SAT Test ‘Extra Time’ – The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
The SAT and ACT were supposed to measure how students perform under pressure, on the same clock, under the same standards. But a growing number of parents now believe the rules have quietly changed. Instead of equal competition, they argue, America’s college entrance exams are increasingly rewarding diagnoses, accommodations, and parental persistence.
At the center of the controversy is a sharp rise in students receiving extra time and other testing accommodations for disabilities and medical conditions. While accommodations were created to help students with legitimate barriers compete fairly, many parents now believe the system has drifted into something very different, one where pressure is softened, standards are bent, and families with money and influence gain an advantage.
According to figures cited by testing organizations, about 6.7% of SAT takers received extra time last year, compared with roughly 2% about a decade ago. The ACT shows a similar jump, with 7% of students receiving accommodations compared with 4.1% in 2013.
To critics, this is not simply a statistical trend. It reflects what they see as a broader culture increasingly uncomfortable with competition itself.
Parents Say Competition Is Being Replaced With Accommodation
Many frustrated parents argue that standardized testing is supposed to reward preparation, focus, and the ability to perform under equal conditions. Instead, they increasingly see a system that allows some students to sidestep those pressures.
Long Island dermatologist Adarsh Vijay Mudgil said his daughter reported that at least 60 classmates at her high school received extra time on the ACT. After hearing that, Mudgil became convinced something was wrong.
“It’s cheating,” Mudgil said. “It puts our kids at a disadvantage.”
Mudgil later devoted podcast episodes to the issue, warning that the trend could weaken students’ ability to handle adversity and perform under stress.
“We’re grooming a generation that is just not going to be capable of performing under pressure, and that’s a scary thought,” he said.
Other parents share that frustration. Shannon Alsheimer, whose daughter attended high school in Massachusetts, said students openly bragged that “their mom got them a 504” plan before taking the SAT.
“We’re making it too easy on kids to find excuses rather than digging deeper and putting the time and effort in,” Alsheimer said. “It’s a crutch.”
To critics, the message being sent to students is troubling: if competition feels difficult, find a workaround. If pressure becomes uncomfortable, ask for accommodations. Instead of teaching resilience, they argue, schools and adults increasingly teach students how to seek exceptions.
The Disabilities Raising Eyebrows
No serious critic disputes that some students genuinely need accommodations. ADHD, auditory processing disorders, and other learning disabilities have long justified modified testing conditions. Students may receive time-and-a-half, double time, separate rooms, or additional breaks depending on documented needs. Severe anxiety cases can reportedly stretch ACT testing across multiple days.
Yet parents increasingly question some of the conditions now being used to secure extra time.
Several Manhattan parents said some families seek gastroenterologists to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease, allowing unlimited bathroom breaks during testing. Anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other psychiatric conditions are also used to support accommodation requests.
For skeptical parents, what feels strange is not that these conditions exist, but how conveniently some diagnoses seem to emerge just before the SAT or ACT, particularly for students who have excelled academically for years without accommodations.
College consultant Laurie Kopp Weingarten said frustrated parents now raise the issue constantly.
“I feel like 80% of the students are getting extra time, and they don’t need it!” one mother complained during a presentation.
Weingarten believes a system designed to help vulnerable students is becoming distorted by access and privilege.
“The accommodations were meant to level the playing field,” she said. “But what’s happening is they’re tilting the playing field toward those with money and access.”
The $10,000 Workaround
Much of the anger centers on reports that some affluent parents are spending between $2,000 and $10,000 on neuropsychological evaluations in hopes of obtaining diagnoses that unlock extra time.
Attorney Clint Barkdoll said many families appear to target diagnoses that are difficult to objectively measure.
“A lot of times they’re looking for something like anxiety or something that’s sort of intangible like that, that they know is just enough to get them the special accommodations,” Barkdoll said. He noted that some students reportedly receive “hours of additional time,” which critics see as a major advantage on a time-sensitive test.
