Studying with dyslexia

I can't be bothered to trawl through the 'debates' on either god or evolution, but as the most recent example of you missing things, what about my suggestion that a dyslexic couldn't be a proofreader as a counterexample to your statement that a dyslexic can do any job a non-dyslexic can. It's a technique you frequently use in a 'debate' - ignore whatever you can't counter.

Oh, specifically those. How convenient an excuse 'can't be bothered' is

How about the alternate explanation? That I'm not really all that interested in what points you make? and so don't really pay much attention too them. I scanned the police comment.

Having read it, it depends on the the level of dyslexia. However, I did point out a job I couldn't go for back in the day due to dyslexia. You point out another. And? Other than stupid nit picking I really don't see the point of the example. It has very little to do with the gripe that it's all so unfair that a dyslexic gets their condition taken into consideration with the result they get a few more minutes in an exam. A position some none dyslexics on here seem to hold oh so unfair.

There really is nothing to counter, your pointing out another job a dyslexic would struggle with is a null pointless point. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with criticising the 'privilege' a dyslexic may receive above a none dyslexic.

What's the point joining in a debate if you're not interested in what points others make?

**What's the point joining in a debate if you're not interested in what points others make?**

Why don't you try looking at who started the thread?

I have contributed.

I have responded to points made by others - including yours. I feel that there is no more I can contribute to this thread, you think it unfair (with examples), I don't (with examples). There again, I'm dyslexic you don't appear to be!

As regarding, wrighty and atticus, my disinterest in their comments is a spill over from other threads in which they're are right, everybody else is wrong and inferior and if you end up not agreeing with them, rather than it being a difference of opinion, your made out to be a lair and incapable of understanding anything they say, so there's no point in debating anything with them.

>>As regarding, wrighty and atticus, my disinterest in their comments is a spill over from other threads in which they're are right, everybody else is wrong and inferior and if you end up not agreeing with them, rather than it being a difference of opinion, your made out to be a lair and incapable of understanding anything they say, so there's no point in debating anything with them.

So why have you wasted so many hours of your life doing so, and why do you continue to do so?

Right, entering into the fray again..

I think, that if a dyslexic who wants to become a proof-reader, can perform to the same abilities as their non-disabled brethern test-takers with 15-20 minutes extra tacked on to their exam and pass, then god bless them, they deserve to be a proof-reader! Only I will just say that most people try to pick jobs to suit their strong points, so again, if you ever meet a dyslexic proof-reader, point them my way, I want to shake their hand.

I'll also say, in the example of proof-reading, the fact that if you can do it, even with a touch of extra time, then yes, you deserve where you've gotten. And if you have to have x amount of papers proof-read by the morning, what employer on god's green earth is going to be checking in at 2am in the morning to see if you went over the time you had allotted to complete your work? If the work gets done, to equal standard, on time, then there should be no issue with a dyslexic being a proof-reader, or a translator, or a writer - as very many dyslexics have gone on to be!

Dyslexic people also offer a degree of patience that perhaps their non-disabled co-workers couldn't, because most everything hand-written will take more time. It's a fact of life, we learn to live with it, and to simply take our time and do our best instead of rushing. Another random employement virtue to claim at interviews for any dyslexics reading this ;)

On the point of exams - I do think they are antiquated, personally. I believe testing people's knowledge over the duration of a course with tutor-marked assessments and research papers, then going and disregarding performance and staking 75-100% of a classification on an exam is just silly. It only shows some people flourish under pressure and others crash and burn, be they disabled or not. Check course reviews. The amount of times I've read disparaging comments about getting high marks on TMAs only to fail the course due to an exam is evidence enough that there is an underlying problem with the grading system. That kind of disparity should just not happen if the system functioned as it should.

I believe tests are appropriate if you must perform an on-the-fly gauge of how much a student is retaining, but again, I'm just in disagreement all the way with the amount of weight levied on exams in education at the current. Do a balance, if you must, but it'd solve your grievances AND mine if they'd reassess how they were doing things. There are better ways, and I'd support and volunteer personally if any pioneering research student wants to actually put the theory to a scientific study or survey.

Anyway, play nice, everyone! The atmosphere in this thread really is tense and I don't think it needs to be. Make love, not war! (dyslexics, read: Mkae lvoe not raw!)

Best exam structure I had was in human biology at uni. Divided into two parts, the first was quick short questions much like we use to have in O levels; these covered the ENTIRE course material. The second was a couple of longer short essay types, where you could chose your strongest area.

