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?

#411

Post by atomicthumbs » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:00 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #394

ultrarunner wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wor…

The person you're replying to asked for a source, not an anecdote.

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

#412

Post by vasilipupkin » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:01 PM UTC

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…

the original article is factually incorrect. Accommodations at Stanford are only 25% of students, according to their website, and that includes every possible kind of accommodation, not just time and half on tests. If you had carpet replaced in your dorm because it gave you an allergy, it would be included. So, this is just an article that is just flat out bullshit.

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

#413

Post by eZinc » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:02 PM UTC

While I agree that smart people tend to play the system, I will offer another explanation.

I think university students are just weirder now. They just don't have the same social skills as before. Maybe Covid has erased social skills and behaviors, or maybe the internet is too prevalent.

I don't know what the social equivalent of the Overton Window would be, but I think that's shifted so hard that traditional autism tests would mark most modern students as autistic.

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

#414

Post by jjmarr » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:02 PM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #299

sokoloff wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies. Were you a solo founder of 5 companies? I literally cannot fathom that you worked at 5 even very modest-sized tech companies and never experienced a colleague with some level of what we’d call neurodivergent. I can’t validate that the rate is 38%, but I find it hard to believe it’s under 5% and if it’s 5%, you’d be hard-pressed to avoid crossing paths ac…

That's unfair. Even a founder of a company wouldn't have any legal means of knowing for certain the disabled status of their employees.

Federal contractors are required to track the percentage of self-identified disabled employees for reporting to the government.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/section-60-741.42

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

#415

Post by mikkupikku » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:03 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #207

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You don’t have to donate to the collection plate Hey, if they stop using the money I donate to advertise that my neighbors are abominations in the eyes of God they can have my money again.

The "collection plate" could just as well mean a panhandler's hat. The point is charitable giving, not christian specifically.

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

#416

Post by EA-3167 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:03 PM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #412

Aurornis wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the original article is factually incorrect. Accommodations at Stanford are only 25% of students, according to their website, and that includes every possible kind of accommodation, not just time and half on tests. If you had carpet replaced in your dorm because it gave you an allergy, it would be included. So, this is just an article that is just flat out bullshit.

The bullshit nature of the article becomes clear as the author repeatedly begs the question as the sole means of making her actual argument.

Edit: To be clear there’s a lot of argument from incredulity or “obviously something is wrong,” without doing the work to establish that.

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

#417

Post by ibejoeb » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:03 PM UTC

internetter wrote: post #213

windows_hater_7 wrote: post #113

I go to one of those elite universities now, and I get academic accommodations. I think some of the increase is truly from greater awareness about disabilities among teachers and parents. My mom was a teacher, and she was the one who first suspected that I had dyslexia. I repeated kindergarten, and I was privileged that my parents were able to afford external educational psychology testing. Socioeconomic status is a…

Yeah I suspect that people are being over-diagnosed, but I also suspect we're catching dramatically more cases than we were previously. An overcorrection if you will.

Sure. We're also changing rubrics and even inventing new conditions, and we don't really try to graduate them. On top of that, there are perverse incentives. Amphetamine is an amazing drug, and since some people get it, those who don't find it hard to compete. So, we have to give them a way to get it, because the side effect of not doing that is popping them with felony drug trafficking charges at the airport. I don't blame anyone for playing the game.

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

#418

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

pelorat wrote: post #286

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…

> 15-20% of the world is estimated to have a disability. Not a chance in hell.

Easily wayyy more than that given both the loosening standards of what a disability is combined with over-diagnosis. But I get your sentiment. When I was a kid, disabled meant you were in a wheelchair or needed someone to physically feed you, and now it means you have an Adderall prescription.

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

#419

Post by jdefr89 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:04 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #199

Is that something a Stanford student would want on their permanent record? Employers or the government might be able to obtain that information. You could be flagged for life as a reject. Under the Trump administration, accommodations for mentally disabled people are no longer enforced. Most of the enforcers were laid off. The new policy is “encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose ris…

I hold a R&D Position at an MIT lab. I also hold gov clearances for DoD work. They are pretty accepting of the fact that a lot of folks in the field are neurodivergent. No one cares because if you deliver results you deliver results. No one cares about shit under the Trump administration because its an absolute joke that has thus far only stood to get in the way of the way we carry out research. The party of "minimal government" sure as hell loves to tell public established institutions how to carry out their own damn business.

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

#420

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 9:06 PM UTC

OGEnthusiast wrote: post #396

BeetleB wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think one has to be a bit careful in picking one's goals and priorities. I'm not saying "going the straight path" will lead to success in all endeavors (likely not at Wall Street, for example).

In my case, it so happened that the goals I was pursuing (e.g. job in tech industry) had lots of opportunities that didn't involve playing many games. I think it's still the case today.

But if your goal is "I have to go to an elite university, and become a senior exec at a FAANG", then my way may not work out.

The one variable that's hard to control, though, is how things are growing up (childhood/teen years). You can't control these - your parents/school do. If you grew up in an unfair environment and had poor parents, you may have to play those games. My point is that once you get past those stages, you don't have to convince yourself that you need to continue playing those games.