Barkdoll also pointed to another complaint fueling outrage among parents: colleges do not know whether a score came from standard testing conditions or a heavily accommodated version.
“If you are given more time, those accommodations are not noted on your final score,” he said, meaning colleges have “no idea” whether students completed the exam under normal time limits or with additional hours.
He also questioned the lengths some families go to when many colleges no longer even require SAT scores.
“The families that are doing this must feel that they’re still gaining some advantage,” Barkdoll said.
Scott Hamilton: ‘Not Finishing the SAT Is Not a Disability’
Scott Hamilton, an Atlanta clinical psychologist, has become one of the clearest voices warning that the system may be drifting too far.
Hamilton described a “surreal” experience after evaluating a student whose family hoped to secure accommodations. When he concluded the student did not qualify, he said the parents became angry.
“In what universe do we live in when I said their kid functions really well and they were mad at me?” Hamilton said. “Not finishing the SAT is not a disability.”
Hamilton added that it is unusual to diagnose learning disabilities for the first time late in high school and called evaluations suspiciously close to SAT season a “red flag.”
“I agree wholeheartedly that accommodations are being abused, and my profession has contributed to this,” Hamilton said. “I don’t think it’s a willful conspiracy, but we lean toward wanting to help.”
The Other Side of the Debate
Supporters of broader accommodations argue critics are missing the bigger issue: students who genuinely struggle but cannot afford evaluations or documentation.
Emily Tarconish believes access matters more than occasional abuse.
“I would rather open up access to the five kids who need accommodations but can’t afford documentation, and maybe there’s one person who has paid for an evaluation, and they really don’t need it,” Tarconish said.
But for angry parents watching accommodation rates surge, the concern runs deeper than extra minutes on an exam. They see a culture increasingly suspicious of competition, uncomfortable with pressure, and eager to soften standards in the name of fairness or sympathy. To them, the SAT debate is about more than testing. It is about whether schools still believe achievement should come from meeting the same challenge under the same rules.
Nothing like grade inflation to dilute my past academic achievements.
Daniel Oliver does not have a picture, bio, or resume. This story is a nice embellishment of the story appearing in many rags like the NYPost. His embellishment is a spin against what he sees as “increasingly rewarding diagnoses, accommodations, and parental persistence.” Too bad he does not look beyond the NYPost or a fair and balanced treatment of the facts. For example, he claims “extra time is the bigotry of low expectations” as he basically dumps on those with learning disabilities desiring to make them last because they have disabilities. Like pushing a wheelchair down the steps. What he does not say is that the rules have not changed, he just falsely claims they have. What is happening is that more people are legitimately following the rules and some are cheating, perhaps only a handful. He does note that money makes the monkey dance, the organ grinder’s tune, so people who can buy the cheat, do. Let’s be clear: there is no party politics in this.
It’s called “the accommodations process” and its intent is to level the playing field for students with learning disabilities from legitimate mental health issues. If you feel these kids are “ripping you off” by tipping the scales; sorry, the numbers, even with the increase, and even with the cheaters, are still extremely low. Daniel quotes the 6.7% take rate for extra time. That means in a room of 100 students, 6 or 7 of them get extra time. Pretty sure that’s not why Daniel Jr. did not get into Princeton. Second, the notion that extra time reduces competition just does not make sense. The score is the score and unless you vote against helping those with mental health issues, it’s fair. If you think it’s unfair, then I guess you vote against helping those with mental health issues. I am pretty sure the challenged who get extra time do not have a competitive advantage due to time. At 7%, you would never know anyway. Finally, cheaters are cheaters and should be dealt with. But I promise you that once you close this door, as we should, another door will open as long as there are parents willing to unfairly tip the scales for their kids. The number is low and should not affect the normal kids greatly.