Mostly at uni it was a couple of essay type questions. Anybody could get several back dated exam papers, see which question appeared on every one, listen to hints from the tutors and just revise those couple of subjects. It Basically meant you could revise your best two and not know anything about the rest of the subject.

You could drop traditional exam types, but replaced with what? If it became entirely course work that would be marked much more strictly and if there was presentations this would disadvantage those who suffer from really bad nerves or shyness. In addition, if allowance was made for bad nerves and shyness, how would this be judged? Dyslexics you have a test.

Exams are fine, as is continuous assessment - depends on what you're trying to assess. In my profession I've done them all - written exams to test factual knowledge and years of continued assessment with annual appraisal to test practical skills. That's not to mention oral exams and clinical exams.

I'm a surgeon. Sometimes I need to think quickly and make important decisions under pressure. If I can't do that effectively it can sometimes be, literally, life or death. It's important therefore that I've demonstrated that ability both in exams (which test factual knowledge retrieval under pressure) and real situations. Same would go for an airline pilot - I hope my pilot has demonstrated an ability to land a plane in real time and not been given extra time in the test because he has difficulty assimilating multiple information sources under time pressure.

My point has always been that if the exam is designed to test a particular skill, then the playing field should be level for everyone. If being able to read correctly and quickly is part of that assessment then dyslexics should not get extra time. If the reading component is unimportant then time doesn't matter.

I wrote such a nice, long, lovely comment, and Platform went and gobbled it up. Ugh. So, I'll just sum up what I had intended to say!

Wighty - I think your surgeon example is a touch flawed, as dyslexia is a reading disability, and in some individuals one of memory, but first and foremost a reading disability. This does not mean, say, that I took an exam to be a surgeon like you, or a pilot, got my extra time, then found myself in a situation where seconds were precious I couldn't perform. My hands work great - honest! So does my brain! Agatha Christie, Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Hans Christian Andersen, all dyslexics, all smart, ground-breaking people. So, we're capable. Just "handi-capable". I actually hate that phrase but it seems appropriate!

I do agree with you though, if there is a profession where reading and writing skills are timed to the second, then other provisions could be provided for a dyslexic person other than extra time (computers instead of pen and paper, materials available in different ink colours - some are easier to read!, etc.). But for the life of me I can't think of one job where being able to answer the question "Why Rome Fell" in 1 hour, 10 minutes instead of 1 hour even would cost me a job prospect, and I believe employers appreciate that. Really, imagine that. "Sorry, your application has been declined because, in your humanities exam, you could not quote Cicero before the bell". Simple as that, really!

But, again, if there are vocations ( I bet if I give you the time you'll figure that one-in-a-million job out there that is applicable ;) ) where the timed element of a written exam is absolutely crucial then there are always other methods of aid that might be appropriate to compensate. In anything else I just can't figure for the life of me how it could do harm when it simply allows a dyslexic person to acurately represent themselves!

Nimmy - I think the best method is to keep an exam element but to couple the final mark with continued assessment grades of various types, like essays, question papers, presentations, group work, what have you. Too much of one thing is never good and does end up disadvantaging somebody out there one way or the next. This way a variety of methods assures that, while one type may be a weakness, they have the opportunity to show off their know-how in one which is more their strength.

Snow white, I agree, especially for academic qualifications, all aspects need to be tested, exam, seminar, course work and so on. I suppose for an overall degree, rather than individual modules, all these are tested anyway. Course work covers essays, we had seminars and exams.

Wrighty is starting to get to the crux of the problem. There is no reason a dyslexic would not make a wonderful surgeon, since the surgery bit is as much practical as academic, or so it looks on tv (I'm sure I'll be corrected). I'd imagine splashing around in someone's entrails does not require a great deal of reading during the operation (anaesthetist excepted). A dyslexic may take longer to write up reports and so on, but the surgery and diagnosis I should imagine would be fairly unaffected. Therefore, it would be unfair for a dyslexic to have the opportunity to become a surgeon taken away because they would be slower in an exam and couldn't get the grades required. Lets face it, exams and qualifications are only there to confirm to others that a person can actually do the subject or is trained in it.

Even so, more time to compensate a dyslexic would not be disadvantageous to the non dyslexic, nor give the dyslexic and unfair advantage. Think of it like a 200 meter race, they don't start in a straight line, but staggered one in front of the other to compensate for the further distance the runners in the outside lane would need to run in the time to get to the finish line. It's just a way to equal everything out in the end.

