Can someone explain to me why the accommodations make sense in the first place?

Like what's the point of having the test be time constrained? If there is no point, then just let everyone have more time. If there is a point to having the test be time constrained, then aren't we just holding one group to a lower standard than another group? Why is that good?

Same question about lectures. Is there a reason everyone can't everyone record the lectures? If so, then why do we have different standards?

I think at the college level, grades should in some sense reflect your proficiency at a given topic. An "A" in calculus should mean that you can do calculus and that evaluation should be independent of your own strengths, weaknesses, disabilities, genetic predisposition to it, and so on. Imagine an extreme example: someone is in a car crash, suffers brain damage, and is now unable to do calculus. This is tragic. But I don't also feel that it now makes sense to let them do their tests open book or whatever to accommodate for that. As a society we should do whatever we can to support this individual and help them live their best life. But I don't see how holding them to a lower standard on their college exams accomplishes that.

▲

wisty an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Lots of people think a test should measure one thing (often under the slightly "main character" assumption that they'll be really good at the one truly important thing).

Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one.

It certainly shouldn't be entirely a race either though.

Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll write 30 pages of nonsense.

▲

jaredklewis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll write 30 pages of nonsense.

Sure that makes sense to me, but I don't see why this would not also apply to ADHD students or any other group.

And of course, there needs to be some time limit. All I am saying is, instead of having a group that gets one hour and another group that gets two hours, just give everyone two hours.

I meant "constrained" not in the sense of having a limit at all, but in the sense that often tests are designed in such a way that it is very common that takers are unable to finish in the allotted time. If this constraint serves some purpose (i.e. speed is considered to be desirable) then I don't see why that purpose doesn't apply to everyone.

	▲	wisty 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There can be a genuine need to make it fair. Some students with anxiety can take 10 minutes to read the first question, then are fine. ASD could mean slower uptake as they figure out the exam format. So let's say you have a generally fair time bonus for mild (clinical) anxiety. The issue is that it's fair for the average mild anxiety, it's an advantage if a student has extremely mild anxiety. As you say, hopefully the test is not overly time focused, but it's still an advantage, and a lot of these students / parents will go for every advantage they can.

▲

bawolff 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one.

Why are you trying to measure speed though?

I can't think of any situation where someone was like: you have exactly 1 minute to integrate this function, or else.

Fluency yes, but speed is a poor proxy for fluency.

	▲	schnable 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Why is it a poor proxy? Someone who really understands the concepts and has the aptitude for it will get answers more quickly than someone who is shakier on it. The person who groks it less may be able to get to the answer, but needs to spend more time working through the problem. They're less good at calculus and should get a lower grade! Maybe they shouldn't fail Calc 101, but may deserve a B or (the horror) a C. Maybe that person will never get an A is calculus and that should be ok. Joel Spolsky explained this well about what makes a good programmer[1]. "If the basic concepts aren’t so easy that you don’t even have to think about them, you’re not going to get the big concepts." [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...

▲

darth_avocado an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Well that’s the core of the problem. Either you’re measuring speed on a test or you’re not. If you are, then people with disabilities unfortunately do not pass the test and that’s the way it is. If you are not, then testing some students but not others is unfair.

At the end of the day setting up a system where different students have different criteria for succeeding, automatically incentivizes students to find the easiest criteria for themselves.

▲

TeMPOraL an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Eliminating time limits on standardized tests is infeasible; it would require changes to processes on a state or national levels, and mindsets in education as a whole. It's also a complex enough issue that you'd have factions arguing for and against it six ways to Sunday. It's not going to happen.

In contrast, special-casing few disadvantaged students is a local decisions every school or university could make independently, and initially it was an easy sell - a tiny exception to help a fraction of people whom life treated particularly hard. Nobody intended for that to eventually apply to 1/3 of all students - but this is just the usual case of a dynamic system adjusting to compensate.

