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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by esafak »

mikem170 wrote: post #353
esafak wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I just bumped into the idea of "demographic diversity" versus "moral diversity" [1]. Demographic diversity speaks to the differences in sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. A nation of immigrants, for example. Moral diversity speaks to the differences in culture, the rules a society follows. Erosion of those rules is what leads to a low trust society. I thought this was a really interesting distinction to make. It see…

Haidt et al decompose moral foundations into several factors to explain how progressives and conservatives view morality differently by virtue of prioritizing different factors; cf. Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/JPSP-2009-Moral-Foun...

Moral diversity has always existed. What is new is that polarization between the two camps has been increasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_...

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

#392

Post by Aurornis »

ultrarunner wrote: post #373
lumost wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lead with the headline that most of these students have a mental health disability - particularly ADHD. Is it surprising that legalized Amphetamines drive teenagers to higher performance for a short period in their lives? Adderall and other amphetamines only have problems with long term usage. It should be expected that some portion of the teenage population sees a net-benefit from Amphetamines for the duration…

> Adderall and other amphetamines only have problems with long term usage. My research was done a long time ago. I understood Ritalin to have mild neurotoxic effects, but Adderall et al to be essentially harmless. Do you have a source for the benefits giving way to problems long-term? Regardless, your overall point is interesting. Presumably, these drugs are (ridiculously tightly) controlled to prevent society-wide h…

> I understood Ritalin to have mild neurotoxic effects, but Adderall et al to be essentially harmless.

There is no conclusive research on humans, but you have these backwards. Ritalin (methylphenidate) is thought to have less risk for neurotoxicity than Adderall (amphetamine). Amphetamine enters the neuron and disrupts some internal functions as part of its mechanism of action, while Ritalin does not.

Both drugs will induce tolerance, though. The early motivation-enhancing effects don't last very long.

There are also some entertaining studies where researchers give one group of students placebo and another group of students Adderall, then have them self-rate their performance. The Adderall group rates themselves as having done much better, despite performing the same on the test. If you've ever seen the confidence boost that comes from people taking their first stimulant doses, this won't come as a big surprise. These early effects (euphoria, excess energy) dissipate with long-term treatment, but it fools a lot of early users and students who borrow a couple pills from a friend.

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

#393

Post by iso1631 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #310
aaronbwebber wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that the action we should take in response to this article is "building more dorms with singles" rather than "we need to rethink the way that we are making accommodations for disabilities in educational contexts". That seems like an important distinction, and makes the rest of the article (which focuses on educational accommodations) look mistaken.

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.

Yet here in the UK it's perfectly normal. When I went to uni in 2000 in our halls there were 15 rooms per floor ber block, 2 of which were twins and 13 were single.

The people in the twins were not happy - they hadn't asked for them.

I knew one person who dropped out in the first 3 months (for mental purposes), and that was someone who shared a room.

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

#394

Post by lumost »

ultrarunner wrote: post #373
lumost wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lead with the headline that most of these students have a mental health disability - particularly ADHD. Is it surprising that legalized Amphetamines drive teenagers to higher performance for a short period in their lives? Adderall and other amphetamines only have problems with long term usage. It should be expected that some portion of the teenage population sees a net-benefit from Amphetamines for the duration…

> Adderall and other amphetamines only have problems with long term usage. My research was done a long time ago. I understood Ritalin to have mild neurotoxic effects, but Adderall et al to be essentially harmless. Do you have a source for the benefits giving way to problems long-term? Regardless, your overall point is interesting. Presumably, these drugs are (ridiculously tightly) controlled to prevent society-wide h…

I went to university at a time that Adderall was commonplace, and am now old enough to see how it turned out for the individuals. At college, it was common for students to illicitly purchase Adderall to use as a stimulate to cram for a test/paper etc. It was likewise common for students to abuse these drugs by taking pills at a faster than prescribed pace to work for 48 hours straight amongst other habits.

In the workplace, I saw the same folks struggle to work consistently without abusive dosages of such drugs. A close friend eventually went into in-patient care for psychosis due to his interaction with Adderall.