The law that allows this was created in 1975; thus, Daniel is BUSTED on his assumption: “the rules have quietly changed.” They have not, he is wrong. That’s meant to get you riled up as if they system is against you, burn down the system. He is also wrong on his opinion that “The SAT and ACT were supposed to measure how students perform under pressure, on the same clock.” There is no stipulation for that, and the 1975 rule obviously is intended to actually level the playing field for people with disabilities: extra time. Why does Daniel hate kids with mental health issues affecting learning? What’s next, take out the wheelchair ramps? Paint over the handicapped parking spots? I don’t honestly think Daniel thinks that, I think he did not think about it when he sucked up the NYPost spew meant to incite.
I wonder if Daniel believes if we provided less time, we would have smarter kids?
I don’t know why the Daniels of this world don’t even look to see if there might be another side to the story? I understand why the NYPost does it, but et tu Daniel?
The concept here revolves around mental health issues and the attempt to level the playing field for those with mental health issues affecting learning. I thought you right-wingers favored providing aid to those with mental health issues. Isn’t that your big 2A diagnosis and main aspect of the gun control issue to be worked on and resolved? Sure seems that’s all we hear from after any mass shooting that we need to fix mental health because mental health is the biggest issue we have in America being the root cause of most shootings.
As Daniel notes, the thing that has changed is more people applying for the rule. That is true and that is recent. And there is no doubt that in this increase are people who do not deserve it. Some even “buy” their way in. What Daniel does not note is that in the increase there may be a good number of valid students which would be a good thing unless you don’t favor the law, or a level playing field. According to experts, the number of kids getting extra time, even with cheaters, is less than half the kids who are suffering mental health issues. And no one is estimating how many cheaters there are. Daniel did not. He provides a lot of unsubstantiated anecdotes and unfounded numbers like “80% are cheating,” but most of his facts are obviously not true and certainly not statistically proven.
Here’s an article by a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The conclusion I printed below: *https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201906/the-truth-about-getting-extra-time-the-sat?shem=rimspwouoe,*
“The heavy news coverage has unfairly thrown the accommodations process into question and increased the stigma for families who are using it properly. “It has massively magnified the scrutiny to re-prove a ‘real’ disability,” Youngstrom says, “ultimately adding barriers for kids with disabilities to be approved for accommodations or to be willing to use them.”
The reality is far different: Too many students who truly need accommodations cannot get them because of significant gaps in mental health resources across the country. With a severe shortage of school psychologists—only 1 for every 1,000 students—it can take years for a student in need to receive the testing required to obtain essential school services, of which extra testing time is just one element.
The perpetrators of the Varsity Blues scheme egregiously exploited a system built to help disabled children. Many young people struggling with learning challenges already feel ashamed that they need help, Youngstrom says, and face “suspicion and accusations of cheating the system when they use extended time or are tested in a separate setting.” Now, that stigma is likely to increase. A handful of parents used services their teenagers did not need. They and their accomplices deserve our contempt. The children who genuinely rely on support and assistance to reach their fullest potential do not.”
Yes, there is an increase. Yes, there are cheaters. Experts recognize the need for mental health challenged students to get extra time to level the playing field. Experts claim the current rate is less than half the total numbers of students that fit the paradigm. The numbers are low, the concept of “80% of the students are getting extra time” is ridiculous. We need to curtail the cheaters as they stigmatize the challenged like Daniel has as well as taking advantage of unfair competition. Have some compassion Daniel. Kids with mental health issues are not unfair competition; they have challenges far beyond yours I would gather.
Dunger puts people to sleep with long bullshit rants. So he should heed some advice and stfu.
Seth-sucks-shit: I am pretty sure it’s a rare occasion indeed where I take your advice.
I realize reading for you is difficult, your claim to fame is that you took your SATs pass/fail and passed with what you called the perfect score of 100, and you suck shit. Glad I could help your sleeping habits.
Note to self: just don’t read my comments. My name is at the top, should be pretty easy, even for your limited reading abilities, to avoid.
As far as “bullshit” in this story: sure, why not, Bet you could prove it if you weren’t such a moron.