**you think it unfair (with examples), I don't (with examples)**

I don't think it's unfair, i'm trying to decide whether it's fair or not, my last example implied it was fair, in the situation mentioned anyway.

**There again, I'm dyslexic you don't appear to be!**

I hope this is intended to imply that both of our opinions are likely to be biased, not just mine!

Snow White/Nimmy, my own example regarding surgical training was not intended as an example of a profession unsuitable for dyslexics - I was trying to illustrate the point that if an exam is designed to assess suitability for a particular job, then that assessment should be as real as possible.

I agree that it makes no difference in the real world if someone takes 1 hour or 1 hour 10 minutes to answer a question about the fall of Rome or whatever - Most subjects studied at university have no practical use (even most of a medical degree is not relevant to the day to day job of being a doctor).

Snow White, you say that dyslexia is a reading difficulty, but Nimmy has previously stated that he has difficulty assimilating a page of information, has to re-read things a few times etc. Those two descriptions are a bit different really. If Nimmy's view is correct, that dyslexia is more than just difficulty reading and spelling, then to me giving extra time in exams is as justified as giving extra time to people who are just a bit thick (and as a corollary taking time off the bright ones - just to level the playing field). However, if it is just a pure reading/spelling thing then sure, take it into account, allow spellcheckers, whatever.

So which is it?

Wrighty, we know what you are saying. But you go on to answer your own criticism when you say it makes no difference in real life etc. The point here what people are missing, and I myself, is the exams are the things that are not realistic. People need to test whether a person knows their subject and so on, but I assume practicalities of life means that exams have to have some form of restriction. Like I say I got an extra 15 mins, I don't think any dyslexic would be given as long as they like.

Your forgetting one thing though wrighty, or you are unaware should I say. I stated I was diagnosed as dyslexic, which i was, in fact, I was diagnosed mildly dyslexic with 'specific learning difficulties', I have no idea what these are, but it seem to have something to do with a very poor short term memory. I assume that is why I can read a page and haven't a clue what I read. I have quite a poor long term memory, but, ironically, an almost photographic mid term, that is, if I guess which questions are going to be asked in an exam, go away and write a short essay, copy it out two or three times then go into an exam and write it out almost word for word. The minds a very odd thing. It may be I have other undiagnosed problems, but this thread was about the dyslexic part.

The dyslexia part of me, if it is assumed that is literacy and numeracy, would have no affect on a job whatsoever. What would do me is the forgetfulness and absent-mindedness, I just ASSUME it's part of the dyslexia.

**I hope this is intended to imply that both of our opinions are likely to be biased, not just mine!**

Of course, I'm dyslexic!

But there again, I wouldn't really care what other people got in exams as long as I was treated fairly.

Personally, I wouldn't care if exam times where made into 4 hours in stead of 3 to take into consideration every bodies conditions, the time being available for none dyslexics too. All you'd find happening in that situation is the none learning difficulty examinees would be off and out to the pub with an hour and more of the exam left to run.

Wrighty - My apologies for misunderstanding the surgical example, but I think at least utilizing it aided in clarifying some points on dyslexica that may have been absent from discussion earlier. Also, as I mentioned previously: "as dyslexia is a reading disability, and in some individuals one of memory, but first and foremost a reading disability".

Just as in many other diseases and disabilities, a variety of additional symptoms can accompany and/or be a product of dyslexia. The common unifying factor which is present in all dyslexics is a reading disability, wherein letters are reversed, read as if another letter, or even read (and written) backwards, depending on severity. Sometimes those with dyslexia also present dyscalculia, or similarly the difficulty with processing sheet music. Linked to this, in some, is the inability to tell time on a clock face without numbers. A few dyslexics, like nimmy, also exhibit difficulties with memory retention, for which many institutions offer additional lectures and tutorials, sometimes along with their non-handicapped contemporaries, on study habits and tips and tricks to retain information. This is not considered in the assessment for the basis of extra time, but seen as an aside to be worked upon outside of the classroom and much success has been had with workshops such as this with aiding those individuals.

As you can now appreciate, dyslexic is like a pyramid with one cause leading to another effect. But dyslexics are afforded extra time, and/or use of computers with spellcheckers, and even rose-colored goggles in some pioneering centres (studies show certain color overlays assist reading comprehesion on dyslexics) on the basis of mechanical difficulties with reading and writing which does not do justice to the actual knowledge obtained through educational studies.

