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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by AbstractH24 »

I'm 36. When I was in school, I took advantage of every accommodation there was.

For a long time already, I've looked back and thought that all those accommodations were a flaw in the way my generation was raised. In the real world you don't get that, you need to find a way to overcome and/or turn things that make you different into strengths and leverage them to your advantage. It's interesting to see how things have and haven't changed.

Oh, and on another note, I just sent this article to a friend with the comment, "I was finally able to get that Vyvanse filled at an independent pharmacy."

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

#912

Post by walletdrainer »

polotics wrote: post #877
Spooky23 wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just operate so that everyone gets the academic benefits. My roommate in the 90s was ahead of the curve, he memorized the Cosmo quiz “do you have ADD” went to the student center, got a script that he sold or snorted, and got to take his test in a comfortable room at a time scheduled centrally. Just randomize assignments to rooms all over campus.

Oh wow snorted? Did you keep in touch how well is he doing now? I suspect he's not doing so well with the brain damage and the likely switch to other substances.

Snorting adderall does not typically cause brain damage, and the list of substances rich white kids (I’m guessing here) would typically upgrade to is pretty much just cocaine.

Typical cocaine use also does not result in meaningful harm.

The financial industry chugs along just fine despite approximately everybody using these drugs.

I’ve used cocaine regularly at social events since I was a teenager. The vast majority of people I know, whether they’re 25 or 65, will not say no when offered. In my whole life I’ve known two people from my circles to have developed an actual coke problem, and I know a lot of people.

At this point coke is just the cigarettes of the upper classes, but likely less harmful.

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

#913

Post by Ray20 »

swatcoder wrote: post #28
pavel_lishin wrote: post #3

> the current language of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows students to get expansive accommodations with little more than a doctor's note. Isn't that... good? What else would be expected if you have a disability, and need accomodations?

That's exactly the dilemma. Offering accommodations to people with disabilities is good. So you do that. Then you recognize that not all disabilities that deserve accommodations are obvious so you establish some bureaucratic process that can certify people with these unobvious disabilities so they can receive the accommodations you meant for them to. But the people you delegate to issue those certificates are... well…

> Might the genuinely good system you put in place have been abused?

The system's resistance to abuse is one of its important characteristics. So if the system have been abused on that scale, the system probably wasn't good in the first place.

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

#914

Post by SanjayMehta »

jagaerglad wrote: post #872
SanjayMehta wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

terrible take, it's ruined otherwise amazing potential countless times. Just see how over-represented ADHD is in the prison population

I suggest you read the book "Selling Sickness" and revise your take.

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

#915

Post by netrap »

will4274 wrote: post #859
mhb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not anymore, they laid off all the lawyers who would do that.

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

#917

Post by peterfirefly »

bawolff wrote: post #460
wisty wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people think a test should measure one thing (often under the slightly "main character" assumption that they'll be really good at the one truly important thing). Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one. It certainly shouldn't be entirely a race either though. Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll wr…

> Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one. Why are you trying to measure speed though? I can't think of any situation where someone was like: you have exactly 1 minute to integrate this function, or else. Fluency yes, but speed is a poor proxy for fluency.

Speed is a remarkably good proxy for fluency.

An excellent way to git gud at something is to do timed practice again and again. Aim for 100% correct answers AND for fast answers. Answers that took to long should be identified and practiced again (and maybe some of the theory should be re-read or read from another textbook).

Don't settle for 100% correct during practice.

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

#918

Post by al_borland »

thomasahle wrote: post #868
al_borland wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those with more mild issues, they should really be realistic about what the needs are. I was diagnosed in my 40s with ASD and ADHD. It may have been helpful to know earlier (though I could debate both sides of that), but I didn’t need any special classes or helpers that would take resources from others. I’m wondering if some kids are saying they need this stuff to justify the condition or to play up the sympathy,…

> I’m wondering if some kids are saying they need this stuff to justify the condition or to play up the sympathy, to make the condition their personality. In a highly competitive environment like Stanford, isn't it more likely that it's to get more time on tests -> better grades -> higher paying job?

I can only speak for myself, but I didn’t need more time on tests in college. If I didn’t know the answers, more time wasn’t going to help, and I’d get bored/frustrated and just want it to be over. I was usually one of the first people done, be it A or D work.

If they need all that extra time, the university on the degree might get them some extra money out of the gate, but I have to imagine it will work against them if they are slow and are always asking for extra time to complete projects. That’s not going to get them promoted and they will stagnate. I’ve also never had any job ask me about my grades.

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

#919

Post by peterfirefly »

LargeWu wrote: post #550
schnable wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a poor proxy? Someone who really understands the concepts and has the aptitude for it will get answers more quickly than someone who is shakier on it. The person who groks it less may be able to get to the answer, but needs to spend more time working through the problem. They're less good at calculus and should get a lower grade! Maybe they shouldn't fail Calc 101, but may deserve a B or (the horror) a C. M…

My middle school aged child was recently diagnosed with learning disorders around processing, specifically with written language and math, which means even though he might know the material well it will take him a long time to do things we take for granted like reading and writing. But, he does much much better with recall and speed when transmitting and testing his knowledge orally. He's awful with spelling and phon…

Can he build more advanced concepts on top of the ones he supposedly masters?

Can he do that well?

Is he likely to continue to be able to do that as he progresses to the stuff that is actually hard?

(My guess is that the answers are yes (so far), no, and definitely not.)

Take slow processing is a really good symptom of something that needs more practice time.

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

#920

Post by hnfong »

kenjackson wrote: post #612
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... usually those tests check the correctness of answers too, so you're comparing students under the same circumstances, evaluating how much (writing, calculations.... whatever) they're able to do, correctly of course, within an alotted time period. If someone can correctly solve 17 math problems in that time and someone else can do 21, the second one is "better" than the first, since they're both faster and th…

But where is that level of speed distinction important? I just don't know anywhere where being 10% faster translates into much actual real value. If you can write a function in five minutes and it takes this other person 5.5 minutes -- do you really view that as the key difference in ability? Even in time constrained situations, compute/processing speed is almost never the issue.

Well, it probably correlates to solving leetcode problems within 45 minute interview time limit.

/s

Post reply on HN