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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by fsckboy »

ryuhhnn wrote: post #93

Why is it so hard to believe that disabled people can be accepted into "elite" universities? I think the article author, and many of the commenters here, are conflating "normalised behaviours" with "intelligence". As a society we have normalised pushing students into being able to complete assessments within an allotted time frame, even though the time it takes to finish an assessment isn't a perfect measure of one's…

>Why is it so hard to believe that disabled people can be accepted into "elite" universities?

?? many people would think there is something wrong with the definition of disabled if 38% of the population is disabled: more likely to be mislabeled. now, if 38% of the population is not disabled, but 38% of elite universities is, that is also something of note... is how the headline/article should be read.

then, if you live in a society with the ideological divides that many western societies show, where one side campaigns by advocating more social spending and the other advocates that it's being overdone, the suspicion is sure to emerge in some quarters that the metrics for disability might be manipulated in one political direction or the other. also makes a number like 38% interesting.

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

#262

Post by BeetleB »

bee_rider wrote: post #221
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.

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?

> 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?

It isn't, but if I'm on the hiring end and I know you play games like this, I'm not hiring you. I can work with less competent folks much better.

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

#263

Post by femiagbabiaka »

only-one1701 wrote: post #251
bee_rider wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This whole comment thread has been a crazy way to find out the ways people justify immoral behavior to themselves.

This kind of minor fraud is completely normalized within middle and upper classes. It's half the way many kids end up at these schools in the first place, thinking of the "pay-to-play" scandal at USC a while back.

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

#264

Post by pessimizer »

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…

> 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 them. Some of those improved their executive function enough as they went past their teenage years, and are now making a lot of money in difficult fields.

Somehow it is impossible for people to blame the system, but instead they diagnose physical deficits in children based on their inability to adjust to the system.

Maybe the random way we chose to mass educate children a couple hundred years ago isn't perfect, and children are not broken?

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

#265

Post by nextos »

MangoToupe wrote: post #107
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.

I suppose stanford does optimize for cheating, but this still seems excessive

I reviewed incoming applications during one Oxbridge academic application cycle. I raised some serious concerns, nobody listened, and therefore I refuse to take part on that any longer. Basically, lots of students are pretending to be disabled to enhance their chances with applications that are not particularly outstanding, taking spots from truly disabled students.

All it takes is a lack of principles, exaggerating a bit, and getting a letter from a doctor. Imagine you have poor eyesight requiring a substantial correction, but you can still drive. That's not a disability. Now, if you create a compelling story inflating how this had an adverse impact on your education and get support letters, you might successfully cheat the system.

I have seen several such cases. The admissions system is not effectively dealing with this type of fraud. In my opinion, a more serious audit-based system is necessary. Applicants that claim to be disabled but that are not recognized as such by the Government should go through some extra checks.

Otherwise, we end up in the current situation where truly disabled students are extremely rare, but we have a large corpus of unscrupulous little Machiavelli, which is also worrying on its own sake.

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

#266

Post by apexalpha »

My father is a super stubborn Dutch guy. Needs to see proof of something 10 times before he changes a long held believe.

Long time ago something came up like this in the Netherlands. Some massive, unexplained increase in disability.

I asked how could this ever be possible?

He asked: "Are any of the disabilities that show a massive increase not objectively measurable but still eligible for subsidies?

At the time I thought it was such a backwards way of thinking but over the years I can't shake this sentence.

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

#267

Post by outside2344 »

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.

I mean, they watch our president, who got a JET for god knows what, and after seeing that, why shouldn't they grab for the bag?

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

#268

Post by BeetleB »

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…

While on the one hand I get where you're coming from, on the other hand I simply say "One does not have to go to Stanford."

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

#269

Post by outside2344 »

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…

Just training for working at McKinsey after graduation

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

#270

Post by solomonb »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #179
beambot wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Similarly getting extra time on a test sure as heck would have improved my scores in many cases.

And ADHD meds seem like they would be helpful for studying.. How and where do we draw the line who gets and needs additional support?
Post reply on HN