zlacker

If it turns out half of all people have something, it's just normal human stuff. Today's ADHD is likely a symptom of tiktoking your brain's serotonin out or some other chemical

>>almost+(OP)
Nonsense. This is Stanford. The admissions process filtered for highly academically successful students and then 38% of them claimed a disability which impairs their academic performance. It's bullshit of the most obvious kind.

>>missin+R1
Example, do you think someone that's hard of hearing can't meet the standard for a 'highly academically successful student"? Or someone that's color blind? Or someone that's blind? Or someone in a wheelchair?

>>missin+R1
Where does the idea/reasoning that highly academically successful students cannot have a disability come from?

I would go a step further and say there is probably a high chance that neurodivergent students are more academically successful, iff they did get to that level of education. And it's not impossible that they are overrepresented in that group of people.

And people may be intellectually gifted, and yet experience strong behavioral and social difficulties. Not that my own observation counts but I've met multiple people on the spectrum who were highly intelligent and "gifted" yet faced more adversity in life, i.e. for social reasons. It's controversial because it directly goes against the idea that we exist in a meritocracy.

People are going to cheat no matter what. To me, it's more important that the people who do need and deserve accomodations are able to get them though!

>>suregl+G4
Nobody said that. They are saying or insinuating that 38% of successful students are unlikely to be disabled. That certainly was not the case as recently as a decade or two ago. People have not changed drastically, so what gives?

>>esafak+Db
Change in diagnosis criteria, that doesn't mean people before weren't disabled. You need to understand people with ADHD usually overcompensate to meet the academic performance needed and it is not sustainable in the long run. It also doesn't mean they need accommodations, just that they are categorized as disabled in some way or form.

>>rovr13+U3
You've missed the point. How does Stanford end up with 38% of their students claiming to have a disability while other schools only have 3%? Are the other schools illegally discrimating against these students, so that their only alternative is Stanford? Or is it possible that something anomalous is happening at Stanford?

>>esafak+Db
> They said that 38% of successful students are unlikely to be disabled.

Which is an unreasonable claim.

I have a disability that impairs many aspects of my life. I was still capable of getting through college and am successful in my career. Having a disability does not mean you can't do academics.

>>missin+R1
Touche, I'm just going to go ahead and upvote you.

>>rovr13+U3
Yes 38% of students at stanford are either blind or in a wheelchair

>>db48x+dj
While it doesn't explain the whole difference, it's not surprising that Stanford has a higher rate. First: the more demanding the environment the more likely you are to find (got example) milder ADHD to impact your life. Second: the more well off you are or more access to resources you have, the more likely you are to actually care to get diagnosed. Third: stressful environment can actually cause serious issues, suddenly. For non-education reasons I suddenly gained panic attacks while I was at uni and they took years to go away.

I'm sure there are more things like that.

>>rovr13+U3
What percentage of Stanford students are in a wheelchair? Are the actual stats publicly available somewhere?

>>virapt+un
On the contrary, it’s very surprising. There’s no way that 38% of people are disabled by any definition of the word. 10× differences between the disability rate between schools simply should not exist.