SAT kids: rebel!
So I heard that the damn SAT now provides additional time to like %20 of the students who take the test. Apparently, learning disabilities are more prevalent than once believed. Don't ask me for a source on that number; I heard it glancingly referred to in class, and it may be wildly inaccurate.
But it did make me consider an important question. Why does anyone get extra time at all? I realize that there are intelligent people that might have a disability, like dysxelia, that hampers their ability to efficiently process exams like the SAT. These people also get extra time in the classroom for tests that other students do not. The intent behind the policy seems noble, but is it entirely honest? I mean, if you were a prospective employer considering a college graduate with an attractive 4.0 GPA, wouldn't you like to know that it takes them %20 longer than most people to finish many of the tasks for which you're hiring them?
Another thing that annoys me about this policy is that it discriminates against stupid people. We say that people with attention deficits or learning difficulties deserve more time, while people who are just dumber than their peers should be competing with the brighter students. Essentially, some mental deficiencies (ADHD, dyslexia) are forgivable and we should try to insulate their sufferers from failure, while others (plain old stupidity) should be repressed to the lower circles of academic success.
I can see the idea behind the theory. If you have a smart person with a reading disability, they will perform at a level lower than their actual abilities on time-based exams like the SAT, and that, with more time, they'll be able to more accurately represent their true abilities. But we need to better understand what we mean by "true abilities". After all, swift problem solving is surely a desirable trait, and we shouldn't assume that achieving the same answer in twice the time indicates a person is just as competent.
It would be nice to see an exam that didn't emphasize timeliness as strongly. If an SAT was designed without a time bound -- or at least, a time limit long enough for the slowest student -- we might be able to differentiate between the stupid and the slow. If you're not bright enough to solve a problem, there's no amount of extra time that will bring you closer to the solution.
But the SAT in its recent incarnations is still a heavily time based exam, and most people who take it would probably benefit from more time. And as long as that's the case, it remains hard to justify our categorization of those who deserve and do not deserve assistance.
But it did make me consider an important question. Why does anyone get extra time at all? I realize that there are intelligent people that might have a disability, like dysxelia, that hampers their ability to efficiently process exams like the SAT. These people also get extra time in the classroom for tests that other students do not. The intent behind the policy seems noble, but is it entirely honest? I mean, if you were a prospective employer considering a college graduate with an attractive 4.0 GPA, wouldn't you like to know that it takes them %20 longer than most people to finish many of the tasks for which you're hiring them?
Another thing that annoys me about this policy is that it discriminates against stupid people. We say that people with attention deficits or learning difficulties deserve more time, while people who are just dumber than their peers should be competing with the brighter students. Essentially, some mental deficiencies (ADHD, dyslexia) are forgivable and we should try to insulate their sufferers from failure, while others (plain old stupidity) should be repressed to the lower circles of academic success.
I can see the idea behind the theory. If you have a smart person with a reading disability, they will perform at a level lower than their actual abilities on time-based exams like the SAT, and that, with more time, they'll be able to more accurately represent their true abilities. But we need to better understand what we mean by "true abilities". After all, swift problem solving is surely a desirable trait, and we shouldn't assume that achieving the same answer in twice the time indicates a person is just as competent.
It would be nice to see an exam that didn't emphasize timeliness as strongly. If an SAT was designed without a time bound -- or at least, a time limit long enough for the slowest student -- we might be able to differentiate between the stupid and the slow. If you're not bright enough to solve a problem, there's no amount of extra time that will bring you closer to the solution.
But the SAT in its recent incarnations is still a heavily time based exam, and most people who take it would probably benefit from more time. And as long as that's the case, it remains hard to justify our categorization of those who deserve and do not deserve assistance.
posted by Clietzsche at 11:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home