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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by isolli »

vl wrote: post #627
Aurornis wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you tried Adderall? It gives extreme competitive edge. Before readers rush out to acquire Adderall, note that "trying" it does not give an accurate picture of what it's like to take it long-term. It has a high discontinuation rate because people read comments like this online or borrow a dose from their friend and think they're going to be running around like Bradley Cooper in Limitless for the rest of their c…

Everything can be abused or used incorrectly. If you drink too much water you remove salts from your body and get sick. With Adderall (or Vyvanse) good protocol is to get small dose, like 5-10mg early morning once every one or two weeks. Then you’ll get boost when really needed and feel uplifting for few more days. Taking it every day is insane, ADHD or not.

Is this the way it is usually prescribed, a small dose every few days?

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

#852

Post by user____name »

EA-3167 wrote: post #416
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 bullshit nature of the article becomes clear as the author repeatedly begs the question as the sole means of making her actual argument. Edit: To be clear there’s a lot of argument from incredulity or “obviously something is wrong,” without doing the work to establish that.

I wouldn't expect less from a site with that domain name.

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

#853

Post by inemesitaffia »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #546

I was recently wondering that since in the US the race is declarative and such a big thing, why don't people self declare being ? If this brings you points at entey exams or similar bonuses - why not (mis)using that mechanism? Or maybe I have as a European the wrong impression about positive discrimination based on race in universities? (I do not nit jave recent data, just remember that people mentioned that they did…

It does happen. There's a particular female Asian Comedian who's a celebrity who's brother did this.

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

#854

Post by inemesitaffia »

xn wrote: post #522

There seems to be an obvious solution. When I went to the DMV and couldn't pass the vision test without my glasses, they put on my driver's license an indication that I only passed with the accommodation of corrective lenses.

That's gone away to avoid discrimination

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

#855

Post by inemesitaffia »

ryuhhnn wrote: post #351
fsckboy wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it so hard to believe that disabled people can be accepted into "elite" universities? ?? many people would think there is something wrong with the definition of disabled if 38% of the population is disabled: more likely to be mislabeled. now, if 38% of the population is not disabled, but 38% of elite universities is, that is also something of note... is how the headline/article should be read. then, if you l…

The CDC reports that 1 in 4 Americans are disabled. Sure 38% is higher than 25%, but the 38% number is the worst case scenario, two of the other universities cited only had 20% of students who were disabled, below the CDC number. > one side campaigns by advocating more social spending Ironically, having more social spending on 4-year universities would actually alleviate this problem if we are following the author's…

It's lower from the population in Universities

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

#856

Post by inemesitaffia »

susiecambria wrote: post #629

Ok, so we are raising a bunch of cheaters and liars. Great. When the get to the workforce, then what? When I was in a position to hire, I made the decision to not interview anyone who went to Elon. The school did not in the early 2000s use a standard grammar book and at least according to my kid's papers, the profs had little to say about poor grammar, rambling sentences, poor logic, etc. Great. Since the work was ab…

Olin?

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

#857

Post by will4274 »

loeg wrote: post #477
Sparkle-san wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how getting 50% extra time on exams is anything remotely close to cheating. Almost nothing I do in my day to day job comes close to being as time-boxed or arbitrarily restrictive as exams were in college.

Why don't all students get the extra time, then?

Doesn't satisfy the ADA. Department of Ed will sue and say that an accomodation given to everybody is no accomodation at all.

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

#858

Post by lurk2 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #535
powerclue wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is pretty clearly someone trying to drag disability on to the stage of the culture war because it's another group that's easy to other, imo.

Do you think the disabled are being helped by letting bad actors trying to get a leg up over their peers abuse accommodations meant for them? On pretty much every "culture war" issue the "left" fails to adequately grapple with bad actors and those that abuse empathetic policies to harm others or unfairly advance themselves. Long term this will be to the great detriment of marginalized groups because societal support…

> Sometime around 2021-2023 there was a wave of people claiming their pets as "service animals" or "emotional support animals" and bringing them everywhere in public.

This has been going on for over ten years.

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

#859

Post by will4274 »

mhb wrote: post #135
weehobbes wrote: post #91

I have a teenager who is at an academically rigorous college prep school. He is incredibly bright and one of the best students in the school. But he has an accommodation in math for extra time because he has a form of dyscalculia which makes him very prone to misreading and mixing up in working memory the numbers, symbols and other formulas. He understands all the concepts well, but his disability results in calculat…

Why can't everyone get extra time?

Doesn't satisfy the ADA. Department of Education would sue such a college for failing to accommodate disabled students. An accomodation that is available to everyone isn't an accomodation.

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

#860

Post by dataflow »

pear01 wrote: post #734
stanford_labrat wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think about this quite a lot. I’ve come to the conclusion that in the past acting with integrity was rewarded and lacking integrity was punished. In 2025 it seems integrity is meaningless, “winning” is all that matters. Particularly, you are not punished for acting without integrity but definitely “punished” for having it.

Are you under the illusion that greed and selfishness is a vice unique to the 21st century? You would think someone with an internet connection would know better. Humanity has always been this way. In most contexts where the concept "integrity" is evoked it carries with it at the very least a tacit acknowledgement of the strong temptation to do otherwise, that is part of the reason it is recognized as a virtue. I rea…

> Are you under the illusion that greed and selfishness is a vice unique to the 21st century?

That's a strawman. I'm pretty darn sure they're not claiming it never happened in the past. Only that it is becoming significantly more widespread than it used to be.

I think you're going to have an incredibly hard time making a compelling case that no such trend exists, given the statistics (even on this particular issue in the article, never mind other issues) would very likely strongly suggest the opposite.

Post reply on HN