processing speed disorder

[udpolo15]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/06/02/lsat-a...lities-lawsuit/

Stuff like this pisses me off. I am all for equal opportunities but at what point does the ability to process information at a normal speed become a requirement of the job?

I am sure stuff like this happens with the PE all the time. A question to ponder, is there an ethical responsibility to alert clients that you have processing speed disorder if you received extra time to pass the PE because of it? I can see the argument that your ability to serve the clients is hindered by "processing speed disorder" and the client has a right to know.

 

[snickerd3]

is that what they are calling it now? I can't see the article here at work

 

[FLBuff PE]

I don't understand what this thread is about.

 

[snickerd3]

give it some time to sink in

 

[roadwreck]

Sorry, times up. Please put down your pencils.

 

[benbo]

First off, I agree this is sort of nonsense. But, to play devil's advocate.

The time limit on these tests is sort of arbitrary anyway. In the real world it doesn't make any difference whether you take 1 hour to finish a problem, or one hour and 15 minutes.

Why not just give everybody more time? Some people may finish early and have extra time to check, improving their score. Other people who finish early will just have to sit around a little while longer. But assuming some people just take slightly longer to process, so what, give them a little extra time along with everyone else.

I always finish multiple choice tests early. It never occured to me to complain about shortening the time. I just do things quickly, though not necessarily 100% correctly

I finished each section of the PE significantly early. I'm sure I didn't ace it, but more time wouldn't have made any more difference for me. It might have screwed me up in fact, if I went back and messed with answers. But not everyone is like me.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

One of my neighbors back in the 90s was an engineer. he could do the work, and do it well, but you had to alot (I'm not joking about this) about 5 times the amount of time you would a normal person. He was like that processing any kind of information. If you didn''t know him, you'd think he was a complete idiot (he kinda was, in ways).

He smoked a lot of pot in HS.

 

[udpolo15]

First off, I agree this is sort of nonsense. But, to play devil's advocate.
The time limit on these tests is sort of arbitrary anyway. In the real world it doesn't make any difference whether you take 1 hour to finish a problem, or one hour and 15 minutes.

Why not just give everybody more time? Some people may finish early and have extra time to check, improving their score. Other people who finish early will just have to sit around a little while longer. But assuming some people just take slightly longer to process, so what, give them a little extra time along with everyone else.

I always finish multiple choice tests early. It never occured to me to complain about shortening the time. I just do things quickly, though not necessarily 100% correctly

I finished each section of the PE significantly early. I'm sure I didn't ace it, but more time wouldn't have made any more difference for me. It might have screwed me up in fact, if I went back and messed with answers. But not everyone is like me.

I don't think the times are arbitrary. A lot of work goes into designing the tests like this so the can accurately assess the level of competency (not saying they always do it well). Time is certainly a factor.

Also, I think it certainly matters how long it takes you to solve a problem or process information. More easy to pick an example from the legal side, but a lawyer isn't going to get a judge to give a recess every hour so you can spend an hour reviewing the transcripts so you have adequate time to process the info. As an engineering consultant, should someone be given 2x the time to complete a design then the average person? What about when you bill by the hour.

That being said, I am sure there are jobs in both engineering and law that your ability to complete the job isn't impacted by a "disorder". Since your law license or PE isn't asterisked, it goes back to my other question, is there an ethical responsibility to disclose if it might impact your client service.

 

[benbo]

I don't think the times are arbitrary. A lot of work goes into designing the tests like this so the can accurately assess the level of competency (not saying they always do it well). Time is certainly a factor.

A lot of work goes into designing the test questions, but the time to take the test? No, I don't believe it.

First, if the times are so carefully crafted, how come I finish in half the time, and other people are working right up to the buzzer? How come the times all seem to work out to exact hour levels? Why not give me some sort of extra credit for finishing more quickly, if that is actually an important consideration?

Second, if some tests are admittedly harder than others, why don't people get longer on those tests?

Finally, what's the big difference between 8 hours and 8.5 hours?

As an engineering consultant, should someone be given 2x the time to complete a design then the average person?

You work this out by bidding the job. Plus, there are a lot more important factors than a little more time. Twice as long? Maybe not. We're not talking twice as long here.

 

[Supe]

My $.02

Ethical responsibility to disclose to the client? No. It's the employer's responsibility to ensure that their employees meet necessary deadlines, budget, etc.

As for the timed test (and most of them in general) - I disagree with it. The test should measure whether or not the engineer has the ability to practice safely and accurately.

Ex: I have two engineers, one project, one year deadline, both produce safe, accurate calculations/results. One takes 3 months to accomplish the task, the other 6 months. Is either one not qualified/competent to complete the task?

Contracts/due dates should determine the speed at which a person delivers their work, and ultimately dictate whether they're a good fit for a position/contract/employer. The exam should determine whether that person is capable of performing the work, not dictate how quickly they can perform.

 

[benbo]

Stuff like this pisses me off. I am all for equal opportunities but at what point does the ability to process information at a normal speed become a requirement of the job?

Obviously, for a test to reasonably be given in one day they have to set some sort of time limit.

If I actually thought they spent 1 minute of analysis on setting that time limit, I'd be fine. I'm certain they don't. They picked 8 hours for the PE because it's a nice round number.

Now, I'll admit, there is less of an argument for more time on the PE than other exams where the score actually matters. Because on the PE you just have to get over a threshhold level. If you take a little more time on each problem, it won't matter as much, because you'll just answer a few less problems correctly, but you'll still have a reasonable chance to pass. Assuming they allocate 6 minutes for each question, and you only need around 70% to pass - there should be adequate wiggle room in the 8 hours to accomodate both ends of the "processing speed" bell curve.

