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

151–160 of 1001 posts

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

#151

Post by ok_dad »

psunavy03 wrote: post #126
OGEnthusiast wrote: post #25

American society is at the point where if you don't play these sort of games/tricks, you'll get out-competed by those who do. Bleak.

Depends highly on your field. There are plenty of military personnel and commercial pilots hiding things or avoiding being seen for any kind of treatment, because a diagnosis could lose them their jobs. Rolling out electronic health records has been a disaster for military recruiting, because such a large portion of kids flat-out lied on the medical screening, and 60+ percent of the population is already disqualified…

Yea I was depressed and it turned into a whole thing. Military especially hide mental issues due to the stigma and chance to lose your livelihood.

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

#152

Post by OneDeuxTriSeiGo »

lostmsu wrote: post #73
hibikir wrote: post #58

I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. As I grew up in the 80s, there were two kinds of gifted kids in school: The kind that would ace everything anyway, and the kind that, for a variety of reasons, lacked the regulation abilities to manage the school setting well, with the slow classes and such. A lot of very smart people just failed academically, because the system didn't work for the…

> The percentages of workers that are neurodivergent is much higher than usual Is it much though? 38%? I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies. > there's a big cadre or neurodivergent people that are just in the line where they are very productive workers anyway Alternatively, it just became popular to label others or oneself that way. And tech elites have nothing better to do in free time. Also…

> Is it much though? 38%? I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies.

How do you know this?

Do you have access to their medical records?

Are you in HR and have access to any accomodations they may have filed?

Do they even have accommodations filed at work? Neither I nor many of the people I knew in university who had accommodations needed them in the workplace because the structure of an undergrad course setting is wildly different from that of an actual workplace.

I have told HR at basically every place I've worked that I had filed for accommodations during university and that I generally manage my disability well but that I may need to file for formal accommodations at some point in the future. This isn't something that I've necessarily told people I work with and it's not visible or obvious. Most disabilities aren't.

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

#153

Post by LoganDark »

lostmsu wrote: post #73
hibikir wrote: post #58

I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. As I grew up in the 80s, there were two kinds of gifted kids in school: The kind that would ace everything anyway, and the kind that, for a variety of reasons, lacked the regulation abilities to manage the school setting well, with the slow classes and such. A lot of very smart people just failed academically, because the system didn't work for the…

> The percentages of workers that are neurodivergent is much higher than usual Is it much though? 38%? I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies. > there's a big cadre or neurodivergent people that are just in the line where they are very productive workers anyway Alternatively, it just became popular to label others or oneself that way. And tech elites have nothing better to do in free time. Also…

> > The percentages of workers that are neurodivergent is much higher than usual

> Is it much though? 38%? I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies.

Just another anecdote, but where I work (tech startup) there are at least 7 other employees (that I know of) and I can identify every single one as autistic. Three are one type, another three are another type, and I think the one other as well as myself are the same type.

Research in the space hasn't advanced enough yet for this to be consensus, but in my opinion this preprint is exactly correct, and is what taught me that there are even subtypes to recognize at all: https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/untangling-biologica...

There are, of course, plenty of non-neurodivergent tech companies. These are typically boring corporate ones, though I think there are some non-flashy ones that are perfectly respectable. I don't think Microsoft would count, though; Asperger's can look a lot like a lack of neurodivergence if you don't pay close enough attention.

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

#154

Post by vl »

hibikir wrote: post #58

I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. As I grew up in the 80s, there were two kinds of gifted kids in school: The kind that would ace everything anyway, and the kind that, for a variety of reasons, lacked the regulation abilities to manage the school setting well, with the slow classes and such. A lot of very smart people just failed academically, because the system didn't work for the…

Have you tried Adderall? It gives extreme competitive edge. Just to get legal and easy access to performance-enhancing drugs in elite educational (aka competitive) setting it makes sense to get "disability".

And given how loosely these conditions are defined, it's not even cheating in the true sense of the word.

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

#155

Post by shermantanktop »

delichon wrote: post #133
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the culture I grew up in, this was considered cheating.

A culture that honored truth telling and integrity. Was that long ago or far away?

"culture i grew up in" could easily mean "what my parents/older relatives told me they did, when they told me to be like them."

Once you grow up, you realize your parents were human, made self-interested decisions, and then told themselves stories that made their actions sound principled. Some more than others, of course.

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

#156

Post by smcg »

I went to an elite school. I had undiagnosed depression and ADHD and I almost failed out.

I don't think I needed more time on tests but I definitely needed medication and counseling. The counseling resources available at the time were not adequate and medication was difficult to get.

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

#157

Post by beambot »

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…

Just curious: If non-neurodivergent children are given the same accomodations (which are?) do they significantly outperform their peers too? For example: it's well known that 1-on-1 instruction time correlates to better academic outcomes.

(I'm not an educator; I have no idea.)

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

#158

Post by woodruffw »

swiftcoder wrote: post #149
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

> Libertarianism, it would seem

In some peculiar, perverted sense, given that evaluating claims of disability requires breaching students' medical privacy. You wouldn't normally expect libertarians to so overtly be okay with invasions of personal privacy.

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

#159

Post by swiftcoder »

lostmsu wrote: post #73
hibikir wrote: post #58

I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. As I grew up in the 80s, there were two kinds of gifted kids in school: The kind that would ace everything anyway, and the kind that, for a variety of reasons, lacked the regulation abilities to manage the school setting well, with the slow classes and such. A lot of very smart people just failed academically, because the system didn't work for the…

> The percentages of workers that are neurodivergent is much higher than usual Is it much though? 38%? I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies. > there's a big cadre or neurodivergent people that are just in the line where they are very productive workers anyway Alternatively, it just became popular to label others or oneself that way. And tech elites have nothing better to do in free time. Also…

> Is it much though? 38%?

I'd say 30-40% is definitely in line with what I saw at various FAANG employers. Though it may be that other types of employer optimise less for those attributes.

> I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies

Have you considered that you yourself may be neurodivergent?

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN