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?

#511

Post by wisty » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #439

wisty wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people think a test should measure one thing (often under the slightly "main character" assumption that they'll be really good at the one truly important thing). Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one. It certainly shouldn't be entirely a race either though. Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll wr…

> Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll write 30 pages of nonsense. Sure that makes sense to me, but I don't see why this would not also apply to ADHD students or any other group. And of course, there needs to be some time limit. All I am saying is, instead of having a group that gets one hour and another group that gets two hours, just give everyone two ho…

There can be a genuine need to make it fair. Some students with anxiety can take 10 minutes to read the first question, then are fine. ASD could mean slower uptake as they figure out the exam format.

So let's say you have a generally fair time bonus for mild (clinical) anxiety. The issue is that it's fair for the average mild anxiety, it's an advantage if a student has extremely mild anxiety.

As you say, hopefully the test is not overly time focused, but it's still an advantage, and a lot of these students / parents will go for every advantage they can.

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

#512

Post by skeeter2020 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:53 PM UTC

powerclue wrote: post #222

mapontosevenths wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is the common gag reflex, but multiple things can be true at the same time; there can be a greater need for support of disabled persons AND a shocking abuse of the systems by priviledged students. Ditto for the need to support women & minorities at the same time as white males are doing poorly and need help.

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

#513

Post by dctoedt » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:54 PM UTC

scratchyone wrote: post #368

dctoedt wrote: post #100

I'm mostly a law professor these days. When final-exam time rolls around (as in, this week), I raise my eyebrows when I'm sent the list of students who get 50% extra time. I wouldn't presume to judge the propriety of any given student's accommodation. But many of the accommodated students seem to have done just fine in class discussions during the semester. FTA: "Unnecessary accommodations are a two-front form of che…

FWIW, consider that some of these students may need the accommodation specifically because of the pressure of the final exam. Many mental health disabilities will become worse with stress. A low stress environment and a high stress final exam could trigger entirely different symptoms. For example, I have OCD (real, diagnosed, not the bs "omg im so ocddddd"). I have extra time accommodations because I have to spend ti…

> some of these students may need the accommodation specifically because of the pressure of the final exam.

Success as a lawyer often requires the ability to handle a certain amount of pressure. Timed exams are one way of screening for that ability. But it's by no means a sure-fire predictor of success: Legendary trial lawyer Joe Jamail [0] flunked his first-year Torts class at UT Austin [1], yet went on to become a billionnaire.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Jamail

[1] https://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/r-i-p-to-a-billionaire-lawye...

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

#514

Post by jeffbee » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:54 PM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #446

powerclue wrote: post #216

That doesn't seem outrageously high for a high cap school? 15-20% of the world is estimated to have a disability. So Stanford population is high, but approximately double the average of a random global population sample. Now, think about the selection pressures Stanford applies. Stanford selects students who are fighting for top academic honors. Those students are dealing with brutal competition, and likely see their…

8.3% of Americans 18-34yo have a disability according to the Census department. Stanford's rate is 4.3x higher than that. Add in that half of all students who claim a disability have no record of a diagnosis or disability classification prior to beginning college, all the reports of rampant cheating in school, the Varsity Blues college-admissions scandal where some parents helped their kid fake disabilities to get ah…

> elite schools need a better way to gauge an applicant's ethics

You are perhaps mistaking which side of the line Stanford would select for. It is a school that produces and prefers sociopaths. Its engineering curriculum, almost uniquely among universities, has no requirement for an ethics course. You can fulfill Stanford's "Technology in Society" requirement by taking a course where you network with VCs for a semester. It is a factory for making jerks.

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

#515

Post by bradlys » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:56 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #468

bradlys wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is because employers are insanely brutal in the job market due to an oversupply of qualified talent. We have more people than we have positions available to work for quality wages. This is why everything is so extreme. Students need to be in the top X percent in order to get a job that leads to a decent quality of life in the US. The problem is that every student knows this and is now competing against one…

Your comment explains why students would like to receive these accommodations (it gives them a competitive edge), but does nothing to explain why this is logical or beneficial. If as you say the number of available positions is constrained, this system does nothing to increase the supply of those positions. It also does nothing increase the likelihood that those positions are allocated to those with the greatest mate…

Even in the top 1% there’s a limited amount of positions. Everyone wants every advantage possible over everyone else. That is how the market is. Even for Stanford students there is a hierarchy.

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

#516

Post by honkostani » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:57 PM UTC

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…

[dead]

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

#517

Post by skeeter2020 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:58 PM UTC

cryzinger wrote: post #426

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. There's a term for exactly this: "twice exceptional"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional

Not only is this such a cringe term (we may describe poor aptitude in an area as an exception but exceptional?) it's also not accurate. If you want a milquetoast label call them "spikey" to denote the array of dimensions and the variance, or multimodal or similar.

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

#518

Post by margalabargala » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:58 PM UTC

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #148

margalabargala wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expe…

I think you're reading more into what I said than what I intended.

I'm not endorsing the specific behavior, but I am pointing out that if there's a "cheating" lever anyone can pull to improve their own situation, it will get pulled if people think it's justified.

There's plenty that do get pulled and plenty that don't. In the US, SNAP fraud is sufficiently close to nonexistant that you can't tell the difference in benefits provided. But fraud surrounding lying about medical conditions to get a medical marijuana card is universal and accepted.

The people we're talking about here are teenagers that are told "if you have an ADHD diagnosis you can ask for and get your own room". The sort of systems thinking you are describing is not generally done by your average fresh high school graduate. This is therefore a Stanford problem.

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

#519

Post by skeeter2020 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:59 PM UTC

vl wrote: post #154

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.

Steriods will give you a massive physical advantage too. If you're not doing something with a governing body and get them prescribed you're golden.

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

#520

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:00 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #409

IgorPartola wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in residential life while in college and can tell you that placing freshmen in singles is a horrible idea. It leads to isolation and lets mental health issues fester. Some need it but you do not want to place anyone who doesn’t into a room alone especially in their first year.

Before you went to college, did you have a bedroom to yourself in your parents' home?

Ridiculous comparison. First, neither I nor anyone I know had a room where we could lock our parents out. Second, your parents actually care about you and if you spent 24+ hours in there without coming out they'd check on you (probably much sooner actually). No such luck in a dorm.