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?

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.

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 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!

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.