To be believe that processing speed is a legitimate and even important skill to assess

If everyone does with no adaptations, then the person who is bad at timed assessments, gets a grade which more reflects their slow processing speed than their knowledge of a subject. You say you "also believe that slower processing can actually be an asset in many areas that require rigorous methodology (like research)", but if your grade on an exam reflects the fact you've never finished the exam, you are likely to be overlooked for that research job, because no-one will know that you knew your stuff and just couldn't get it down in time

Very well said.

Slow processing is a huge disadvantage already in most areas of life and often goes hand in hand with ND, dyslexia and social struggles.

I think those children already have enough to contend with without OP begrudging them a bit of extra time.

My DC has to work so hard and for so much longer to get average grades despite have above average ability. It's exhausting for them. They will most likely only get 25% extra time but their very slow processing means they still probably wouldn't finish a paper even with that extra time.

I think I understand what you are trying to say.

My dd may well have slow processing*. She's a hard worker/perfectionist, does well on exams, but almost never finished the exam paper. So she'd score 95% on the work she did, but score 75% overall because she'd not finished.

My younger dc might also score 75%, by dashing through the paper and answering every question but make careless errors or miss part of a question they haven't noticed etc

If they'd both had extra time then I'd have expected dd to get 90%+ and the younger one to still get 75% (and come out complaining how boring the exam was because they'd had to sit around and wait)

Who is better?
It would depend on the job.

DD decided she wasn't going for certain professions that she was on paper capable of, and quite liked the look of, because they required further exams and she felt that because she was slow on exams it would be harder for her to get through, and that in some cases the job required quick thinking on feet and that wasn't really suitable for her.
Equally well the younger one would probably be better not going for a job that accuracy is important!

And I think there is a mixture here.
if the adjustments at interview mean that the person can show that they are capable as anyone else in the workplace, but give them a fair crack at interviewing, then that is fine.
But if the adjustments at interview hide the reasons that they will struggle at performing the job, then that's potentially a problem - not least for them having stress in the workplace. And that's something that the person has to consider themselves.

For example my younger one is missing her left arm. When she wanted to play an instrument we encouraged her to play the trumpet not piano. Yes, there are one-handed piano players before everyone jumps on this and tells me, but the trumpet is only played with one hand, so she's on an even level (almost) with everyone else.
We could have pushed through for her to be assessed piano on one hand, to work as best she could - but it would have been much harder for her to achieve well and not to feel that all the time it was "doing as well as she can, bless her". Whereas in the trumpet she achieved grade 8 and has very much enjoyed playing in lots of orchestras without any adjustments.

*Apparently (dd now tells me about 15 years too late) she was assessed by the school. She worked out very quickly what they were assessing, and had a clash of conscience whether she played up her issues to get extra time or not.
She rushed through the test quicker than she normally did, not worrying about errors, because she thought she should. They called her back a couple of weeks later and told her she was right on the boundary line and would she like to retake it to see - and she said no, because she thought it wasn't honest to have a second go.🙄
She really could have done with that extra time!

Just test at interview with an unseen computer test

If a job needs fast processing speeds it needs fast processing speeds - if you don’t have that it’s not the job for you don’t apply for it.

I don't believe all exams should be time-critical but that some should, and others be free from time restrictions for all.

We used to have this system, or something like it. Exam access arrangements have increased exponentially since we moved away from coursework at GCSE and A Levels. We used to have a system where a grade was partially determined by a project on which someone worked slowly over time (so that tested the ability to work in a steady sustained way, take on board feedback, revise work) and partially determined by an exam (that tested responding to the unknown in a time compressed situation). This was a system that, in part, compensated for some people processing information more slowly.

Slow processing speed is usually part of a profile of difficulties leading to a diagnosis of eg dyslexia, and is a disability. As a PP stated, to disregard this is discriminatory especially in the workplace.

A person with slow/weak reasoning skills and fast processing skills is likely to be a liability, both in the workplace and every place else.

I have a very fast processing speed.

I worked in an an office with colleagues who were all slower than me. We would have a problem and I could work out the best way to tackle the issue very quickly. They would have very probably come to the same conclusion but it would take a lot longer. It saved my colleagues backsides on more than one occasion. DS is the same as me and one of my brothers is also the same. I did nursing when I was young and worked in an operating theatre so I suppose that was a handy skill. The brother with tthe super fast processing skills is also really very intelligent and invented and patented medical equipment that has saved many lives. It also means I’m quite a restless type of person as I feel as if I’m waiting a lot, DH is a ponderous sort and our energies do not match and it has caused issues,

@Iris2020 DH ran a SME - engineering consultancy. They asked graduate candidates to do tests regarding competency and they were certainly timed. They could not afford people who took 2 weeks to do something that should be one week and the client was paying for one week! It’s vital to match employees to expectations and smaller companies don’t have the luxury of employees taking too long. If they all did, they would be bankrupt. There were variations of course and some large public sector employers who are not running a business will be more generous but whether the other staff will be is another matter.

