zlacker

[return to "Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?"]
1. shetay+xc[view] [source] 2025-12-04 19:08:42
>>delich+(OP)
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) exclusively to get a single room. Moreover, residential accommodations allow you to be placed in housing prior to the general population and thus grant larger (& better) housing selection.

I would not be surprised if a majority of the cited Stanford accommodations were not used for test taking but instead used exclusively for housing (there are different processes internally for each).

edit: there is even a practice of "stacking" where certain disabilities are used to strategically reduce the subset of dorms in which you can live, to the point where the only intersection between your requirements is a comfy single, forcing Admin to put you there. It is well known, for example, that a particularly popular dorm is the nearest to the campus clinic. If you can get an accommodation requiring proximity to the clinic, you have narrowed your choices to that dorm or another. One more accommodation and you are guaranteed the good dorm.

◧◩
2. lostms+2d[view] [source] 2025-12-04 19:10:53
>>shetay+xc
I suppose cheating to get housing benefits is less of a dumpster fuck vs cheating to get ahead of other people in education.
◧◩◪
3. margal+7f[view] [source] 2025-12-04 19:24:16
>>lostms+2d
The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did.

There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them.

If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students quality, isn't that a problem with Stanford's definitions, not with "cheating"?

◧◩◪◨
4. swatco+6i[view] [source] 2025-12-04 19:37:46
>>margal+7f
> There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation.

That sounds loaded with a lot of value judgment. I don't think it's inappropriate for you to suggest it, but I think you'll find that a lot of people who value equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources might not share that perspective with you.

It turns out that people just disagree about values and are going to weigh judgment on others based on what they believe. You don't have to share their values, but you do kind of just need to be able to accept that judgment as theirs when you do things they malign.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. guelo+bn[view] [source] 2025-12-04 19:58:32
>>swatco+6i
What is the honorable value that leads to "I'll get mine screw everybody else"?
[go to top]