Doodledog
Glorianny
Of course staff would discuss things with students - you are making ridiculous assumptions based on prejudice, not knowledge.
It has nothing to do with being entrenched or entitled. Any university will have disability policies - I have helped to craft them. My points, which of course you have ignored, are that there are other considerations.
I cba to reiterate them for the benefit of someone as closed-minded as you are, but other readers might consider how they would react when someone says they want to basically take a different course from other students, and that course has been accredited by a professional body who insists on particular skills being assessed. Or how they would ensure that assessment is fair when one person adheres to the assignment as set, and one is given a get-out. Or how they would organise their teams so that people have time to complete marking in different ways. These things don't happen in a vacuum, either. There are QC committees who ensure that assessment across modules and courses are equal, and External Examiners ensure that fairness extends across the sector. However enlightened someone may be, they can't simply alter an assessment for a particular student, except in your head.
I realise that you think you know everything about everything, but universities are not primary schools from the past. I would not presume to tell you how your job used to work, so please refrain from telling me how mine does. I have stepped back from decision-making, but am still employed, albeit part-time, so I am still aware of how things work today, whatever you may think.
(sorry, Aveline. I didn't mean to derail your thread like this, and again, I hope your GS is ok
)
That's a bit of a change from
People know before they apply for a course of study or a line of work that it will involve what it involves, and the payoff is the degree or the salary. If they are unable to fulfil their side of the bargain they should choose a different course, or a different job. The whole concept of university is based on elitism. Only those with certain grades can do particular courses, and the people wanting to opt out of things like presentations don't complain about that - their place has been gained on the basis of the skills they have and someone else doesn't, as measured by A level exams, which don't allow people to choose which papers to sit. How is it then fair to expect to get the same qualification as someone who has done the presentation when they haven't, or get the same salary as someone who turns up for the stressful event when they are at home with stress?
As for not criticising primary schools isn't I can't help thinking that teaching children (and I'm not saying that this applies to your grandson, Aveline) that they can just refuse to do things leads to students insisting on alternative assessments, and colleagues staying off when the going gets tough doing just that?
Alternative arrangements when they prevent students from committing suicide would seem petty vital to me.
As for children refusing. If a child was so distressed as to be in tears he would be unlikely to do a decent presentation anyway, so it isn't a question of allowing them to refuse it is a question of ensuring they are able to achieve and properly show what they are able to do and supporting them to do that.
I see a similarity of attitude between someone who thinks students with stress are somehow cheating and that children who are demonstrably upset are somehow refusing to take part in an activity. So actually the level doesn't matter.The commitment to equality of opportunity, the willingness to accommodate needs and the recognition and acknowledgement of disability rights is.
I've seen many people at all levels who have written and/or been involved in disability policies but who just paid lip service to them.
.