Are there genuinely loads of jobs where fast processing is really necessary, as opposed to just preferable? If you exclude jobs where lives literally depend on taking in information, adapting to change and deciding on a new course immediately, when necessary, like pilots or surgeons, why do you need to think extremely quickly? In the case of many roles, one may be slow(er) to learn, but one gets quicker the more experience one has.

I accept the point that some employer's feel it's a cost issue. I disagree, but think that's why many people who don't fit into a standard box end up self employed.

In terms of children, I'm not quite sure how to split this out...I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing when we speak of 'processing speed.' I've never met anyone with a natural processing speed that is so far below that of their peers, that it impacts their ability to learn with their class/do their job, so perhaps someone else can explain their experience, and whether it is a combination of a wide range of issues. However, my own DS has processing difficulties as the result of acquired brain injury, and his processing will only get worse, the longer he lives. It is not physically possible for him to keep up with his peers. He certainly does need extra time in exams and just to finish everyday tasks. It is most definitely a disability that makes life significantly harder for him than his peers. 'Processing' impairment is not just one element, it can impact many things (memory, concentration skills, reasoning etc) that have an overall effect on how quickly one can understand and accomplish tasks. I try to avoid open ended questions, as DS can rarely answer them, which really stresses him out. So, rather than, 'what would you like for dinner?', I'll ask him to choose between two options. In a test, first he has to read the question (which is a struggle in itself, particularly if it's long), then he has to figure out what all these individual words mean, what they mean together/what is actually being asked of him, then figure out the answer, then write the answer. Memory issues are also part of his processing/cognitive issues, so it doesn't matter how many times we do the same type of sum, for example, he can't make the connection between the 10 examples we've just done, and the next one. The fatigue caused by such cognitive struggles also shouldn't be underestimated.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/processing-speed

www.headway.org.uk/about-brain-injury/individuals/effects-of-brain-injury/cognitive-effects-of-brain-injury/

I get what you're saying here OP. I have two children who get extra time for exams. I also have issues processing information at a very fast pace, can also echo this when I listen to an audiobook (often rewinding the same bit just to check that I understood it) or reading a paper book where I will check what I just read on the last page in case i missed a word or accidentally skipped a page etc. No wonder it takes me ages to get through a book!

Fast processing has its place but slow processing people are often more correct

I'm not sure that this is actually correct, of course it's true in some cases but sometimes people will be faster and more accurate. It's not a given that fast = sloppy.

I don't know whether it's changed in the past twenty odd years. But every graduate recruitment process I went through had literacy and numeracy tests which were definitely a test of processing speed alongside accuracy.

I don't know. My friend who teaches at a law school tells me that they are now expected to give accommodations for time to quite a few students. Both during exams, and for passing in assignments. It's very much this argument about slower processing speeds. He thinks they will not i fact be employable as lawyers.

But the expectation is being pushed up from lower levels. These students already have undergraduate degrees, where they received accommodations which allowed them to apply for law school . And they expected those accommodations because they had the same in their public school years, which allowed them to apply to university.

So it seems like there is a considerable effect from allowing that kind of extra time at lower levels. I'm not sure where that stops?

The only GCSE exams that actually test processing speed are listening exams, so music, MfL and I think media studies.

I think I generally agree OP.

In the past, exams in school have measured both understanding of content and processing speed. In terms of the later they have typically been set so the amount of time is reasonable for most students who can manage the content.

And then that's also why pupils were streamed in different courses where those with high capacity for processing were challenged, and those who were slower might have less content covered.

And that is part of the issue, processing speed and ability to absorb content are related.

My sense with some of the accommodations that students are being given is that it is allowing kids who are average, and by rights should have average marks, come out looking like they are stronger students than they are. This isn't great, it means kids who are stronger students are not recognised and lose out, it means that the average students are sometimes ending up in post-secondary programs that aren't really suitable where they struggle, drop out, or are ultimately not suitable for employment, and it means post-secondary institutions are watering down their programs and employers don't trust that the qualification is meaningful.

There is a kind of weird snobbery in saying we need to pretend that all students are equal and if they aren't, we should pretend otherwise. There is nothing wrong with being an average student in a regular kind of job, or indeed, being a slow, un-academic person in work that is suitable for that. We need all kinds of roles filled in society and if anything, we are suffering from lack of roles for those who aren't mentally quick or academic.

@OhDear111 interesting to note that recent global engineering disasters have listed accelerated schedules as a key component costing lives as well as money.

My DH ran a business - consulting engineers. It’s virtually impossible to employ anyone who is too slow. Jobs are costed to make money and keep everyone employed. Of course people don’t work at the same speed, or have the same attributes, but too slow is just not what they can cope with. There’s no extra time in business. Extra time is making a loss.

