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

[Iris2020]

I am aware that this is going to be controversial.

I am very confused at the current belief that processing speed should not impact results and slow processing should systematically be compensated for through adjustments.

In the workplace, for a fair number of roles, fast processing speed is the single greatest factor in determining how valuable employees are to their team.
In many others, the lack of processing speed has endless negative knock-on effects for both clients of the business and colleagues.

There are plenty of roles suited to slower processing too.

• Why should a child with slow processing but advanced reasoning capabilities be set up to outscore a child with restricted reasoning capabilities but fast processing? Neither deserves it more.

• So many factors can slow processing, why single out a few as worthy of extra time?

When I worked in financial services, some roles were just unsuited to slow processing. They warranted the ability to understand many ideas fast, concurrently, provide instant feedback, bounce into new directions and output material at pace.

The individuals who were good at this were far less creative and useful when asked to outline detailed meeting agendas in advance and not deviate from them, not to mention the slower pace wasn't in line with Imarket demands.

My husband works in trades and sometimes has to mentor apprentices. When he gets one who takes a long time to process instructions or understand examples, it literally adds 2 hours onto his day. He can't finish his work as fast and it is hard for him not to feel as the joy is being drained out of his job.

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)

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

What do others think?

Whilst ‘slow processing’ is not a disability in of itself, it is something that can be a barrier to accessing learning/assessment for many people with learning and other disabilities.

If you remove the words ‘slow processing speed’ and replace them with ‘disability’ your suggestion reads as discriminatory. So no, I don’t agree with you.

Generally speaking the world of employment already advantages ‘fast’ people. I’m not sure I’d want to see a situation whereby those with slower processing abilities are actively penalised via employers being provided with whatever assessed ‘evidence’ you are suggesting.

Besides, processing speed is just one area of ‘ability’, everyone has their own unique blend of strengths and skills to draw upon. I could have lightening processing speed yet struggle with other important skills. Perhaps the ‘slow’ apprentices your husband gets frustrated by might turn out to be fantastic and efficient with experience.

If fast processing skills are requisite for a particular role then it’s up to employers to recruit transparently on that basis and use a selection process that provides opportunities for applicants to demonstrate what they are looking for, if the need can be justified. Not sure what kind of job that would look like though!

Your post is rather confusing to read and I think you are getting in a muddle trying to be too generous to people who are slow at processing things.

some jobs require fast processing and good reasoning. Some assessments like exams can pick them up, and giving extra time in exams just for “slow processing” would muddle this assessment.

some require good people skills or creativity. And these are barely assessed in exams at all.

so different assessments are needed for different jobs and employers shouldn’t rely on gcse grades but need to make their own judgements.

We recruit for some roles for processing speed - they're given too much information and not enough time and told to come up with a proposal. It's the nature of the role ( although I dont agree that the people in those roles should be making important decisions without fully understanding the facts, but there you go).

We also give some people (different role) the interview questions days before interview as a reasonable adjustment, I also feel this is ridiculous.

Slow processors with other great skills are valuable in certain roles, we shouldn't shoehorn them into the wrong place.

I’m not sure whether you are referring to exam access arrangements as your examples are drawn from the ‘workplace’.

Giving extra time to a child with average processing skills and average reasoning ability will have very little impact as they reach their limit within the time allowed without extra time. On the other hand DC with conditions that negatively impact processing speed can also have reasoning ability in the top 2% of the population and therefore significantly underperform in time limited exams if not allowed extra time.

Exam conditions are not replicated in the workplace.

In areas like financial services where actual mathematical ability is required, obviously the ideal would be above average processing speed combined with genius levels of reasoning if both speed and accuracy were required.

But is finishing fast and getting a significant number of answers wrong really an advantage compared to taking a little longer and producing good results first time round really an advantage to employers? I think a lot of employers value accuracy over speed and give clients realistic timeframes for producing work where speed of response is not the determining factor.

Maybe you can give us some examples where speed of response is crucial?

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).

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.

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.

"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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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 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!

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/

That's interesting. I have never been involved in graduate recruitment programs because I have worked in small companies.

Thanks.for sharing thoughts everyone.

@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.

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,

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.