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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by acedTrex »

shadowgovt wrote: post #220
acedTrex wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic game theory at work right there. You only need a few bad apples to cause the entire system to devolve.

Perhaps the fundamental issue isn't the apples; it's the barrel. If everything is a competition, then of course people will leverage personal advantage for personal gain. But why is everything a competition?

> But why is everything a competition?

For all of human existence there has been competition for limited resources. Until all resource scarcity is eliminated competition will remain in the natural world.

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

#452

Post by gwbas1c »

> when the latest issue of the DSM, the manual psychiatrists use to diagnose patients, was released in 2013, it significantly lowered the bar for an ADHD diagnosis.

I've suspected for many years that ADHD is like Medical Marijuana. Some people really need it. For others, it's just a way to get legal access to stimulants.

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

#453

Post by Aloisius »

powerclue wrote: post #359
pelorat wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you have better data, I'm sure the world would love to have it. The world, however, seems to agree the number is somewhere around 15-20%. World Health Organization: 16% https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-... UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs: 15% https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/resources/f... CDC: 25% of Americans https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articl…

US Census Department: 8.3% of 18-34 year olds

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2024/comm/disa...

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

#454

Post by fwip »

pessimizer wrote: post #264
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 we…

If you're not familiar, you might like reading about the social model of disability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability

TL;DR: Disability is not inherent in difference, but rather a combination of the difference and an environment in which that difference is not well-supported. For an analogy - a deep-sea fish is blind, but not disabled by their blindness. Similarly, a kid who "can't sit still" isn't disabled unless we put them in an environment where they have to.

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

#455

Post by lisbbb »

almosthere wrote: post #36
rovr138 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25% of Americans have a disability, https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/media/pdfs/disabil... We don't know what's the percentage broken down by age. If 38% is almost 50%, 25% is almost 38%.

My dad at 50 got a disabled parking placard. He did have knee surgery, but he really didn't struggle with it about 4 months after his surgery. I asked him why he still had it - I got the impression that at this point he wanted his priority parking spot anyway. Didn't like driving around with him much after that.

I wouldn't hold that against him that much--the overabundance of handicapped parking spots is reason enough to game that one. It's ridiculous. My wife could have qualified for a placard because of her cancer and she was in a wheelchair for awhile, but we didn't bother getting one.

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

#456

Post by belorn »

delichon wrote: post #24

If 38% of the top 1% of students have learning disabilities then I'd expect students near the mean to be 100% learning disabled, if those words have any meaning left.

It should be mention the learning disability also include dysgraphia, which include handwriting. If the motor skills is impaired, then that get classified as a learning disability regardless of how easy the person can learn a complex subject in higher education.

I view it similar to the ability to throw, kick and catch balls. Today it doesn't say much about a person ability to learn, but in the old times I can see the argument that it would be a hindrance in going through the education system. Not a learning disability per say, but a schooling disability.

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

#457

Post by nickelcitymario »

Is it really surprising that the top minds in STEM might not be neuro-typical?

You can't tell me you think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk (!), etc., have "normal" brains.

Whether that should count as a disability or a superpower is subjective. ADHD and Autism often present as strengths in one arena, and weaknesses in another. Speaking overly broadly: An aptitude for hard facts and logic, with a difficulty with emotions and social cues.

That's not to say that everyone who presents as such should be given the same accommodations. It's probably being abused. But that doesn't mean they're lying about their brains. It took a doctor to diagnose it. What more would you want to see beyond "a doctors note"?

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

#459

Post by Aurornis »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #436
Aurornis wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, The original article said 38% students are registered with the disability office, not that 38% of students have accommodations. Not all students registered with the disability office receive accommodations all of the time. 25% is still…

yes, the original article is a flat out bullshit lie https://oae.stanford.edu/students/dispelling-myths-about-oae it's 25% registered, not 38%. How do you get this number wrong when Stanford has it on their website? how does that even happen? this number includes literally every type of possible accommodation. A shitty carpet in your room is included, an accommodation for a peanut allergy is included. This is a 90 pl…

Your link doesn't say "25%". It's also not an official, up-to-date statistics resource. It's website copy for the office of accessible education

The "1 in 4" number has been there as far back as Wayback Machine has that paged archived (2023): http://web.archive.org/web/20230628165315/https://oae.stanfo...

So it's definitely not a precise statistic, and it's likely out of date.

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

#460

Post by bawolff »

wisty wrote: post #410
jaredklewis wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

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…

> Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one.

Why are you trying to measure speed though?

I can't think of any situation where someone was like: you have exactly 1 minute to integrate this function, or else.

Fluency yes, but speed is a poor proxy for fluency.

Post reply on HN