Live data from Hacker News

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

reason.com

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 univer…

I have been under the impression that "learning disability" means that you are less able to learn than your peers. Whether that deficit is on account of intelligence, health, etc., is a different subject. According to your definition, you can be far superior to your peers at learning and still be learning disabled. If you are looking for stupid people, you have found one, because I don't understand that. Because of a…

You can claim that “learning disability” should mean whatever, but this does not change the fact that medical experts define “learning disability” such that they do not inherently impede intelligence: https://ehvi.org/learning-vs-intellectual-disabilities/. This isn’t my definition, it’s the definition used by medical experts. A quote from that article:

> Learning disabilities don’t affect intelligence and are different from intellectual disabilities. People with LDs have specific issues with learning but have an average or above-average IQ (intelligence quotient).

I acknowledge that I was including autism as a learning disability, but I see this isn’t the case. Still, however, I hope you would acknowledge that autistic people are not inherently less intelligent than others, and neither are people with depression nor anxiety.

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

#752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the upper division of my undergrad physics degree that was really common. Open book, open everything except peers. I personally loved those exams and my grades went way up. I could walk away for a few minutes if I was stuck, maybe grab a beer to relax, and get back and solve the problems. But I think this is much harder to do and getting even more difficult. I was at a small university and you really couldn't goog…

That's how my parents taught. Design questions to make the students apply their knowledge rather than regurgitate it. Forget a fact it's being applied to, look it up. Don't understand the concepts, you're stuck. Know the material, piece of cake. One time I was in my father's classroom because he was showing a film he wanted me to see. There was a quiz afterwards, he knew it wouldn't be alien to me and had me try it.…

One physics exam question I remember was derive Maxwell's Equations from the starting point of presuming the existence of magnetic monopoles. This sounds like an intractable problem, but it turned out that if you really understood how they were derived, all you had to do was switch out the charge monopoles with the magnetic monopoles, and it was a piece of cake.

A similar exam problem in AMA95 was to derive the hyperbolic transforms. The trick there was to know how the Fourier transforms (based on sine/cosine) were derived, and just substitute in sinh/cosh.

If you were a formula plugger or just memorized facts, you'd be dead in the water.

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

#753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caltech had timed exams (2-3 hours) and infinite time exams, at the discretion of the professor. The students hated the infinite time ones, because nobody knew how much time other students spent on the test so one felt obliged to spend inordinate amounts of time on it. Besides, if you couldn't solve the exam problems in 2 hours, you simply didn't know the material.

A couple of my upperclassmen professors used open-everything exams, notes, textbook, even the Internet was allowed. Although time was tight so if you felt like you had to Google something, you better not have to do it a second time.

My time was pre-intertoobs. My freshman year was the last year one saw slide rules and punch cards.

The ASR-33 teletype lasted another year.

I ceased knowing everything about my computer in the late 80s.

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

#754
post #511

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…

> 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.

We might as well make races longer for athletes with longer legs. It’s unfair to the ones with shorter legs to have to move them more often.

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

#756
post #742

> Most of these students are claiming mental health conditions and learning disabilities, like anxiety, depression, and ADHD. ... Obviously, something is off here. The idea that some of the most elite, selective universities in America—schools that require 99th percentile SATs and sterling essays—would be educating large numbers of genuinely learning disabled students is clearly bogus. "Obviously"? "is clearly bogus?…

Agreed. I don't find the 38 percent figure to be surprising. I have no basis on which to find it surprising so the author's incredulity is baffling.

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

#757
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…

[deleted]

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

#758
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…

this is very educational, on how being a victim an a psychopath helps you in life:)

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

#759
This is definition of “hacking” the system: YC included question on its application that asked founders to describe a time they most successfully "hacked" a non-computer system to their advantage.

Sure it is not nice or moral but that is the life now.

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

#760

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…

> Being diagnosed doesn't immediately mean you should be accommodated. This is the loophole. Universities aren't the ones diagnosing, they're the ones accommodating. The current meta-game is for parents and students to share notes about which doctors will diagnose easily. Between word of mouth and searches on Reddit, it's not that hard to find doctors in any metro area who will provide diagnoses and accommodation req…

universities should have their own experts who give final diagnosis and are unapelable and thats it, all the psychopathic circus which is abusing real disabled people would be out
Post reply on HN