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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by skeeter2020 »

godelski wrote: post #377
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…

Not at Stanford, but recent (PhD) graduate and I think you're pretty spot on, but also missing some things. The definition of disability is pretty wide. I have an emotional support animal but if it wasn't for the housing requirement I probably wouldn't have declared anything. I do have diagnosed depression[0] and ADHD. I tend to not be open about these unless it is relevant to the conversation and I don't really put…

>> I'd gladly pay the pet deposit and extra money per month for a pet

Maybe, but my single data point: I'm on the board for a condo corporation and even though we spend a lot of time dealing with pet policies and the damage pets (read: dogs) cause, we have a total of ZERO pets registered (and paying the monthly fee), and these are overwhelmingly owners not renters who might be excluded from having pets to begin with.

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

#502

Post by fwip »

mvdtnz wrote: post #279

I watch a lot of bodycam DUI arrests on Youtube (I'm not proud of it - it's a guilty pleasure) and something I have noticed is that close to 100% of young female suspects claim to have ADHD, anxiety, depression or all 3. This generation has been trained to use these three pathologies to excuse poor behaviours. So it wouldn't be a surprise to see them using it to excuse poor academics, even preemptively.

Consider that popular videos are those that play into preconceived stereotypes. I doubt your videos are represent of all DUI arrests.

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

#503

Post by ericmcer »

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.

Can we stop designing society like people won't game the system? I swear every social program or benefit or corporate relief program we roll out is designed to be exploited. In fact they use specific requirements (a doctors note, a set income level, etc.) and not direct oversight/discretion so it is even easier to game because you just need to tick the right box.

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

#504

Post by 1659447091 »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #397
yAak wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The point they made about grade school, to me, points more towards early recognition now leads to more kids having a shot at top schools.

Not because they have a 'disability' or a particular type of accommodation, but because it was caught early enough and worked with by people that cared, that now they have a model for learning that better suits them. It was never an issue with intelligence, only that some of us* run into walls because the standard learning lane is pretty narrow. Crashing into those walls in grade school is likely what kept many people* from going to top colleges (or any college) -- but now that it's better understood and worked with at an early age we are seeing people show up who can do the same correct work, but do it in a way that's different.

* Im also dyslexic, but from the days that wasn't a thing in my mediocre public school. I was simply a slow reader that couldn't spell (or pronounce or "sound out" words) or read out loud, but somehow had high scores in other language/comprehension test.

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

#505

Post by nextos »

ahtihn wrote: post #324
nextos wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Imagine you have poor eyesight requiring a substantial correction, but you can still drive. That's not a disability It absolutely is a disability! The fact that it's easy to deal with it doesn't change that fact. I would not find it credible that it has a real impact on education though.

That was my point, it is not a disability from an education POV, or at least I would not consider it as such without an independent audit.

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

#506

Post by ghc »

loeg wrote: post #477
Sparkle-san wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how getting 50% extra time on exams is anything remotely close to cheating. Almost nothing I do in my day to day job comes close to being as time-boxed or arbitrarily restrictive as exams were in college.

Why don't all students get the extra time, then?

That's a great question, actually. Timing tests appears to arbitrarily punish students.

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

#507

Post by deadeye »

Reading the comments here people seem to care more about what is "good" for the individual than what is good for the institution.

If you have learning disability that requires "assistance" at an elite university, then why can't I play in the NBA with stilts while being allowed to double dribble and travel?

Sure would be awesome for me to play in the NBA! Probably wouldn't be good for the NBA though.

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

#508

Post by ericmcer »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #60
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.

Thats true, but I think the blame is more on "American society" and not the kids working through the system. 50 years ago, college was cheaper. From what I understand getting jobs if you had a college degree was much easier. Social media didn't exist and people weren't connected to a universe of commentary 24/7. Kids are dealing with all this stuff, and if requesting a "disability accommodation" is helping them throu…

That seems naive, it would be like if we started dumping tons of deer food into the woods and the next year when deer are grossly overpopulated we thought "why are there so many deer now?".

Humans are as a mass dumb animals, if we give them the opportunity for individual gratification at long-term cost for the group they are going to take it immediately.

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

#509

Post by AlexandrB »

jbullock35 wrote: post #473
bawolff wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another big accommodation request is extra time on tests. Maybe the real problem is we are testing people on how fast they can do something not if they can do something. In general, being good at academics require you to think carefully not quickly. I suspect there is a correlation between people who think things through and people who do well in school.

> In general, being good at academics require you to think carefully not quickly. Yes, but to go even further: timed tests often test, in part, your ability to handwrite quickly rather than slowly. There is great variation in handwriting speed — I saw it as a student and as a professor — and in classrooms, we should no more be testing students for handwriting speed than we should be testing them on athletic ability.…

This is true about other things like reading speed as well. It still doesn't mean that time limits are useless. These are skills you can develop up to a reasonable level through practice if they're lacking, not something fixed like height. And if it takes you 12 hours to get through a 2 hour test because of these factors it's a sign that you're not going to be a very effective employee/researcher. Being able to read/write with some haste is not unrelated to job/academic performance.

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

#510

Post by schnable »

bawolff wrote: post #460
wisty wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it a poor proxy? Someone who really understands the concepts and has the aptitude for it will get answers more quickly than someone who is shakier on it. The person who groks it less may be able to get to the answer, but needs to spend more time working through the problem. They're less good at calculus and should get a lower grade! Maybe they shouldn't fail Calc 101, but may deserve a B or (the horror) a C. Maybe that person will never get an A is calculus and that should be ok.

Joel Spolsky explained this well about what makes a good programmer[1]. "If the basic concepts aren’t so easy that you don’t even have to think about them, you’re not going to get the big concepts."

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...

Post reply on HN