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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by eek2121 »

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…

If your rant is about the USA: Are we really going to try to turn this into a war against the ADA?

I counter: If students are requesting specific accommodations en-mass, maybe schools should rethink overall decisions. Maybe housing shouldn't be shared. Maybe the workload should be relaxed.

Disabilities are far more commonplace than you might imagine. The number of disabled people per 1,000 likely hasn't changed, but our recognition of disabilities such as autism, anxiety disorders, etc. has gotten better.

I'm sure a very small amount of folks do abuse the system, but I'd bet money that most actually have disabilities.

If you still think otherwise, think again: I was diagnosed with ADHD in my mid 30s, and with autism in my mid 40s. This is through extended, multiple hour testing. Nobody told me I had these issues. I was simply told I was a terrible person that didn't do his school work and behaved poorly at school. Now, with an understanding of autism, ADHD, and the new anxiety disorder I have thanks to a recent brain injury, I'm able to finally address this stuff.

I also aced higher level, computer centric stuff, and set a record for one of the quickest to graduate in my state at a technical school (2 months instead of 2 years).

Bottom line is that you should not be making poor assumptions about people abusing the system without evidence to prove it.

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

#582

Post by jaredklewis »

bradlys wrote: post #515
jaredklewis wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment explains why students would like to receive these accommodations (it gives them a competitive edge), but does nothing to explain why this is logical or beneficial. If as you say the number of available positions is constrained, this system does nothing to increase the supply of those positions. It also does nothing increase the likelihood that those positions are allocated to those with the greatest mate…

Even in the top 1% there’s a limited amount of positions. Everyone wants every advantage possible over everyone else. That is how the market is. Even for Stanford students there is a hierarchy.

Yes, I agree with that, but that still doesn't explain why it would be a good idea to give some students more time on a test. It explains why students would be incentivized to game the system and get more time. But it doesn't explain why we have this strange system to begin with.

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

#583

Post by crackercrews »

loremip wrote: post #430

New York Times had an interesting podcast recently where they talked about how so many children are being diagnosed with autism to the point where it's hurting the severely autistic student population ( https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/podcasts/the-daily/autism... ). There's a finite set of resources pooled for special needs students, and now most of these students have relatively minor symptoms compared to those w…

The rate of autism diagnosis is really off the charts in MN these days...

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

#584

Post by BobaFloutist »

dathinab wrote: post #548
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…

there is so much wrong with the first few paragraphs of this article 1. some of the things they list as "disabilities" are sicknesses which _can_ be disabling but not per see disabilities 2. all of the things listed aren't one/off but have not just huge gradients, but huge variations. You might be afflicted in a way which "disables" you from living a normal live or job but still might be able to handle university due…

>ADHD sometimes comes with hyper focus, which if it manifest in the right way can help you in university.

"Hyperfocus" is a clinical term for focus that is excessive enough to be an impairment. People often conflate it with the term "Special interest" used for Autism, but it's completely different, it refers to the inability to pull focus away from something despite wanting and needing to. It is, definitionally, without benefit. If there's a benefit, it's not hyperfocus.

Which makes sense, if you think about it. ADHD is characterized by poor ability to direct attention. People know about it causing a lack of attention to things that need attention, but it can also cause attention to things that don't need it.

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

#585

Post by antinomicus »

piperswe wrote: post #524
lumost wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In my experience, Adderall does lose effectiveness but Vyvanse is much hardier. I’ve been receiving treatment for ADHD for about 4 years. My current Vyvanse dose is marginally higher than my original Adderall dose, but I’m considering reducing it down to below my original Adderall dose. Cognitive behavioral therapy does excel at treating ADHD! But 5 years of therapy is what, 16 times more expensive than 5 years of me…

But adderall and vyvanse aren’t the same drug at all. You cannot directly compare dosages. 50mg of vyvanse is roughly equivalent to 20mg of adderall. As a prodrug, Vyvanse must be processed by the liver for it to function.

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

#586

Post by lazide »

Lammy wrote: post #551
TeMPOraL wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this how you're supposed to be doing it anyway?

ADHD is when high school chemistry class covers emulsifiers and you remember it

But can’t remember if you ate today or not.

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

#587

Post by SabrinaJewson »

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.

You know that “learning disability” isn’t a synonym for “stupid”, right? We neither call people who are less academically able “disabled”, nor are disabled people necessarily less able to work academically (apart from some more debilitating mental disorders, which would be a disability). In fact, it’s quite the opposite: the word “disability” exists _precisely_ to distinguish “intelligence” – which is what the university is selecting for – and other characteristics, so in theory intelligence and disability are entirely orthogonal (apart from the exception I mentioned).

Of course, understanding what disability actually is requires considering each learning disability separately, which is something this article unfortunately fails to do. We can do this though:

- Anxiety and depression: I see no reason why this should decrease somebody’s intelligence, so the fact that there are elevated rates of such people at top universities does not seem odd. Since these are treatable conditions, they won’t necessarily affect the ability for a student to become an effective researcher.

- ADHD: This condition is marked by a lack of ability to focus, which is a property unrelated to intelligence. Some very famous mathematicians like Paul Erdős likely had ADHD, demonstrating that it’s not necessarily true this condition makes one a worse researcher.

- Autism: Does not necessarily reduce intelligence. We can look at professional mathematicians and see that a lot of them are autistic.

- Chronic pain, migraines, etc: Unrelated to intelligence. It’s possible this will decrease one’s ability to be a researcher, but if one is able to complete University at all, it’s likely not that severe.

I mean, I could go on, and of course there will be a couple of counterexample. However, it is still the case that generally speaking, “learning disability” and “stupid” are different things, and therefore there is no reason to expect that there would be lower rates of learning disabilities among those who are highly academically skilled.

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

#588

Post by rahimnathwani »

jph00 wrote: post #543
dyauspitr wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is neurodivergent though? If it’s a third of people, you can probably deem that normal.

A third is about as common as astigmatism in >50 year olds (like me, for instance!) I wear glasses to accommodate this disability, and as a result have nearly no practical problems due to it. I don't think a problem having a high frequency means that we should decide it doesn't matter or need rectification.

That's true, but astigmatism:

- is clearly defined

- can be measured objectively (with autorefractors, keratometers, corneal topographers)

- can be corrected cheaply ($20 glasses) to eliminate any disadvantage in performance or efficiency

Neurodivergence:

- is not clearly defined

- cannot be measured objectively, and is diagnosed using behavioral observations and cognitive tests

- may rely on 'accommodations' that, in the hands of someone without a diagnosis, would be considered cheating

Imagine I don't have astigmatism. If I were to take your glasses, would they improve my performance in college?

Imagine my legs are fine. If I were to take someone's wheelchair and start using it daily, would that improve my performance in college?

Imagine I am neurotypical. If I were to take 2x the time on a test, would my performance improve?

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

#589

Post by TrackerFF »

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…

Let's look at the probability another way:

If 1 in 5 are obese, would it be fair to assume that 1 in 5 Olympic runners are also obese?

Post reply on HN