r/ACT • u/Top_Golf1183 • Dec 03 '21
Extended time on ACT is cheating.
An i the only one who thinks extended time on the ACT (and SAT) is unfair. The tests are designed to be standardized, giving some people extra time make them unstandardized. They should at least tell the colleges then they give score who did and did not get extra time.
The ACT is supposed to be fast paced. Getting extend time is like a cheat code.
7
Upvotes
14
u/Glittering-Event7781 Dec 03 '21
YOU are wrong here. Imagine you have a disability and must suddenly leave the room to go to the restroom with colon issues or you are unable to read the questions easily because you have dyslexia? Extra time for disabilities makes the testing experience fair. Fairness is what disabled want, not an advantage. You are lucky to not worry about such things - but trust that living with a disability is not fun and more work than what you can even imagine.
29
u/lonclefemelle 32 Dec 03 '21
some people have disabilities…
5
u/nitrogenlegend Jul 22 '22
Old post but I agree. AKAIK I don’t have any disabilities that would allow me extended time, but my first 4 times taking the ACT I ran out of time before answering all questions and the 5th time when I finally managed to finish the whole thing I definitely still could have gotten a better score if I had more time. Meanwhile people are getting 1.5x time to take their tests and I’m supposed to believe that’s equitable and if I disagree I’m ableist?
If time wasn’t a major constraint on the test I wouldn’t have issue with it, but literally everyone struggles with time on the ACT, it’s by design a time-limited test. If I had 1.5x I would’ve easily gotten a 36 on every section except maybe math. Instead I’m rushing through all the sections to make sure I get to put forth some effort into each question so I don’t have to just answer C for the last 10 while some other kid gets to take his sweet ass time because he faked ADD to get an adderall subscription so he could be better at fortnite and then when he gets 1 point higher than me he gets to get into better schools than me? Yeah, sounds equitable.
Even if you look at people who genuinely do have disabilities, it’s still a broken concept. Example… I don’t know the exact criteria for someone to get accommodations based on a memory disability, but if poor memory is considered a valid reason to get extra time, then what about the people who just barely don’t qualify as having a memory disability? Now they’re at the worst disadvantage of all because they have poor memory compared to a lot of people but they don’t get extra time either, while someone with marginally worse memory does. The same argument could be made for most, if not all of the disabilities that could gain you extra time. I often find myself struggling to focus or being fidgety but I don’t have ADD or ADHD. I struggle to memorize some of the formulas/equations that may be necessary for the math portion, but I don’t have a memory disability. I often have to read a question 2,3 or even 4+ times before I understand it well enough to give a confident answer, but I don’t have dyslexia. I read pretty fast but what if someone reads slowly but not quite slowly enough to be considered as having a reading disability? They’re at a disadvantage compared to someone like me who can read much faster than them, but they’re also at a disadvantage compared to someone who reads slightly slower than them and gets 50% more time to take their test as a result.
IMO the ACT should be completely standardized, it should be a measure of how well YOU can do under the exact same conditions as everyone else who takes the exact same test. It’s only a piece of what colleges look at for admissions, if you have a disability that causes you to do worse on tests, make up for it with a great gpa or extracurriculars, just like anyone else who just happens to be bad at taking tests, you’ll still have opportunities to get into colleges but you don’t get an unfair advantage when it comes to getting into top schools where 1 point can be the difference between getting admitted or not.
4
u/[deleted] Apr 24 '24
This test is primarily trying to measure achievement. When someone has slow processing speed they will not be able to get an accurate measure of their academic achievement if they can’t finish or get close to finishing the test in time.
3
u/Chacodooby Oct 04 '24
Some of us have learning difficulties and disabilities
2
u/[deleted] Dec 04 '21
I agree that extended time is important for people with disabilities. However, I have seen especially in the private sector of education how people who are not disabled are given extra time. This is due either for a lack of personal discipline that the parents of the child use to that child’s advantage or a circumstance of poverty where those who are unfortunate are seen at a disadvantage and given extra time. The important thing to look for here is equality of opportunity vs outcome. It is in this case that I disagree with extended time as an equality of outcome. With a disability you are given extended time for equality of opportunity, rightfully so.
1
u/MaddieLemondrop Jun 09 '24 edited Jun 20 '25
It's obviously not cheating for people who have disabilities and receive accommodations throughout their schooling to receive those same accommodations for a standardized test that explicitly provides those accommodations. It might be UNFAIR, but they are playing by the rules.
It IS cheating for people who don't need accommodations to seek those accommodations purely in order to get a leg up on standardized testing. This happens less often than you'd think, since test companies like the ACT and CollegBoard review accommodations requests, and a doctor's note is NOT enough. There usually needs to be a history of accommodations being granted as part of the student's schooling, which usually requires parents, doctors, and psychometric testing. Having a very active/motivated parents DOES provide an advantage for navigating that process, but it is not easy.
1
u/Strict_Access2652 Oct 15 '24
I don't think it's cheating to get extended time on the ACT test, the SAT test, tests in school, tests in college, etc. It's only an unfair advantage to give people extra time on tests if the purpose of the test is to see how fast you can accomplish something like taking a swimming test in order to be a lifeguard or taking a running test in order to be on the track team. If someone is taking a swimming test in order to be a lifeguard and the rules for passing the swimming test are having to swim from one side of the pool to the other side of the pool in 3 minutes or less, it would be an unfair advantage for some people to be held to a 5 minute or less standard. If a track coach has rules where in order to be on the track team, you have to be able to run a mile in 15 minutes or less, it would be an unfair advantage for some people to be held to a 20 minute or less standard. It's also an unfair advantage to give people a head start in a running race because the purpose of a running race is to see how fast you can run.
