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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by bee_rider »

lostmsu wrote: post #85
shetaye wrote: post #81

Regarding Stanford specifically, I did not see the number broken down by academic or residential disability (in the underlying Atlantic article). This is relevant, because > Some students get approved for housing accommodations, including single rooms and emotional-support animals. buries the lede, at least for Stanford. It is incredibly commonplace for students to "get an OAE" (Office of Accessible Education) exclus…

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

In the context of academics I’d call it manipulating, exploiting or scamming the housing system, rather than cheating. Just because academic cheating is the center-of-gravity for this type of conversation, and, IMO, a much much bigger deal.

If someone says they cheated in school, the first thing that pops into your head probably isn’t that they might have gotten a single dorm room, right?

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

#222

Post by powerclue »

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…

The article is pretty clearly someone trying to drag disability on to the stage of the culture war because it's another group that's easy to other, imo.

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

#223

Post by heisenbit »

kazinator wrote: post #47

For pete's sake just give everyone extra time on tests; what's the big deal? If you know the stuff, regurgitating it faster is a trivial optimization.

If you have to grade essays and you give students more time you have to spend more time on grading - taking away time from preparing lessons and supporting students individually.

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

#226

Post by ok_dad »

guizadillas wrote: post #195
ok_dad wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You almost lost me in the first half but yeah, that title alone shows the intentions of the editorial

I should specify also that I am not saying a medical diagnosis is not important, or that there is no such thing as ADHD or Autism.

I believe as a society we need to be more flexible in every area for every human and also to give individual attention to everyone so they can excel. Some people will need more help than others, like those with ADHD, and some will need much, much more help than others, such as those with more extreme sensory issues with Autism who may not even be able to go out in public without accommodations.

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

#227

Post by ux266478 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #90
alwa wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, like—isn’t the bleaker thing that that seems so existential of an outcome? The vast majority don’t go to Stanford. The vast majority of those aren’t valedictorian. And the vast majority of that vast majority’s lives in the US work out, you know, fine—mostly including things like climate-controlled indoor spaces, ample calories, professional medical care, access to some kind of justice system, going their whole l…

> And the vast majority of that vast majority’s lives in the US work out, you know, fine—mostly including things like climate-controlled indoor spaces, ample calories, I’ll buy this >professional medical care, access to some kind of justice system, I doubt this. Most people in the US are probably aware one healthcare or legal issue in their family will derail the whole family’s future. That is not to say things are w…

> Most people in the US are probably aware one healthcare or legal issue in their family will derail the whole family’s future.

Healthcare sure, but for Americans, it is culturally and institutionally seen as a core part of justice that the guilty have their future destroyed. That it affects those dependent on the guilty is a part of that destruction, it's trying to isolate them from others. If you still have your family around, has your life truly been destroyed? Among American people it might not be universal, and may seem absolutely barbaric, but the extreme malignance of American justice is more or less consistent with a wide swath of attitudes Americans have, especially when they're the ones who have been severely harmed.

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

#228

Post by devnullbrain »

oefrha wrote: post #61

> "It's just not. It's rich kids getting extra time on tests." Talented students get to college, start struggling, and run for a diagnosis to avoid bad grades. Okay, I was an undergrad at Stanford a decade ago, I graduated with two majors (math, physics) and almost another minor (CS) so I took more credits than most and sat in more tests than most, and I don’t think I’ve seen a single person given extra time on tests…

At another university I once had extenuating circumstances preventing me from taking an exam in one of the main exam halls. I was invited to take it in a normal classroom, where a session was being held at the same time for people who get additional time. I was able to start later and still finish with the normal allowance but without having a chance to collude with other students.

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

#229

Post by dunk010 »

The whole thrust of the article is complaining about timed tests and some kids getting more time. That's doubtless unfair if some are overclaiming, but the real solution is to not do timed tests at all - they are only serving to produce an arbitrary bell curve so that some can have higher grades and get better career opportunities. Better to not have a timer at all, and let people's actual ability shine.
Post reply on HN