Science desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 15[edit]

Type of paper[edit]

What kind of red paper is this? Featured in one of my books, after the paperback. Wrinkled texture, slightly hard, similar to cardboard. Brandmeister^talk 10:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would call that an embossed cardstock. Nimur (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of giving people with cognitive disabilities some extra time during exams[edit]

Aren't exams meant to measure your cognitive abilities? The whole is intriguing especially when it's about college entry exams, and not school kids (who might well compensate growing faster after a delayed start).

Wouldn't that be like given slow athletes a head start because it's not fair that fast athletes always win? --Doroletho (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like this [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So its purpose presumably is to give the handicapped a chance, a concept the OP apparently opposes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is accepting requests for accommodations from people in a wheelchair or a braille exam for a blind student. But the question is about students with cognitive disabilities. Dyslexia, concentration problems, dyscalculia and the like. --Doroletho (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they can do well at college despite dyslexia and other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the wrong forum, and I shouldn't spout off without sources either, especially as it's not my field. That said, I would offer that diversity is about rights. People are shielded from discrimination based on various things that society holds they have a right to do or be, ranging from religions (however mean-spirited and foolish) to physical disabilities that people say "are not their fault". It is interesting that dyscalculia, which our article says is not persistent and can be addressed by exercises, would count as such a condition deserving accommodation for fairness, but having two jobs and three kids would not.

But athletics is very clearly an outlier with its own rules, at least for now. Nowhere else are people so readily able to accept inborn advantage and disadvantage, or physical injury to participants in an activity as an expected outcome. A problem I have posed concerns apolipoprotein E. Suppose a coach is in a position where he can demand or offer that students be tested for ApoE4. Should students be tested and banned from the game based on their genotype, a clear instance of genetic discrimination that could save them from early mental deterioration from concussions? Or do you accept that they may choose not to be tested or may not be given a warning by the coach, so that they are being needlessly brain damaged? I think it is correct to say that there are fundamentally incompatible philosophies in play and that their contradictions must inevitably come to blows. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of dyslexics who did pretty well for themselves.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Aren't exams meant to measure your cognitive abilities? "

Well, what do we mean by cognition? If we assume that this is primarily the thought processes, and some prior acquisition of knowledge, then our ideal examination system should measure just that, and not be dominated by factors such as reading or writing ability, both of which are often restricted by deficiencies of motor skills or sensory impairments, including such impairments as poor vision or dyslexia. So exams are (not always) organised in such a way as to compensate for (some) of these, where practical and recognised, so as to produce a fairer measure of the actual cognitive process, not just one's ability to write down an answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have formally supervised NAPLAN tests in Australia. They are the country's standardised assessment tests for all students at Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. Supervisors are allowed to read questions to students in the Numeracy section of the test, if they ask. One student, who I could see was clearly struggling, finally asked. Every time I read a question to her, she was able to answer the question. She couldn't read, but she could do the NUmeracy part of the test. Because there are only two supervisors in the room, I had other duties to perform and was unable to read every question to this student. Her results were therefore meaningless, but the result was the only official numeracy score she got that year. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question came up now because of 2019 college admissions bribery scandal#Methods of fraudulent admission. Some parents paid bribes to have a learning disability declared for their children, because this can allow them to get more time on tests. The question is whether it's reasonable that some of the bad students get an advantage over others due to certain (alleged) reasons for being bad. Maybe it depends on their estimated chances to complete and use an education. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out it was the parents who were disabled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately most of society does not currently expect you to provide special accommodations for the disability known as 'being an entitled douche.' Someguy1221 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about the disability known as "Affluenza". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this question is indeed about the situation in the US, a big question is whether the question is, what does the mean by "what's the point"? Because while I agree there are good social reasons to do so, it's easily possible one key reason why this happens is because Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that reasonable accommodations are made for people with disabilities in a number of circumstances. Precisely how this interacts with such college admission tests, and tests from schools public and private only a judge can ultimately answer but the litigious nature of a lot of interactions in the US especially when something which affects the wealthy and powerful means many will err on the side of caution when it doesn't significantly harm them [3] [4] [5]. On a practical level, since employers will also generally have to make reasonable accommodations (obviously they may not be the same), it's not like the people are automatically hit a brick road after education. Note that I'm sure many educators and employers do it mostly or completely for other reasons, and of course the rational for such laws is because of the social good they bring. But at the same time for any question 'what's the point' in the US, it seems one of the answers is probably 'we don't get sued that way'. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took those tests and missed a few questions but I don't think extra time would have helped me (my reading speed is normal, so the total time allowed a reasonable amount of reading time followed by a reasonable amount of thinking time). On the other hand if someone had something like dyslexia that slowed down their reading, then giving them extra total time would leave them with a reasonable amount of thinking time. If they are trying to test your thinking clarity rather than your reading speed, allowing the extra time seems ok. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]