can't believe you have to be convinced that being given some extra time in an exam will not really help you if you don't really understand the subject matter to begin with.

Are their some people with Dyslexia are so bad that that extra time in an exam will not help them?

Sure. As I've already said before, the allowance must be within reason. But then, if someone is that bad, then I'd question how and why that person is on that level to begin with. A university student studying social sciences that absolutely cannot write an essay in the space of and hour or so, for example, probably has serious problems that would likely have prevented him from being in that position to begin with.

If so why do you assume that there are not some people with a lower IQ who would not be helped with extra time?

Because the nature of one problem is different from the other? Jesus What, were people in the past right? That dyslexic people are really just the same as people with low IQ, i.e. stupid? That's certainly not so from my limited experience, but I'm sure you know better.

 

[aelf]

Instead of going on with this farcical discussion, here's some useful things. First, the (American) National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke's definition of dyslexia as given in Wiki:

Dyslexia is a brain-based type of learning disability that specifically impairs a person's ability to read. These individuals typically read at levels significantly lower than expected despite having normal intelligence. Although the disorder varies from person to person, common characteristics among people with dyslexia are difficulty with spelling, phonological processing (the manipulation of sounds), and/or rapid visual-verbal responding. In adults, dyslexia usually occurs after a brain injury or in the context of dementia. It can also be inherited in some families and so on, and recent studies have identified a number of genes that may predispose an individual to developing dyslexia.[

Another thing is, if you're British, maybe you'd want to write to the British Dyslexia Association with your concerns about the 'privileges' that dyslexic students enjoy. And please post the response that you get. It will probably be highly informative

 

[Loppan Torkel]

... Jesus What, were people in the past right? That dyslexic people are really just the same as people with low IQ, i.e. stupid? That's certainly not so from my limited experience, but I'm sure you know better.

That's pretty derogatory against mentally handicapped people. I try to not see it as "stupidity" but rather as a mental dysfunction which needs to be alleviated just as any other handicap. I'm sure this dysfunction of the brain will be diagnosed in the future just like the dyslexia and dyscalculia has. It's as you said, earlier people assumed dyslexic people only were stupid.

 

[aelf]

That's pretty derogatory against mentally handicapped people. I try to not to see it as "stupidity" but rather as a mental dysfunction which needs to be alleviated just as any other handicap. I'm sure this dysfunction of the brain will be diagnosed in the future just like the dyslexia and dyscalculia has. It's as you said, earlier people assumed dyslexic people only were stupid.

I wasn't being derogatory. I was just going by what Silurian said about how other people thought of dyslexia in the past and the ostensible link that has to the question of the difference between people with dyslexia and people with low IQ.

 

[Silurian]

Yes, but not in the space of an extra hour or half an hour. I can't believe you have to be convinced that being given some extra time in an exam will not really help you if you don't really understand the subject matter to begin with.

You are assuming that all exams are at the same level and that all people with a lower IQ are the same. I have a Civil Engineering degree and over the last thirty years have worked with many people of varying intelligence levels and educational achievement. Many of the people with a lower intelligence have to be shown how to do a thing a number of times before they get it. In the same way it can take them longer to understand an exam question and compose an answer.

Sure. As I've already said before, the allowance must be within reason. But then, if someone is that bad, then I'd question how and why that person is on that level to begin with. A university student studying social sciences that absolutely cannot write an essay in the space of and hour or so, for example, probably has serious problems that would likely have prevented him from being in that position to begin with.

Of course all allowances have to be within reason, it depends what the purpose of the exam is. Most exams are not at degree level.

Because the nature of one problem is different from the other? Jesus What, were people in the past right? That dyslexic people are really just the same as people with low IQ, i.e. stupid? That's certainly not so from my limited experience, but I'm sure you know better.

So the problems are different what has that got to do with anything. I am not saying that people with dyslexia are the same as people with lower IQ, just that they both have problems.

 

[aelf]

So do you think more time should also be given to low IQ people or are you against more time for dyslexic people or what?

 

[Silurian]

So do you think more time should also be given to low IQ people or are you against more time for dyslexic people or what?

More time should be given to people with lower IQ, dyslexia, blind; their mother has just died etc unless part of the purpose of the exam is to test how quickly you can do the exam. There may still be a case for given more time if the exam is partly used to measure the time taken to do the test but I think that an employer should be made aware of the allowance.