Dyslexia is not a weak mental retardation or anything of the like - it's a glitch in the internal mechanisms which process written materials that means we just have to invest more time than others with our reading/writing and are largely visual and practical learners whose uptake is at its peak with graphical and hands-on learning.

Play nice? I haven’t felt so patronized since my (teacher) wife once told me to stop fidgeting! ;) The claims of ‘staggering vocabulary’, ‘admittedly high IQ’ and being able to ‘read people like a book’ (although maybe this last one doesn’t work too well for a dyslexic!) also suggest that self-esteem isn’t a casualty of dyslexia!

As for Leonardo da Vinci and Einstein being dyslexic, this sounds like spin to me Snow_White – what hard evidence is there? And the ‘we are capable’ claim – who are ‘we’? Are you claiming to know that every dyslexia sufferer is ‘capable’? I don’t find this kind of thing convincing; in fact I think it scores an own goal because to associate dyslexia with a ‘superman’ like Leonardo da Vinci if anything suggests there is no need for it to be given any special consideration at all. The idea that dyslexics can offer the world a uniquely patient perspective has to be baseless too surely. Admittedly I have only one dyslexic in my immediate circle (as far as I know) but he certainly couldn’t be described as patient, and the dyslexic originator of this thread hasn’t exactly been the epitome of patience so far either!

I've found the personal experiences and supported views expressed by everyone really interesting though, and an idea that’s been discussed, that the modes of testing should be as diversified as possible for all academic candidates, seems to me a helpful one particularly because it circumvents the obvious tensions over special leniency being granted for syndromes of uncertain makeup that some see as part of the spectrum of normal human ability that have been ‘pathologized’ in recent times.

I agree with nimmy that speed shouldn’t be an overriding factor for academic testing because the aim here is surely to assess a candidate’s knowledge and understanding as accurately as possible, and I think that diversified modes of testing may be the best approach to this as I’ve said. Where aptitude for a specific role is being assessed then all aspects of the candidate are potentially relevant and in a competitive world this is bound to mean that people who suffer from dyslexia will sometimes be at a disadvantage just as almost anyone would be for some job or other. When I had a small business though I rapidly discovered that certain character traits had a much greater potential for f*cking things up than a bit of slow reading or lack of knowledge was ever likely to have!

Incidentally, I’ve only just got the joke in the title of this thread (bit slow myself obviously) so thanks for that little smile nimmy! :)

**I haven’t felt so patronized since my...**

You should try and read your post from our point of view. Nothing but condescending and patronizing.

Why deride someone for pointing out their positives? Isn't this what anybody would do when they go for a job?

You have misunderstood the gripe here. People are wondering why conditions, specifically dyslexia, should be given compensation in exams; in this case extra time. The point is dyslexia is not a problem of intelligence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_diagnosed_with_dyslexia

This is an interesting sentence:

**seems to me a helpful one particularly because it circumvents the obvious tensions over special leniency being granted for syndromes of uncertain makeup that some see as part of the spectrum of normal human ability that have been ‘pathologized’ in recent times.**

'syndromes of uncertain make-up' To a misunderstanding dunce such as myself, that could read like your saying that a medical excuse has been given to someone when basically it's just very poor literacy. Presumably your speaking about others veiwpoint here.

One reason I did a degree was because in my day you was just thick and everybody treated you has such (seemingly the attitude you hold), though you present it in a way that you could pass off as talking about others.

Even now, on here my ability to understand and follow simple arguments is questioned over and again by ignorant people who seem to think not agreeing with their view point is not understanding them. I can only assume this comes from my poor literacy. I knew within my self I wasn't thick (if you will allow me this arrogant statement), getting the degree just proved it to myself.

Carry on being thinking your superior.

Best check under you bed, their hiding there also.

I have derided no one nimmy, I’ve simply commented on views that have been expressed on a public forum. On the other hand, describing other contributors as laughable, pathetic and ignorant (to name just three of your favourite adjectives) is pretty derisive don’t you think? I don’t know about you, but I contribute to threads like this mainly as my small contribution to what I see as interesting and worthwhile public debate, not to deride. Frankly expressed oppositional views are an essential ingredient of debate and you shouldn’t confuse them with the personal attacks you indulge in, which suggest only that you have no arguments. Try adopting jon.bombadil’s stated approach to debating.

