zlacker

Your point about Stanford having a larger-than-average proportion of 'extremely gifted' kids is reasonable. Perhaps the smartest 20% at Stanford are drawn from the smartest 0.1% nationally.

But I think you're too dismissive of this part:

  The professors Horowitz interviewed largely back up this theory. "You hear 'students with disabilities' and it's not kids in wheelchairs," one professor told Horowitch. "It's just not. It's rich kids getting extra time on tests."

You said "One person in it claims the kids aren’t really disabled because they don’t have wheelchairs" but this is a straw man. The professor did not say this.

If you read the statement charitably, the professor only pointed out two things that are probably true, which I paraphrase below:

- most people, when they hear about students with disabilities, imagine physical disabilities

- the professor has seen that a sizable proportion of students classified as disabled do not require accommodations

Now, we could argue about what are reasonable accommodations and which are not. This is where I'm interested to hear your perspective.

I assume you are in favor of these two:

- kid needs wheelchair and a ramp, so kid can attend class

- kid needs glasses, so kid can see the whiteboard

I assume you are not in favor of this one:

- kid cannot find the derivative of 2x^2, so kid is allowed to use a CAS calculator for Calculus 1 exams

What do you think about this one?

- kid can pass the English Composition 1 exam, but only if given twice as much time as other students

>>rahimn+(OP)
Your request to read charitably is not supported by your followup of cartoonish straw man questions.

You are using rhetorical trickery to make a point rather than engaging in honest dialog.

>>jph00+kM
I used no trickery.

I am attempting to ascertain where you draw the line.

I offered examples that I presume we agree on, on both sides of the line.

Then I gave an example where we might disagree.

If you feel my questions are 'cartoonish straw man questions' then that of course is your right.

However, I want to make it clear that:

- you mischaracterized the quotation from the professor in the article

- I would honestly like to understand (i) whether you agree there is a line to be drawn between things that correct for impediments that are irrelevant to the competency being tested, and (ii) where you would draw that line.

If the manner in which I've written my questions makes it seem like I have any intention other than to understand your position more clearly, I apologize.

>>rahimn+(OP)
There's a difference in kind not degree to the two sets of questions.

It's the difference between someone giving me a ride to work and someone doing my job for me. If the the point of the Calculus class is - ugh, it's been awhile for me so I might be messing this up - to teach the power rule or the thing being taught in English class is how to write a cogent essay in a set period of time then giving a student a calculator or more time is doing the job for the kid.

If they're incapable of doing the work why are the in class? Maybe there's a different class that's more appropriate for them?

>>hacker+0M2
I love the ride analogy.

So it sounds like you agree with me that, for an English Composition exam, all students should receive the same amount of time. Is that correct?

But now I'm wondering:

- if someone's typing speed is slow due to arthritis or an identifiable condition, shouldn't they get extra time?

- if someone's typing speed is slow just because they never learned to touch type, should they get extra time? after all, the exam is meant to be testing English composition, not typing.

>>rahimn+b93
The second hypothetical is to me less interesting. Presumably typing in this class is pre-requisite. This to me is much closer to "do my work" then "drive me to work" ; though the work in question isn't the class itself but instead the pre-requisite.

The first is getting right at the nub of thing. I think accommodations should be made but the worst accommodation is one that would advantage anyone not just a person with a condition that could hold someone back.

So - to switch hypotheticals to one that I was thinking about for no reason - you would give Stephen Hawking a speech synthesizer in Physics 101 not more time. Any student would like more time but no one able to communicate would be interested in a speech synthesizer.

That would be my version of fair in any case. Is it possible? I don't know and the incentives involved would (as I think a lot of people would agree) be pushing towards the worst kind of accommodation.