 

[Flying Pig]

More time should be given to people with lower IQ, dyslexia, blind; their mother has just died etc

In our system, people with special circumstances such as that are often given a few extra marks, especially if there's a notable difference between their marks in mock tests and school-work and the actual exam.

 

[aelf]

More time should be given to people with lower IQ, dyslexia, blind; their mother has just died etc unless part of the purpose of the exam is to test how quickly you can do the exam. There may still be a case for given more time if the exam is partly used to measure the time taken to do the test but I think that an employer should be made aware of the allowance.

Well, I don't have any fundamental objections to that. I was just trying to offer an explanation for why people with low IQ don't get the same allowances as dyslexics, a point which was raised as an objection to the special treatment that dyslexics get. I guess, at the end of the day, issues are dealt with as they arise to the best of a system's ability. Perhaps the matter of extra time during exams for people with low IQ is overshadowed by other bigger issues that they face in their education?

 

[Silurian]

In our system, people with special circumstances such as that are often given a few extra marks, especially if there's a notable difference between their marks in mock tests and school-work and the actual exam.

You are correct as far as I recall for most exams like A levels etc.

Well, I don't have any fundamental objections to that. I was just trying to offer an explanation for why people with low IQ don't get the same allowances as dyslexics, a point which was raised as an objection to the special treatment that dyslexics get. I guess, at the end of the day, issues are dealt with as they arise to the best of a system's ability. Perhaps the matter of extra time during exams for people with low IQ is overshadowed by other bigger issues that they face in their education?

People are not given an allowance for lower IQ in most exams because a cause has not been identified.
If a cause was discovered for some cases of lower IQ in the same way as peptic ulcers have been found to be caused by a bacteria then allowance would be made.

People with a lower IQ will not be able to progress as far in their education for the same effort. As you have said people with dyslexia can put in more effort to help to overcome their problems. People with a lower IQ can also benefit from extra study.

 

[KidJustKid]

People are not given an allowance for lower IQ in most exams because a cause has not been identified.

Is that not the point of exams themselves - yes, IQ is not the denominator or scale but it seems unreasonable you would expect every British 16 or 18 year old to have identical intelligence. I fully understand why you'd give extra time to someone with dyslexia etc. but not for simply not being not great at that particular exam. I also fundamentally disagree with any exam that uses time as a marker or constraint in a public context.

 

[Silurian]

Is that not the point of exams themselves - yes, IQ is not the denominator or scale but it seems unreasonable you would expect every British 16 or 18 year old to have identical intelligence. I fully understand why you'd give extra time to someone with dyslexia etc. but not for simply not being not great at that particular exam. I also fundamentally disagree with any exam that uses time as a marker or constraint in a public context.

I do Not expect everyone to have the same IQ.
A person with dyslexia is not great at that particular exam as well.
There are many causes of different IQs.

As I said below peptic ulcers have been found to be linked to a bacteria when previously believed to be mainly due to lifestyle.

Who knows what may be found about what effects how people learn and take exams. The workings of the brain are still largely unknown.

 

[KidJustKid]

I'll assume your first sentence is a typo as you shoot straight through it yourself. ^_^
Also IQ is an extremely narrow pattern and problem solving based measure of 'intelligence'. Pure computative mathematicians can't observe its patterns easily and aural and emotively creative people don't get the application of external rules - it's like plonking a PhD English professor into an A level class on quantum mechanics - he has the wrong skills.

Regardless, moving back to the topic, do you think it is ethical to, firstly in the context of exams, give benefits to any pupil if the objective of the exam is an independently verifiable and reliable measure of aptitude in each subject, and secondly for, say, a university to preferentially take state school kids to private/public school kids in a case of identical financial state as well as academic results? I've statistically been in the worst possible group for uni or course access in relation to attainment rather than overall numbers in the UK: white, male, relatively affluent, posh schooling. Views?

 

[Silurian]

Typo corrected

If it is know that people with certain problems with an exam have extra time or extra marks then it is ethical. If it is carried out secretly it is not ethical.

Regarding a preference to state school pupils with the same academic results over private/public school pupils I also think that is also ethical. A state school pupil will have had far less resources spent on them to reach the same academic results as a private/public school pupil and so it is likely that they will surpass private/public school pupil at university. I think you will find that the UK university system is well represented with white, male, relatively affluent, posh schooling compared with the general population.