 

[udpolo15]

Stuff like this pisses me off. I am all for equal opportunities but at what point does the ability to process information at a normal speed become a requirement of the job?

Obviously, for a test to reasonably be given in one day they have to set some sort of time limit.

If I actually thought they spent 1 minute of analysis on setting that time limit, I'd be fine. I'm certain they don't. They picked 8 hours for the PE because it's a nice round number.

The may have picked 8 hours since it is a nice round number, but there has to be thought and analysis in the number of questions to statistically evaluate the results and how long the average person takes to do the average problem.

 

[MA_PE]

the complaint is for the LSAT. I'm not sure I want to hire a lawyer with ADD. I think I'd want them to be able to focus on the case. :dunno:

 

[csb]

I have pretty bad test anxiety, where I pretty much blank out. In college I had a few professors actually allow me to take exams in a separate room from the class. I still had the same amount of time and all of that, but I was was isolated. It worked for me because it took out that whole factor of "He's already done! I'm never going to finish!" and so on. It helped me immensely. However, I had other classes where I just sucked it up and took them with the rest of the class.

For the PE, I panicked on my first two tries. My final attempt involved me studying at the library to desensitize myself to other people being around. I think it really helped.

So, I've received special treatment.

Which is why it makes me hard to say, "Really? ADD and processing speed disorder? Really?" She could have legitimate problems or she could be flighty and kinda slow. I just don't know. However, I think it does raise the question, "How the hell is she going to 1. survive law school, 2. survive the bar and 3. (and most importantly) survive in a courtroom? You have to think on your feet in a courtroom. Maybe she just wants to be a patent lawyer. I dunno.

 

[benbo]

The may have picked 8 hours since it is a nice round number, but there has to be thought and analysis in the number of questions to statistically evaluate the results and how long the average person takes to do the average problem.

Not very precise analysis IMO. Because I don't think the time is a major consideration. THat's why they give you what should be plenty. But that doesn't mean it necessarily is for everyone.

There is always some importance to being able to solve problems within a reasonable amount of time. The question is what is that amount of time, and to what extent is the time limit important over other considerations. I'm assuming not much, otherwise they would work out some sort of algorithm for the test, with different passing scores depending on how fast you do it.

I'm assuming there is some validity to this "processing speed" business, which I don't know for a fact. But let's assume you have two engineers A and B.

Engineer A has some sort of processing issue where he/she needs seven minutes to answer the questions, but if given those seven minutes he/she gets every one correct.

Engineer B - For the problems he knows, let's say 70% of the total, he can answer them in five minutes each. But you could give him a month and he could never answer the other 30%. This is me.

Who is more competent? I wish I could say B, but IMO I would have to say A.

 

[udpolo15]

As for the timed test (and most of them in general) - I disagree with it. The test should measure whether or not the engineer has the ability to practice safely and accurately.

That's a good point.

 

[udpolo15]

I'm assuming there is some validity to this "processing speed" business, which I don't know for a fact. But let's assume you have two engineers A and B.
Engineer A has some sort of processing issue where he/she needs seven minutes to answer the questions, but if given those seven minutes he/she gets every one correct.

For the problems he knows let's say 70% of the total, Engineer B can answer them in five minutes each. But you could give him a month and he could never answer the other 30%. This is me.

Who is more competent? I wish I could say B, but IMO I would have to say A.

If you and Supe are drawing the distinction between competency and practicing, I agree there is one.

In your example, if the time difference is 2x and instead of just one "B", there are 100s who on average score 70%. Practicing in the real word is going to be closer to the the speed in which Bs operates and A while competent in the sense that they can practice accurately and safely, would likely have trouble in the real world settings

 

[Supe]

^^^ Agreed.

 

[snickerd3]

I have pretty bad test anxiety, where I pretty much blank out. In college I had a few professors actually allow me to take exams in a separate room from the class. I still had the same amount of time and all of that, but I was was isolated. It worked for me because it took out that whole factor of "He's already done! I'm never going to finish!" and so on. It helped me immensely. However, I had other classes where I just sucked it up and took them with the rest of the class.
For the PE, I panicked on my first two tries. My final attempt involved me studying at the library to desensitize myself to other people being around. I think it really helped.

So, I've received special treatment.

Which is why it makes me hard to say, "Really? ADD and processing speed disorder? Really?" She could have legitimate problems or she could be flighty and kinda slow. I just don't know. However, I think it does raise the question, "How the hell is she going to 1. survive law school, 2. survive the bar and 3. (and most importantly) survive in a courtroom? You have to think on your feet in a courtroom. Maybe she just wants to be a patent lawyer. I dunno.

i thought patent lawyers spent their days on the witness stand in court. At least that what it sounded like when a college bud was in law school for patent law

 

[benbo]

In your example, if the time difference is 2x and instead of just one "B", there are 100s who on average score 70%. Practicing in the real word is going to be closer to the the speed in which Bs operates and A while competent in the sense that they can practice accurately and safely, would likely have trouble in the real world settings

Yes, I agree with this - twice the time is a bit much - it might start to cause some problems in the real world in most cases.

Of course, if I had some genius who could solve all my problems given enough time, I doubt the time would matter. People waste plenty of time at work no matter how speedily they could actually complete their tasks.

I believe lawyers, in particular are notorious for overbilling hours.

But I can see allowing for some "reasonable" amount of extra time, and then allow everyone to take that time if they want. The trick is finding out what's reasonable. It may be that there is already so much time allowed that no extra time would be reasonable.