Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

#41

Post by lotsofpulp »

hollerith wrote: post #6

>the current language of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows students to get expansive accommodations with little more than a doctor's note. Stanford can make the student pay any costs of the accommodation if Stanford wants to push back on the student. E.g., if the student requests extra time on tests, Stanford can estimate the total cost of employing the proctor and bill that (amortized of course over t…

I don’t think the ADA allows charging people with disabilities extra. For example, if you claim you have a service dog, then you are legally not allowed to be charged pet fees.

Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

#42

Post by acedTrex »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #7
bluefirebrand wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is probably not good if nearly half (38% qualifies as nearly half, right?) of students are considered disabled and needing accommodations, right? Surely nearly half of any given public population can't be disabled?

They're quite obviously not. They're lying so they can get unlimited time on the test and/or look at their phone. They're smart kids that see a loophole in the system. They will take advantage!

> They're smart kids that see a loophole in the system. They will take advantage!

This is just not an acceptable cultural viewpoint. Abusing a permissive system must be discouraged.

Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

#44

Post by ThrowMeAway1618 »

rovr138 wrote: post #22
bananalychee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even 5% would be pushing it at a university. It's easy today to get a diagnosis for something like mild ADHD whether one has it or not, and everyone is on some kind of spectrum. Legitimacy aside, classifying mild, manageable conditions as disabilities that require special accommodations and/or medication is counter-productive long-term.

Who are you to say what should be included or not, that something can be gauged as mild or not, and that there should be a treshold?

[flagged]

Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

#45

Post by rovr138 »

swatcoder wrote: post #28
pavel_lishin wrote: post #3

> the current language of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows students to get expansive accommodations with little more than a doctor's note. Isn't that... good? What else would be expected if you have a disability, and need accomodations?

That's exactly the dilemma. Offering accommodations to people with disabilities is good. So you do that. Then you recognize that not all disabilities that deserve accommodations are obvious so you establish some bureaucratic process that can certify people with these unobvious disabilities so they can receive the accommodations you meant for them to. But the people you delegate to issue those certificates are... well…

Okay, the oposite would be, you put a stringent process on how to measure things. You have rigorous testing. These all take time and money, including lost income in time you need to take away, and money paid for the testing.

And you end up with people that could have had help to be successful, and not they're not being able to operate within the constraints.

So, what do you do then?

> then what the heck is going on that sooooo many people are disabled

Good question. We should study this and figure what the fuck we are messing up as a society... if only we had funding and also we had someone that could act with the findings and take action.

Looks like Stanford might be a good place to start. How's their funding situation?

Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

#46

Post by missinglugnut »

almosthere wrote: post #29
bvisness wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Reason article leaves out some helpful context from the original Atlantic article: > In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association expanded the definition of ADHD. Previously, the threshold for diagnosis had been “clear evidence of clinically significant impairment.” After the release of the DSM‑5, the symptoms needed only to “interfere with, or reduce the quality” of, academic functioning. So it's dramatically e…

If it turns out half of all people have something, it's just normal human stuff. Today's ADHD is likely a symptom of tiktoking your brain's serotonin out or some other chemical

Nonsense. This is Stanford. The admissions process filtered for highly academically successful students and then 38% of them claimed a disability which impairs their academic performance. It's bullshit of the most obvious kind.

Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

#48

Post by rovr138 »

almosthere wrote: post #36
rovr138 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25% of Americans have a disability, https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/media/pdfs/disabil... We don't know what's the percentage broken down by age. If 38% is almost 50%, 25% is almost 38%.

My dad at 50 got a disabled parking placard. He did have knee surgery, but he really didn't struggle with it about 4 months after his surgery. I asked him why he still had it - I got the impression that at this point he wanted his priority parking spot anyway. Didn't like driving around with him much after that.

[flagged]

Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?

#49

Post by zubiaur »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #3

> the current language of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows students to get expansive accommodations with little more than a doctor's note. Isn't that... good? What else would be expected if you have a disability, and need accomodations?

I would think so too. There is something else going though. It a system that relies partly on trust. A sort of moral asset with herd effects. It’s a system that can tolerate a certain amount of gaming, but when the threshold is surpassed, it becomes a failed system. It has to change, to the detriment of the justly entitled.

And that is the sad part, when that unstated assumption, that one may not lie, is broken past a threshold, it increases the transaction cost for everyone.

Post reply on HN