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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by Detrytus »

apical_dendrite wrote: post #106
SoftTalker wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "disability" used to be something of a stigma. Now it's celebrated, and people proudly identify with it. If you're saying that people always try to game the system, whatever it is, then I agree however.

I can tell you from personal experience as a person with a physical disability that it's still very much a stigma. It's also very much possible for something to be both a stigma and an identity. In fact, the stigmatization can make the identity stronger.

Well, some kinds of disability still are a stigma, but here on HN neurodiversity/autism is celebrated as some kind of superpower, basically.

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

#142

Post by teknopaul »

jfindper wrote: post #124
MangoToupe wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. What on earth is a "malicious" explanation of this?

One example of a malicious explanation would be: people are lying about having a disability to get some sort of benefits they don’t need, likely at the expense of someone who does need those benefits.

What they get is amphetamines, legally.

38% of stanford kids taking or selling drugs, legally, because they are rich kids: and the poor kids get jail time for buying it off them.

Go USA.

Wierd that no-one on this thread seems aware of it.

There are two standard treatments for adhd: met & dexies midnight runners.

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

#143

Post by ekropotin »

SoftTalker wrote: post #71
binary132 wrote: post #65

I have a sneaking suspicion that a surprising number of these disabilities require treatment with performance-enhancing drugs.

At the gym I go to, there are a lot of college-age kids. I overhear them talking about getting on Ritalin or Adderall to help them study. Not because they really need it, it's just seen as a "performance hack" to get an advantage. They talk about what doctor they went to and how easy it was to get a prescription.

I read somewhere that Adderall does not improve cognitive function in people without ADHD and in some cases can even decrease it.

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

#144

Post by esafak »

sureglymop wrote: post #70
missinglugnut wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where does the idea/reasoning that highly academically successful students cannot have a disability come from? I would go a step further and say there is probably a high chance that neurodivergent students are more academically successful, iff they did get to that level of education. And it's not impossible that they are overrepresented in that group of people. And people may be intellectually gifted, and yet experie…

Nobody said that. They are saying or insinuating that 38% of successful students are unlikely to be disabled. That certainly was not the case as recently as a decade or two ago. People have not changed drastically, so what gives?

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

#145

Post by lostmsu »

margalabargala wrote: post #103
lostmsu wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose cheating to get housing benefits is less of a dumpster fuck vs cheating to get ahead of other people in education.

The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them. If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students qu…

> The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did.

I'm glad you had no problem with "dumpster fuck".

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

#146

Post by jfindper »

SoftTalker wrote: post #55
p1esk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure it was always like this

No, "disability" used to be something of a stigma. Now it's celebrated, and people proudly identify with it. If you're saying that people always try to game the system, whatever it is, then I agree however.

some disabilities have mostly lost their stigma, sure, in some places.

Many have not. Most have not, if you consider the whole world and not just California and Washington or whatever.

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

#147

Post by jph00 »

Amongst groups for extremely gifted kids I’ve seen, well over half are neurodivergent. It’s a well understood issue in gifted kids psychology. When these kids are accommodated appropriately they ace their classes, and when not, they fail out entirely, even at the most basic levels of education.

So the statistics mentioned in the article are not necessarily inconsistent with what we’d expect, since Stanford is a highly selective school that’s by definition going to be picking gifted kids over less gifted ones, and from that group will pick those that were accommodated appropriately.

(There could also be cheating - I don’t know either way. I’m just commenting on the premise of the article. One person in it claims the kids aren’t really disabled because they don’t have wheelchairs. Hopefully it’s fairly obvious that this claim is totally illogical. Such an obviously unreasonable claim on a website called “Reason” makes me wonder what they are actually trying to achieve there.)

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

#148

Post by groundzeros2015 »

margalabargala wrote: post #103
lostmsu wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose cheating to get housing benefits is less of a dumpster fuck vs cheating to get ahead of other people in education.

The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them. If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students qu…

The direct result of this thinking is that people who need the accommodation face difficulty in getting it.

You don’t have to return your shopping cart. You don’t have to donate to the collection plate. You don’t have to give a coworker recognition.

But when everyone has an adversarial “get mine” attitude the systems have to be changed. Instead of assuming good intent they have to enforce it. Enforcement is very expensive and very unpleasant. (For example, maybe you need to rent the shopping cart.)

Unfortunately enforcement is a self fulfilling cycle. When people see others cheating they feel they need to cheat just to not be left behind.

You may be from a culture where this is the norm. Reflect on its impact and how we would really like to avoid this.

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

#149

Post by swiftcoder »

jph00 wrote: post #147

Amongst groups for extremely gifted kids I’ve seen, well over half are neurodivergent. It’s a well understood issue in gifted kids psychology. When these kids are accommodated appropriately they ace their classes, and when not, they fail out entirely, even at the most basic levels of education. So the statistics mentioned in the article are not necessarily inconsistent with what we’d expect, since Stanford is a highl…

> Such an obviously unreasonable claim on a website called “Reason” makes me wonder what they are actually trying to achieve there.

Libertarianism, it would seem

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

#150

Post by rendang »

quantified wrote: post #99
skzjxhz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Cultures that dislike diversity are pretty low-trust. Russia, North Korea, Iran come to mind. White American conservatives don't trust anyone who isn't also them. And so on.

I think the user you replied to is referring to things like the Putnam findings on the effects of diversity https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FvFN8ACY6taivkcbzDGgYy1-EPb...
Post reply on HN