Yes, one would of course emphasise one’s positive attributes when going for a job, but then this thread isn’t a job application. And if someone came to me for a job and compared himself to Leonardo da Vinci I would infer only that he probably had a rather tenuous grip on reality.

You seem to see the issue of dyslexics being granted special lenience as a simple problem with a simple solution, but it looks more complicated than that to me, as discussion in this thread bears out.

As I see it, science continually deepens our understanding of ourselves. Terms like ‘very poor literacy’ are not implicitly pejorative, they’re part of a level of classification that until relatively recently were perfectly good descriptions at the best level of detail available. But science has now provided new depth of detail that makes them look like rather inadequate abstractions. And this continues apace, the nature of new conditions/pathologies/syndromes (let alone society’s accommodation of them) not becoming settled before they in turn are undermined by still more scientific discovery.

Look at the disagreement and vagueness of the definitions of dyslexia given just in this thread to date. Both you and snow_white use the first person plural to suggest that you represent dyslexics, but on the basis of your definitions these are different groups. Far from being a simple problem, it looks to me more like an ill-defined and moving target. Just addressing issues around this single word ‘dyslexia’ alone looks fraught with problems – is there even a long-standing, close definition of ‘disability’? Incidentally, I could introduce you to an educational consultant who actually denies the existence of dyslexia as a syndrome that needs addressing in primary schools – you may strongly disagree with his view, but it exists, and in his case at least is presumably relatively well-informed.

I’m totally in favour of an equitable society that aspires to making everyone feel fairly treated and that certainly includes you nimmy! My point was just that a diverse range of testing modes for all might be an acceptable and achievable compromise approach to achieving that in this area rather than trying to grant specific and often mutually-conflicting concessions based on constantly ‘shifting sands’.

People refuse in normal forums, like T.V. to discuss the reasons for dyslexia.  While many people are aware that dyslexia exists not as many could provide an proposed reason for its being.  I suggest that it's an outcome of limitation being applied by some individuals to other individuals.  If it's the case that more working class people have dyslexia then that's certainly an indication that my proposed reason might be true.  Because some working class people are rewarded for not involving themselves in even principle academic persuits I think that over the course of their lives they become un-able to engage in them, as though the sense of frustration, confusion or loss gives them cause to re-consider the meanings of the words.  Regardless of that, once a person has gotten, become or contracted any illness or infirmity there's no good reson to question the validity of that illness, once an illness has become it can only be dealt with at its source and treated at the individual level.

I wasn't taught how to write at primary school but I was informed about wagon trains.  A person must be taught how to write before they're brought into a study of any history or confusion like dyslexia will be present through-out the whole learning process. 

ATTICUS

This bit works, wonderfull re size function.

Darren, dyslexia is a acknowledged medical condition thought to be neurological in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia#cite_note-myDr-2

Perhaps there's some further reading there. Or google.

Those that disagree are either ignorant of the facts or know it is but chose to issinuate it isn't for reasons known to themselves.

Probably it may not be fully understood, but as people are fond of saying science will provide all the answers one day.

No doubt neurological but at what stage during the development of the brain does it form and can it be stimulated.

So where the people around you deceptive when you were young, were you made to question yourself, did people tell you that you were wrong when you were right?

That sort of thing, if it happens when you're young enough, could cause an anomaly in the development of pathways in your brain that can lead to frustration and dyslexia.

No, in my day you was just classed as thick. So you was left at the back of the class with all the other dunces to stare out the window.

I have dyslexia  -  tested aged 34. I worked as a surgeon for 12 years. I found that the positive attributes of dyslexia helped as a surgeon with regards to performing the job. Having visual spacial awareness and non verbal reasoning in the top 1%, which is ideal for a surgeon. I was just hindered when applying for jobs as I did not have first author publications. Difficulty writing essays is my weakness.

Ignorant comments such as "there is no place for a surgeon with dyslexia" are not uncommon.

Doctors have generally have a range of IQ of 124-132. So if a dyslexic doctor has an overall IQ of 129 with their reading/writing IQ of 100 but excellent visual spacial awareness and non verbal reasoning, what weaknesses does the non dyslexic doctor have to keep their IQ between 124-132?

The non dyslexic weaknesses are not scored when recruiting but the dyslexic weaknesses are.

In my experience surgeons with the least publications seemed to be more capable when operating.

Surgical recruitment should probably favour the dyslexic person for their positive attributes.