Like any drug, the effect wears off - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy matches prescription drugs at treating ADHD after 5 years. As I recall, the standard dosages of Adderall cease to be effective after 7-10 years due to changes in tolerance. Individuals trying to maintain the same therapeutic effect will either escalate their usage beyond "safe" levels or revert to their unmedicated habits.

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

#395

Post by jaredklewis »

Aurornis wrote: post #367
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…

The original article which is linked in this post goes into much better detail: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/01/elite-universit... Schools and universities have made accommodations a priority for decades. It started with good intentions, but parents and students alike have noticed that it's both a) easy to qualify for a disability and b) provides significant academic advantages if you do. Another big acc…

Can someone explain to me why the accommodations make sense in the first place?

Like what's the point of having the test be time constrained? If there is no point, then just let everyone have more time. If there is a point to having the test be time constrained, then aren't we just holding one group to a lower standard than another group? Why is that good?

Same question about lectures. Is there a reason everyone can't record the lectures? If so, then why do we have different standards?

I think at the college level, grades should in some sense reflect your proficiency at a given topic. An "A" in calculus should mean that you can do calculus and that evaluation should be independent of your own strengths, weaknesses, disabilities, genetic predisposition to it, and so on. Imagine an extreme example: someone is in a car crash, suffers brain damage, and is now unable to do calculus. This is tragic. But I don't also feel that it now makes sense to let them do their tests open book or whatever to accommodate for that. As a society we should do whatever we can to support this individual and help them live their best life. But I don't see how holding them to a lower standard on their college exams accomplishes that.

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

#396

Post by OGEnthusiast »

BeetleB wrote: post #347
OGEnthusiast wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind sharing, which country do you live in? I'd imagine the ability to play fairly and still get ahead varies a lot based on local cultures/norms.

The US.

Interesting. I'm glad it worked it for you, but unfortunately that's very different from what my personal/anecdotal experience with America has taught me.

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

#397

Post by Scubabear68 »

yAak wrote: post #385
Scubabear68 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are a long way from Kindergarten to an elite university. I mention this because it is odd to me that you picked your 4 to 5 year old self to validate why you are getting accommodations in your teens/twenties at a self-described elite university. My own kids have some issues and varying levels of accommodations, but those have evolved and lessened over time. As you would hope they would! You seem to imply your…

Dyslexia isn’t curable. It doesn’t magically go away with help, techniques, or accommodations —- it just becomes more manageable. He/she probably wouldn’t have gotten into an elite university without that help through childhood.

I am aware, my daughter has Dyslexia.

But this is not a thread about elementary school accommodations, it is about university level accommodations.

The question is why the author implies he needs the same or similar accommodations at 20ish that he did at 5ish.

Or does he?

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

#398

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ux266478 wrote: post #374
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American society is high trust and diverse Would note that this is almost a prerequisite for great societies. Small and homogenous, or powerful and diverse. There really isn't a middle course. Rome. China. Britain. Each had empires that were remarkably diverse for their time. (Rome, perhaps, most of all.)

I'll disagree with that on a few points. Britain was inarguably the most diverse, with almost no attempt at creating cultural homogenity (and it really wasn't that great for anyone not Scottish or English.) Rome attempted it to some degree, with attempts to have a unified culture largely decreasing as time went on, being replaced with a Christian identity. China is extremely complicated in this matter and goes to ext…

> You also ignore the flagrant existence of powers that were not diverse. The Phoenicians interacted with a lot of cultures and influenced them very deeply, but Canaanite society was highly insular. Viet Nam was a powerful society that expanded continually, but it engaged in aggressive replacement colonialism of peoples it conquered

These societies hit scaling limits precisely because they failed to diversify.

> Diversity in a real sense requires a collection of disparate, conflicting identities

Not necessarily. One can deprioritize the points of difference, or redelineate on the go. Americans incorporated Italians and Irish into whiteness; Romans Italians and later provincials into their citizenry.

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

#399

Post by raldi »

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.

It's true, if you don't go to the eye doctor, you'll be outcompeted by someone wearing glasses.

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

#400

Post by TeMPOraL »

Invictus0 wrote: post #308
outside2344 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just training for working at McKinsey after graduation

Navigating Bureaucracy 101

Given the current pace of changes and levels of uncertainty about the labor market 5-10 years from now, this may actually be the most useful skill-set the university is teaching students today.
Post reply on HN