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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by reeredfdfdf »

antisthenes wrote: post #681
Aurornis wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wow. Great to know we're basically raising an entire generation without any integrity. Can't wait to be in a nursing home where all the staff are trying to meta-game for lowest amount of responsibility rather than caring for the elderly. And believe me, I'm the last person to disparage the truly disabled or those down on their luck. But 38% in a developed country is just straight up insane. Not to mention that if you…

Older generations have no more integrity. Just look at the last US presidential election results - older generations were more likely to vote for Trump than younger ones. I don't think a person with integrity is likely to vote for such an openly corrupt conman.

Nah, the reality is that people have always been greedy and selfish, gaming the system where they can.

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

#832

Post by _zagj »

iamwil wrote: post #340

My general impression of kids from elite colleges are that they're very good at finding some sort of loophole in the system to exploit, and they get lauded for it. And if they balk, for whatever reason, they feel like they're falling behind those that do. So then there's a feedback loop for everyone to take advantage of some kind of exploit to stay competitive. "You'd be stupid not to do X also, if everyone else is."…

You just described Sam Altman to a T. Never forget "Founder Naughtiness," a quality pg prizes in founders, which he originally ascribed to sama:

> 4. Naughtiness

> Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant though; it may be implied by imagination.

> Sam Altman of Loopt is one of the most successful alumni, so we asked him what question we could put on the Y Combinator application that would help us discover more people like him. He said to ask about a time when they'd hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense of beating the system, not breaking into computers. It has become one of the questions we pay most attention to when judging applications.

Loopt, BTW, eventually became a shady gay hookup (not even "dating") app--the digital equivalent of the men's rooms in the Port Authority Bus Terminal--before getting acquired for barely more money than it raised in VC funding, and even then, only because one of its VCs was also on the board of the acquirer (Greendot). None of this is mentioned in Loop's sanitized wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopt

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

#833

Post by obscurette »

jerlam wrote: post #715
antisthenes wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Great to know we're basically raising an entire generation without any integrity. Can't wait to be in a nursing home where all the staff are trying to meta-game for lowest amount of responsibility rather than caring for the elderly. And believe me, I'm the last person to disparage the truly disabled or those down on their luck. But 38% in a developed country is just straight up insane. Not to mention that if you…

It's not 38% of the entire population/generation, it's 38% of a tiny group who have gotten into an elite, highly selective school, and have the massive resources (not just education) to do so. But as someone else said, these are probably people who are much more likely to get placed into positions of power and authority.

No. It might be much much worse than 38% outside of these elite schools, but a little bit different. This is in fact one of the reasons public education falls off the cliff. I've seen a teacher leaving elementary after she found out that 19 kids out of 24 in her class had some kind of learning disability needing special treatment, special help, assignments specially designed for them etc. In her own words all of them were completely normal kids except maybe 1 or 2.

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

#834

Post by startupsfail »

reeredfdfdf wrote: post #831
antisthenes wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Great to know we're basically raising an entire generation without any integrity. Can't wait to be in a nursing home where all the staff are trying to meta-game for lowest amount of responsibility rather than caring for the elderly. And believe me, I'm the last person to disparage the truly disabled or those down on their luck. But 38% in a developed country is just straight up insane. Not to mention that if you…

Older generations have no more integrity. Just look at the last US presidential election results - older generations were more likely to vote for Trump than younger ones. I don't think a person with integrity is likely to vote for such an openly corrupt conman. Nah, the reality is that people have always been greedy and selfish, gaming the system where they can.

There are a lot of people around who are playing victims to get benefits. And relentlessly pushing their agenda.

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

#835

Post by noaccesstomy »

halper wrote: post #830
amypetrik8 wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having infinite time on exams is level of the the ADHD cheating iceberg level 2 of the ADHD cheating iceberg is having medically approved methamphetamines to infinistudy before exams e.g. ritalin

Well, methamphetamine is very rarely (never?) prescribed for ADHD. Ritalin is methylphenidate.

Adderall works on some kind of amphetamine. That‘s prescribed much more often in the states. In EU land I‘ve never seen the hard stuff.

Edit: Elvance apparently has Amphetamin in it as well and I‘ve seen it in the wild here too.

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

#836

Post by VerifiedReports »

Despicable. Everyone you turn, you see entitled lowlives taking advantage of society's generosity toward the disabled. Look at the explosion of people who crowd airport gates in wheelchairs, only to jump up and stride briskly down the gangplank for their early boarding.

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

#837

Post by dotancohen »

trow232134 wrote: post #656
swatcoder wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people that are just in the line where they are very productive workers anyway Of course, that applies to everybody who achieves a stable career at all. Exceedingly few people (if anyone) are competent and capable at everything, even when you're just talking about basic skills that are handy for common, everyday work. Your doctor may be a incorrigibly terrible driver, your bus driver may pass out at the sight of bl…

Some people have harder lifes than others. Saying everybody has a few things that they struggle is kind of offensive. I struggle because my parents were drug addicts and my father tried to kill us all when I was 5.

And my children grew up with rockets regularly targeting us, and our home has sustained damage, and we have had friends killed. Yet my oldest has succeeded in gifted children's organisations her entire time at school.

And at the gifted children's organisations I've seen families who have it much harder than we ever did. Children in those families grew up to be resilient, face danger, and overcome obstacles direct and obstacles covert. Some of them with physical disabilities too.

Somebody is always suffering worse than we are.

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

#838

Post by VerifiedReports »

marsupial wrote: post #773
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…

"buries the lede" oh how I hate this phrase

It's used inaccurately in OP's comment, too, because housing isn't mentioned in the article at all. So it's not "buried."

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

#839

Post by VerifiedReports »

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…

It doesn't bury the lede; housing isn't mentioned at all, anywhere in the article.

Your additional insights are interesting and believable, however.

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

#840

Post by jimnotgym »

Aurornis wrote: post #558
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…

> 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…

Presumably the University could do their own assessment to see what is appropriate? Not just rely on a note?
Post reply on HN