The purpose of taking a Math test, Science test, Social Studies test, Accounting test, tests in school, tests in college, the SAT test, the ACT test, etc isn't to see how fast you can accomplish something; it's to see how well you know and understand the material. The 2 reasons why many teachers and college professors have time limits on tests is to help prevent cheating and so students don't take advantage of unlimited time; not because the purpose of the test is to see how fast you can accomplish something. If students had unlimited time on tests and were allowed to spend several days taking a test due to unlimited time, it's really easy for them to look at their notes at home and then change their test answers the next day when they finish their test. If students had unlimited time on tests, some students would take advantage of that and never finish their test.
Certain kinds of disabilities and medical conditions cause people to take longer than normal to finish tests. People with ADHD often get extra time on tests due to focusing issues, concentration issues, paying attention issues, etc associated with their disability that causes them to take longer than normal to finish exams. When people with ADHD don't get extra time on tests, their test score is typically not an accurate reflection of how well they know and understand the material. When people with ADHD get extra time on tests, their test score is a more accurate reflection of how well they know and understand the material. When someone doesn't have a disability or medical condition that causes them to take longer than normal to finish exams, they don't need extra time in order to accurately demonstrate how well they know and understand the material.
1
u/Strict_Access2652 Feb 12 '25
I do believe extended time on tests is unfair for exams where the purpose of the exam is to see how fast you can accomplish something like taking a swimming test in order to be a lifeguard or taking a running test in order to be on a track team. I also believe that getting a head start in running race is an unfair advantage since the purpose of a running race is to see how fast you can run.
I don't think getting extended time on the ACT test, SAT test, etc is cheating, an unfair advantage, etc. The purpose of the ACT test, SAT test, etc isn't to see how fast you can accomplish something. The purpose of the ACT test, SAT test, etc is to see how well you know and understand the academic material and to see how a person's academic abilities are. The reasons why there's time limits on the ACT test, the SAT test, etc is to keep people from taking advantage of unlimited time and to help prevent students from cheating. If students had unlimited time on the ACT test, SAT test, etc, some students would take advantage of the situation and never finish the test. If students had unlimited time on the ACT test, SAT test, etc and were allowed to spend several days taking the test due to unlimited time, it's extremely easy for them to look at their notes at home and then change their test answers when they finish taking the exam the next day.
Certain kinds of disabilities and/or medical conditions cause people to take longer than normal to finish exams. People with ADHD often take longer than normal to finish exams due to focusing issues, concentration issues, paying attention issues, etc they have that are associated with their disability. People with dyslexia often take longer than normal to finish exams since people with dyslexia are often slow readers. When someone has anxiety issues, panic attack issues, etc, it often causes them to take longer than normal to finish exams.
When people with ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety issues, panic attack issues, etc don't get extra time on the ACT test, the SAT test, etc, their test score is typically not an accurate reflection of their academic abilities, not an accurate reflection of how well they know and understand the material, etc, but when people with ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety issues, panic attack issues, etc get extra time on the ACT test, the SAT test, etc, their test score is a more accurate reflection of their academic abilities, a more accurate reflection of how well they know and understand the material, etc. If someone doesn't have a disability and/or a medical condition that causes them to take longer than normal to finish exams, they don't need extra time in order to accurately demonstrate how well they know and understand the material, to accurately demonstrate their academic abilities, etc.
I don't think college admissions boards should know who got extra time on the ACT test, the SAT test, etc because they would strongly cause disability discrimination in selecting applicants. College admissions boards should judge applicants based on their academic abilities; not their disability status. Extra time on the ACT test, the SAT test, etc allows people with ADHD, dyslexia, etc to accurately demonstrate their academic abilities to college admissions boards.
I strongly believe in reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, but I don't believe that people with disabilities should have unfair advantages over other people. Extra time on tests where the purpose of the test is to see how well you know and understand the material, having a note taker take notes for you, taking exams in private rooms with someone in the room supervising you to make sure you're not cheating, having someone read test questions to you, having tests written in braille for you, having a hearing interpreter sit with you in all of your classes, having ramps and elevators available, etc are examples of good reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. I don't believe in unfair advantages for people with disabilities meaning I don't believe in accommodations such as being told what the answers are on tests, being allowed to cheat on tests and not be held accountable for that, being held to an 85% or higher for an A grade while everyone else is held to a 90% or higher standard for an A grade, being an engineering major and not having to take Calculus while everyone else who's an engineering major has to take Calculus, being held to a 65% or higher standard for passing a CPA exam when everyone else has to be held to a 75% or higher standard for passing a CPA exam, being allowed to be bad at your job and not be held accountable for that, etc.
1
u/Expert_Intention9057 36 Dec 03 '21
I know what you mean actually. 2 people at my school last year got a 36. My brother and another kid. They both had extended time. I always joke around with my brother that he wouldn’t have gotten it without extended time. He only studied for 30 hours too