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?

#131

Post by bottlepalm » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

Having a mental disability is chic for kids right now. You won't find a discord or other online profile of a kid with less than three mental disabilities listed. For better or worse, they use them to connect with one another, have something in common. It doesn't help either that these disabilities are super easy to misdiagnose with dishonest patients which means lots of real drugs are flowing to children with fake problems.

This is all aside from the fact that these disabilities can be used as a way to get all sorts of special treatment. That's just icing on the cake. They see each other doing it and say why not me as well. It's a feign mental disorder chain reaction that's gone critical. Sexuality as well. They like to collect labels like Pokémon. Massive social benefit.

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

#132

Post by jandrewrogers » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #94

jandrewrogers wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The necessary doctor's note can be trivially purchased without any meaningful evidence of disability. I know a number of children of wealthy families with these notes. They don't even pretend to be disabled, possession of the note makes it beyond question. Buying an advantage for your children in this way is widespread. This article suggests that it is even more widespread than I imagined.

So, let's say we make it more difficult to get "proof" of disability, something that requires more than just a doctor's note. Won't these rich people also be able to trivially acquire these, while people who actually need accomodations will continue to struggle because it's difficult to prove they need something?

Yes. The amount of gaming and cheating in pursuit of school credential maxing is astonishing. It is an entire industry. Parents pay many thousands of dollars to "consultants" who help facilitate it.

Anecdotally this seems like it has become standard practice among the well-off families I know with children around college age. When everyone is doing it there is a sense that you have to do it too or you'll be left behind.

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

#133

Post by delichon » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #123

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…

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?

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

#134

Post by thatfrenchguy » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:35 PM UTC

> The result is a deeply distorted view of "normal." If ever struggling to focus or experiencing boredom is a sign you have ADHD > risk-aversion endemic in the striving children of the upper middle class

OP has likely never had a kid with ADHD (I get it, they're like 24), getting a kid to be ADHD diagnosed is neither fun nor something you would do lightly in the US.

Which is also why older millennials would just not get diagnosed and just struggle more. Tech is full high functioning people with ADHD and autism, it's not surprising you'd see so many students at Stanford being the same.

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

#135

Post by mhb » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

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?

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

#136

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

apparent wrote: post #121

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?

That people know they do not actually need/qualify for accommodations, but misrepresent themselves in order to get them?

[deleted]

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

#137

Post by Cpoll » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:37 PM UTC

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…

This is tragedy of the commons exactly. Whether it's moral depends entirely on the ethical theory you subscribe to.

> a problem with Stanford's definitions

Only if students aren't lying on their application.

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

#138

Post by iwontberude » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:37 PM UTC

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…

[flagged]

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

#139

Post by esafak » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:37 PM UTC

skzjxhz wrote: post #63

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.

[flagged]

American society is high trust and diverse. Lots of interesting charts here: https://ourworldindata.org/trust

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

#140

Post by swatcoder » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:37 PM UTC

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…

> There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation.

That sounds loaded with a lot of value judgment. I don't think it's inappropriate for you to suggest it, but I think you'll find that a lot of people who value equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources might not share that perspective with you.

It turns out that people just disagree about values and are going to weigh judgment on others based on what they believe. You don't have to share their values, but you do kind of just need to be able to accept that judgment as theirs when you do things they malign.