	▲	jameshart 23 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Eliminating time constraints is entirely reasonable. Leaving exams early is generally an option in most standardized testing systems - though usually with some minimum time you must remain present before leaving. Taking what is currently scheduled as a three hour exam which many students already leave after 2, and for which some have accommodations allowing them 4 hours, and just setting aside up to five hours for it for everyone, likely makes the exam a fairer test of knowledge (as opposed to a test of exam skills and pressured time management) for everyone. Once you’ve answered all the problems, or completed an essay, additional time isn’t going to make your answers any better. So you can just get up and leave when you’re done.
	▲	jaredklewis an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You say it is infeasible for standardized tests, but why? Is it that much harder to give 50 students and extra hour than to give 5 students an extra hour? Or just design the tests so that there is ample time to complete them without extra time. But putting aside standardized tests, in the context of this discussion about Stanford, I think these accommodations are being used for ordinary tests given for classes, so Stanford (or any other school) has full control to do whatever they want.

▲

bawolff an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> An "A" in calculus should mean that you can do calculus and that evaluation should be independent of your own strengths

If you can't do calculus, extra time is not going to help you. Its not like an extra 30 minutes in a closed room environment is going to let you rederrive calculus from first principles.

The theory behind these accomedations is that certain people are disadvantaged in ways that have nothing to do with the thing being evaluated.

The least controversial version would be someone that is blind gets a braile version of the test (or someone to read it to them, etc). Sure you can say that without the accomadations the blind student cannot do calculus like the other students can, but you are really just testing if they can see the question not if they "know" calculus. The point of the test is to test their ability at calculus not to test if their eyes work.

	▲	jaredklewis 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The braille example you give makes absolutely perfect sense. The blind student is being evaluated same as the other students and the accommodation given to the blind student (a Braille version of the test) would be of no use to the other students. But extra test time is fundamentally different, as it would be of value to anyone taking the test. If getting the problems in Braille helps the student demonstrate their ability to do Calculus, we give them the test in Braille. If getting 30 minutes of extra time helps all students demonstrate their ability to do calculus, why don't we just give it to all students then?

▲

skeeter2020 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> Like what's the point of having the test be time constrained?

A few examples: competitive tests based on adapting the questions to see how "deep" an individual can get within a specific time. IRL there are lots of tasks that need to be done well and quickly; a correct plodder isn't acceptable.

	▲	jaredklewis 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That makes sense to me, but in that case I also just don't understand why one group gets more time than another group. If the test is meant to evaluate speed, then you can't give some groups more time, because now it doesn't evaluate speed anymore.

▲

bradlys an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason is because employers are insanely brutal in the job market due to an oversupply of qualified talent. We have more people than we have positions available to work for quality wages. This is why everything is so extreme. Students need to be in the top X percent in order to get a job that leads to a decent quality of life in the US. The problem is that every student knows this and is now competing against one another for these advantages.

It’s like stack ranking within companies that always fire the bottom 20%. Everyone will do whatever they can to be in the top 80% and it continues to get worse every year. Job conditions are not improving every year - they are continually getting worse and that’s due to the issue that we just don’t have enough jobs.

This country doesn’t build anything anymore and we are concentrating all the wealth and power into the hands of a few. This leaves the top 1% getting richer every year and the bottom 99% fighting over a smaller piece of the pie every year.

▲

jaredklewis 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

Your comment explains why students would like to receive these accommodations (it gives them a competitive edge), but does nothing to explain why this is logical or beneficial.

If as you say the number of available positions is constrained, this system does nothing to increase the supply of those positions. It also does nothing increase the likelihood that those positions are allocated to those with the greatest material need. This is Stanford; I am sure many of the disabled students at Stanford are in the 1%.

	▲	bradlys 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Even in the top 1% there’s a limited amount of positions. Everyone wants every advantage possible over everyone else. That is how the market is. Even for Stanford students there is a hierarchy.