The testing is for a combination of knowledge of the subject and ability to apply it in practice.

As an advisor of PhD students I've learned that both things are important in different amounts. Much of what our education system measures right now is "willingness to work really hard from a young age." When I meet students from top-tier institutions I see a lot of this: it's really impressive. I also see a good deal of of selection for what I'd consider raw problem-solving ability. I see a smaller degree of selection for raw creativity.

The most creative students I've met have been the ones that didn't accumulate credentials, and often suffered because of (possibly undiagnosed) ADHD. They did well when they found their passion, either because they found it later in life or because they really, really cared about it. Our system doesn't do as well with these people, but they can usually make their way through.

Unfortunately there's a downside to this: all the creativity in the world isn't going to help you if you can't execute. A brilliant idea only takes you so far. And gaining sufficient background to have brilliant ideas is often an even more demanding task, which passion alone doesn't suffice for. I don't exactly know what to do about all this. What I do know is that a system that bases future success on how well individuals do at age 16 is fundamentally, profoundly stupid... And I wish I had a better one.

I know this is harsh but if you have ADHD, difficulty prioritizing work or are disorganised to the extent that you can't perform academically at the required level to complete a degree then you shouldn't be wasting your money and time going to university and should instead look for something that better suits your talents.

Not to be insensitive, but ADHD is a learning disability. Are we saying that anyone can be taught anything? That seems unrealistic to me.

Ironically, measures like discussed in this article can actually make classes much harder for students with ADHD. Keeping on top of busy work, maintaining a tight schedule, etc. is not easy with executive functioning issues, and could lead to a student that actually did learn the material and performed well on exams receiving a bad final grade.

This may be more relevant to "twice exceptional" students that can still pick up on the material without following the whole class. There is certainly heterogeneity and I don't mean to speak for all ADHD students in what they would prefer. I just think it is funny your comment could be read as supporting either side of the debate without the parent context. And given the parent context I have to say I disagree.

Now whether the hand holding of attendance policies and weekly assignments and the like is better for the class on the whole I can't comment on. It's not an easy tradeoff and I don't think the decision should be made primarily based on how people with ADHD perform, unless you are teaching a class where it is disproportionately represented.

Attention deficit disorder is particularly interesting because these people actually have hyperattention when it comes to stuff that's interesting to them. They'll have trouble even starting boring tasks like homework but they can easily maintain their attention for 12 hours straight on some programming problem if that's what they enjoy thinking about. They are likely to be incompatible with this mass education system where people sit in a classroom to listen to lectures, especially if there's associated hyperactivity.