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?

#571

Post by mhb » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:34 PM UTC

weehobbes wrote: post #190

mhb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't everyone get extra time?

That's a much bigger meta question, like what's even the point of putting timing constraints on any test? Logistically, my kid has to go a testing center at the school during his free period and/or lunch periods for his extra time. I can imagine that if everyone got extra time, it would be a logistical nightmare. But I think the reality is that our educational system had just decided that faster is better and that sp…

Yes. It depends on whether the time pressure is an integral part of the test. If it isn't then people should get as much time as they need. If it is, it's not clear why people should get different amounts of time.

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

#572

Post by LoganDark » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:34 PM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #443

lostmsu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The percentages of workers that are neurodivergent is much higher than usual Is it much though? 38%? I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies. > there's a big cadre or neurodivergent people that are just in the line where they are very productive workers anyway Alternatively, it just became popular to label others or oneself that way. And tech elites have nothing better to do in free time. Also…

Have you considered the fact that you may be neurodivergent? Your assumption that you’ve never met a neurodivergent co-worker is surprising. From what I understand, some autistic people assume everyone has the same worldview and agenda as they do, they lack a theory of mind. I’m not making this accusation about you, I’m bringing it up because I find it surprising that everyone you’ve worked with is neurotypical. I ca…

> Have you considered the fact that you may be neurodivergent?

I scrolled through some of their Reddit comment history (it's linked on their profile) and I think I would peg them as probably autistic. Their patterns of emphasis, placements of sentence breaks, certain turns of phrases and pattern of emotional expression seem to closely match a few autistic friends I have & a few autistic coworkers. Research on this hasn't fully developed though so I can't really offer references (other than the preprint that inspired me, https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/untangling-biologica...)... I still don't really have a non-ambiguous way to call the different types.

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

#573

Post by binary132 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:35 PM UTC

ekropotin wrote: post #143

SoftTalker wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the gym I go to, there are a lot of college-age kids. I overhear them talking about getting on Ritalin or Adderall to help them study. Not because they really need it, it's just seen as a "performance hack" to get an advantage. They talk about what doctor they went to and how easy it was to get a prescription.

I read somewhere that Adderall does not improve cognitive function in people without ADHD and in some cases can even decrease it.

>takes amphetamine

>performance enhanced

>welp, guess I have ADHD!

By this metric everyone has ADHD.

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

#574

Post by whirlwin » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:36 PM UTC

Maybe I'm too cold or cynical here, but I would make it compulsory to indicate the disability in the diploma with an annotation or comment.

Or possibly the other way around: "Completed degree on standardized terms "

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

#575

Post by dathinab » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:36 PM UTC

jareds wrote: post #445

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 didn't realize that using disability accommodations to get a single was so common. I used the fact that I was blind to get a single in the early 2000's. It may not have been strictly necessary, but I justified it by the fact I had an incredibly loud braille printer that took up a bunch of space. I didn't try to stack accommodations though, since I could walk as well as anyone else I didn't get preferential treatmen…

What I don't understand (but also wouldn't be surprised about if it is misrepresented by the article) is:

- why would you get a single, for ADHD, non-social-related anxiety, non-sever autism or depression (especially in the later case you probably shouldn't be in a single)

- I mean sure social anxiety, sever autism can be good reasons for a single.

through in general the whole US dorms thing is strange to me (in the EU there are dorms, but optional (in general). And 50%+ of studentsfind housing outside of it (but depends on location). This allows for a lot more individualized living choices.)

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

#576

Post by psunavy03 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:37 PM UTC

mmmlinux wrote: post #483

Phithagoras wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a high stakes, challenging environment, every human weakness possible becomes a huge, career impeding liability. Very few people are truly all-around talented. If you are a Stanford level scientist, it doesn't take a lot of anxiety to make it difficult to compete with other Stanford level scientists who don't have any anxiety. Without accommodations, you could still be a very successful scientist after going to a…

Water before toothpaste = adhd now?

Sort of like having any kind of strong interest in any kind of niche topic apparently now magically teleports you onto the autism spectrum. No, that's not how that works . . .

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

#577

Post by BobaFloutist » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:38 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #500

TeMPOraL wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliminating time limits on standardized tests is infeasible; it would require changes to processes on a state or national levels, and mindsets in education as a whole. It's also a complex enough issue that you'd have factions arguing for and against it six ways to Sunday. It's not going to happen. In contrast, special-casing few disadvantaged students is a local decisions every school or university could make indepen…

Eliminating time constraints is entirely reasonable. Leaving exams early is generally an option in most standardized testing systems - though usually with some minimum time you must remain present before leaving. Taking what is currently scheduled as a three hour exam which many students already leave after 2, and for which some have accommodations allowing them 4 hours, and just setting aside up to five hours for it…

I think one challenge would be preventing professors from taking advantage of the time to extend the test. I suspect the professors would generally like to extend the test to be more comprehensive, and are limited by the time limits of the test, and tests will naturally extend to fill whatever default time is allotted.

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

#578

Post by BobaFloutist » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:39 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #425

vasilipupkin wrote: post #412

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, 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 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…

A public two-year college? So, a community college? That's a much more specific claim than that being the case for public universities overall.

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

#579

Post by Aurornis » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:40 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #519

vl wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried Adderall? It gives extreme competitive edge. Just to get legal and easy access to performance-enhancing drugs in elite educational (aka competitive) setting it makes sense to get "disability". And given how loosely these conditions are defined, it's not even cheating in the true sense of the word.

Steriods will give you a massive physical advantage too. If you're not doing something with a governing body and get them prescribed you're golden.

This is actually another growing problem: TRT clinics will prescribe testosterone to virtually anyone who requests it. Among new TRT patients, a large number of them didn't even have bloodwork drawn before receiving their first prescription.

Many of the TRT clinics also hide the fact that going on TRT results in testicular atrophy and lifelong dependence. The forums and Reddits are full of people who decided that injecting testosterone every couple days for the rest of their life isn't all it's cracked up to be are realizing that it's not so simple for everyone to get off of it, even with all the HCG, SERMs, and PCT in the world.

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

#580

Post by jaredklewis » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 10:42 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #511

jaredklewis wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll write 30 pages of nonsense. Sure that makes sense to me, but I don't see why this would not also apply to ADHD students or any other group. And of course, there needs to be some time limit. All I am saying is, instead of having a group that gets one hour and another group that gets two hours, just give everyone two ho…

There can be a genuine need to make it fair. Some students with anxiety can take 10 minutes to read the first question, then are fine. ASD could mean slower uptake as they figure out the exam format. So let's say you have a generally fair time bonus for mild (clinical) anxiety. The issue is that it's fair for the average mild anxiety, it's an advantage if a student has extremely mild anxiety. As you say, hopefully th…

If thinking speed is determined to be important and made one of the evaluation criteria, then it's important whether or not you have clinical anxiety.

If thinking speed is not important, why are we evaluating it at all?