You could just give more time on tests such that it isn’t worth gaming the time limit. Aren’t we supposed to be teaching subject matter? Why do we care how quickly people can do it? If you’re worried about dumbing things down too much, make the actual content harder. Given how much grade inflation there is, I don’t understand why anyone would be gaming anything anymore anyway. And let’s be honest. Unless you’re trying to get a PhD, your grades don’t matter.
Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
781–790 of 1001 posts
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#782You could just give more time on tests such that it isn’t worth gaming the time limit. Aren’t we supposed to be teaching subject matter? Why do we care how quickly people can do it? If you’re worried about dumbing things down too much, make the actual content harder. Given how much grade inflation there is, I don’t understand why anyone would be gaming anything anymore anyway. And let’s be honest. Unless you’re tryin…
If we don't care about time and only care about eventual recitation of the subject matter, why don't we give all of the students more time instead of only some of them?
The whole conceit of only giving some students more time suggests that timed performance is supposed to matter.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#783Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. What on earth is a "malicious" explanation of this?
I don't understand how yous can be ignorant of this. In the USofA you get advertised at continuously by drug companies. Do you really think they spend that money advertising, and that you can then not buy the products?!? Sure, you need a corrupt doctor. But the amount of advertising tells you exactly the amount of corrupt doctors that can act as drug dealers for you. If someone is advertising something at you, it's b…
I just don't see any harm from taking these drugs. It hurts nobody, hence my skepticism of the "malicious" characterization.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#784Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. What on earth is a "malicious" explanation of this?
One example of a malicious explanation would be: people are lying about having a disability to get some sort of benefits they don’t need, likely at the expense of someone who does need those benefits.
I mean who cares? This hurts nobody.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#785Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. What on earth is a "malicious" explanation of this?
Cheating is the malicious interpretation, same way steroids are considered cheating in other competitions. (college admission is a competition, there are fixed number of seats and you cheating to get a seat hurts someone else.)
Right, but life is not a competition. Who cares who gets a prescription for ritalin?
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#786Earlier quoted context omitted.
A swing and a miss. Note the geographic specificity and give it another go?
Sorry, if you meant an MN that isn't part of the United States, I totally missed that.
I was referring to the social services scandal that is rocking the state of Minnesota, and which involved fake autism diagnoses. [1]
1: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/09/24/feeding-our-future-...
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#787Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. What on earth is a "malicious" explanation of this?
Getting a diagnosis to get more time to complete tests. https://accommodations.collegeboard.org/how-accommodations-w...
Ok, but who cares? If you don't need accommodations, the extra time won't help you.
For instance: i qualify for such accommodations, but the extra time would not grant me a better score. Who cares?!
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#788For hiring managers, does this devalue elite schools?
I’ve had good luck with places like Notre Dame and Cal Poly where the kids are smart, and willing to work very hard. From the Ivy League I’ve had more luck with Cornell hires than the others.
It’s a small sample size so I’m curious what others see.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#789Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because they really are both very smart and disabled at the same time. There's a term for exactly this: "twice exceptional"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional
Not only is this such a cringe term (we may describe poor aptitude in an area as an exception but exceptional?) it's also not accurate. If you want a milquetoast label call them "spikey" to denote the array of dimensions and the variance, or multimodal or similar.
I mean, I didn't invent the term--but the literal definition of "exceptional" doesn't necessarily mean that something is positive, only that it's outside the norm.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#790Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rate of autism diagnosis is really off the charts in MN these days...
[flagged]
GP is referencing a billion dollar national news Medicaid fraud, not vaccines.