Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled? • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by veilrap » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

beambot wrote: post #157

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.)

100%, it's one of the irksome things about the education system in general - resources are limited. It's a hard problem to solve.

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

#182

Post by paulpauper » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

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…

where just following the conversation is a problem, while they are outright bored with the highest difficulty technical AP classes available, because they find them very easy.

Then accommodations should not be needed if they are so easy, unless I am missing something?

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

#183

Post by ok_dad » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

dyauspitr wrote: post #170

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…

What is neurodivergent though? If it’s a third of people, you can probably deem that normal.

It's a way to separate us so that we can fight about it and not focus on the important aspect which is to provide everyone the help they need and deserve to make a successful life for themselves. Some may need more help than others, and so the powers that be who want to keep all that profit for themselves target those who need more help with dumb articles like this one which spread FUD.

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

#184

Post by teknopaul » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

MangoToupe wrote: post #109

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…

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

I don't understand how yous can be ignorant of this. In the USofA you get advertised at continuously by drug companies.

Do you really think they spend that money advertising, and that you can then not buy the products?!?

Sure, you need a corrupt doctor. But the amount of advertising tells you exactly the amount of corrupt doctors that can act as drug dealers for you.

If someone is advertising something at you, it's because you can get it and you are potential market.

Not rocket science.

Somehow the whole country has collective blindness to this fact that is scarily obvious to anyone from outside the USofA that drops by.

Drugs adverts for prescription drugs should be illegal: because there is no legal justification for them.

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

#185

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

teknopaul wrote: post #142

jfindper wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#186

Post by paulpauper » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:53 PM UTC

mapontosevenths wrote: post #79

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…

> Because they really are both very smart and disabled at the same time. I agree with almost everything you say here. However, I wanted to point out that you make the same mistake the articles author does. "Disabled" and "Diagnosed" are not actually the same thing, even though we do describe ADHD and the like as "learning disabilities." Being diagnosed with a learning disability or other type of neuro-divergency does…

This Is detail often left out of this debate . A diagnosis does not imply accommodations.

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

#187

Post by swiftcoder » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:53 PM UTC

dyauspitr wrote: post #170

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…

What is neurodivergent though? If it’s a third of people, you can probably deem that normal.

Current estimates place it around 20% of the population. Wouldn't take a whole lot of sampling error in admissions to result in 40% of admitted students

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

#188

Post by bee_rider » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #158

swiftcoder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think they are just commenting on the bias of Reason magazine (it is a well known libertarian magazine).

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

#189

Post by footy » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

LoganDark wrote: post #153

lostmsu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 myse…

My company is about 100 people. I regularly interact with maybe 12. I'm AuDHD and so are at least 5 others---4 that I have regular interaction with and have told me, and one who I do not have regular interaction with but told me anyway. There are also at least 3 pure ADHD people.

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

#190

Post by weehobbes » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

mhb wrote: post #135

weehobbes wrote: post #91

I have a teenager who is at an academically rigorous college prep school. He is incredibly bright and one of the best students in the school. But he has an accommodation in math for extra time because he has a form of dyscalculia which makes him very prone to misreading and mixing up in working memory the numbers, symbols and other formulas. He understands all the concepts well, but his disability results in calculat…

Why can't everyone get extra time?

That's a much bigger meta question, like what's even the point of putting timing constraints on any test?

Logistically, my kid has to go a testing center at the school during his free period and/or lunch periods for his extra time. I can imagine that if everyone got extra time, it would be a logistical nightmare.

But I think the reality is that our educational system had just decided that faster is better and that speed is a legitimate way to grade and rank students. Which is stupid.