Therefore selection had to pay attention to accuracy and speed. Thoughtful engineers who problem solve are great but it needs to be in a reasonable timeframe. If exams are not timed, it’s even more difficult for employers to gauge who might be suitable.

I do agree that extra time in exams has become so common it’s got silly. However, I think most jobs do allow people a reasonable amount of time both to come up to speed and to perform tasks, and often value accuracy over speed. Those that require fast decisions and processing are often more senior, so people who are slower can often do entry level roles perfectly well but won’t progress as much. I’ve done “information overload” interviews myself and they’re very valuable, but I’ve never done them for an entry level role. And I also think that people who just aren’t very good at a subject will often not do very much better in an exam if given a bit of extra time.

So overall I come round to thinking that access exams (GCSEs/Alevels) shouldn’t really be trying to use “not enough time” as a major differential, they should be set at the level that most children can answer most questions. And therefore that children who need more time should be given it. Speed related requirements will sort themselves out later.

I think processing speed is something that should be assessed as part of a company's recruitment process. I don't think it needs to be done at school/as part of GCSE's.

Slightly tangential but relevant - I wish there was a better way for people to self-assess what they're good at. Too many people are in jobs that don't suit them, which stresses them out unnecessarily. Someone who worked for me just couldn't cope with switching between one task and another. She was very intelligent and skilled but sucked at the job because she got in a muddle so easily and then freaked out. She left eventually but I'm sure it dented her confidence. I did try to explain to her what the issue was but she didn't seem to understand.

Fast processing has its place but slow processing people are often more correct - those people bouncing ideas hard and fast are often less effective than the person who thinks on the ideas for a while - restricted reasoning - meaning wrong answer ?

there is a balance here - there is slow and then glacial but speed isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be and I some areas - such as politics where speedy verbal performance is rewarded - it’s harmful to society

There’s no one perfect way to assess everyone for everything.

People are complex. There’s a world of difference between a slow processor who ultimately gets things done to a very high standard, and a slow processor who struggles to finish anything because they get lost in the weeds. Same with a fast processor who’s got good instincts and impulse control vs one who’s impatient and goes off half cocked all the time because they think they know it all already. These are things you generally only find out when you’ve been working with someone for a while.

"Fast processing is a skill valuable in certain / many roles. Why is it not acceptable to have a least a proportion of exams measuring students ability to perform autonomously in a restricted time frame? It's valuable information for employers.
I also believe that slower processing can actually be an asset in many areas that require rigorous methodology (like research)

Honestly ALL these points are spot on. However the reality is that there are NO major exams that open up employment options that AREN'T time-critical. G.C.S.E.s - time critical; A-levels - time critical; degree finals - time critical in lots of cases. Yes fast process is a valuable skill. In some areas it's a critical skill, in some it's even a life-saving skill - imagine the results of a surgeon with slow processing!

However, thinking about your last point, "I don't believe all exams should be time-critical but that some should, and others be free from time restrictions for all." It's true, but how often does one course and one or two assessments lead people to a mixture of jobs where work is and is not time critical?

Two people could be in the same GCSE hall, and one could go on to be a surgeon and one could go on to do something very much not time critical. How do you judge who will NEED to have done a time critical option, and who will not? Unless you do that, then either no-one does a time critical option, or everyone does. If no-one does then we can't assess people as good for roles where time critical is needed.

If everyone does with no adaptations, then the person who is bad at timed assessments, gets a grade which more reflects their slow processing speed than their knowledge of a subject. You say you "also believe that slower processing can actually be an asset in many areas that require rigorous methodology (like research)", but if your grade on an exam reflects the fact you've never finished the exam, you are likely to be overlooked for that research job, because no-one will know that you knew your stuff and just couldn't get it down in time.

Exams are not to test processing speed. They are to test how well someone understand the content. The adjustments are “reasonable” because the test isn’t there to determine how quickly they understand it but whether they understand it. The time will be based to give an average student the time to answer the questions. The reason exams are timed has more to do with practicality than anything else. You can’t have staff there supervising for hours and hours and just let anxious students pontificate endlessly.

It’s the same reason spelling and grammar are not penalised in exams (unless it’s specifically testing spelling and grammar) no one thinks that this means in the workplace it’s fine to send emails and documents littered with spelling and grammar issues.

Most jobs for whom speed is critical have their own assessments as part of the recruitment process. I don't think you need to worry that the best people for the job are being usurped by slower thinkers.

In what way does this concept of fast/slow processing link to System 1 and System 2 thinking?

I can be a very fast processor - with certain tasks, I was always the record holder for assessing and actioning client instructions accurately.

But when it comes to verbal conversations, I process it a lot more slowly.

On top of that, I've seen a huge amount of errors by System 1 thinking, when I've had less confidence and therefore done the System 2 route (and in spite of being the history grad in a room full of statisticians, being the only one to make no errors).