zlacker

What is neurodivergent though? If it’s a third of people, you can probably deem that normal.

>>dyausp+(OP)
It's a way to separate us so that we can fight about it and not focus on the important aspect which is to provide everyone the help they need and deserve to make a successful life for themselves. Some may need more help than others, and so the powers that be who want to keep all that profit for themselves target those who need more help with dumb articles like this one which spread FUD.

>>dyausp+(OP)
Current estimates place it around 20% of the population. Wouldn't take a whole lot of sampling error in admissions to result in 40% of admitted students

>>ok_dad+N
You almost lost me in the first half but yeah, that title alone shows the intentions of the editorial

>>swiftc+31
Stanford doesn't try to admit a random sample of the population, and its quite posssible the things it does select on positively correlate with the conditions at issue; it's quite plausible nonsampling error (systemic bias) is a bigger issue than sampling error in explaining any prevalence difference from the general population here.

>>guizad+t1
I should specify also that I am not saying a medical diagnosis is not important, or that there is no such thing as ADHD or Autism.

I believe as a society we need to be more flexible in every area for every human and also to give individual attention to everyone so they can excel. Some people will need more help than others, like those with ADHD, and some will need much, much more help than others, such as those with more extreme sensory issues with Autism who may not even be able to go out in public without accommodations.

>>dyausp+(OP)
I think, broadly, this is what neurodivergent people want. Nobody considers having poor vision a disability despite it nominally being one since it's so well accommodated. And it's so well accommodated in part because it affects so many people that it's normal.

The world right now doesn't do a great job of "by default" accommodating people with the broad class of difficulties experienced by people that fall under the umbrella of neurodivergence and takes as given that everyone is in the 70-80% group. So now it's a disability with doctor's visits and paperwork and specific individual accommodations when it very well could not be.

>>dyausp+(OP)
A third is about as common as astigmatism in >50 year olds (like me, for instance!) I wear glasses to accommodate this disability, and as a result have nearly no practical problems due to it.

I don't think a problem having a high frequency means that we should decide it doesn't matter or need rectification.

>>jph00+Wt
That's true, but astigmatism:

- is clearly defined

- can be measured objectively (with autorefractors, keratometers, corneal topographers)

- can be corrected cheaply ($20 glasses) to eliminate any disadvantage in performance or efficiency

Neurodivergence:

- is not clearly defined

- cannot be measured objectively, and is diagnosed using behavioral observations and cognitive tests

- may rely on 'accommodations' that, in the hands of someone without a diagnosis, would be considered cheating

Imagine I don't have astigmatism. If I were to take your glasses, would they improve my performance in college?

Imagine my legs are fine. If I were to take someone's wheelchair and start using it daily, would that improve my performance in college?

Imagine I am neurotypical. If I were to take 2x the time on a test, would my performance improve?

>>rahimn+Uz
You misunderstand how neurodivergence is be handled in education. It isn't a single diagnosis, and does not have a single accommodation. We use a catch-all word because it makes it easier to talk about as a collection of issues, but that's not how it's diagnosed or treated.

If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted.

(I do also think it would be a good idea if people had longer for many tests or tests had less on them. That kind of speed is rarely an important part of real world workplaces so those tests are rewarding low-value skills.)

>>jph00+hV
"If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted."

The thing these examples have in common is that they don't give you any inherent advantage that invalidates the purpose of the test. (Assuming it's not a handwriting test, or an 'ignoring distractions' test.)

I would group all of these along with the examples I gave: corrective glasses, and wheelchairs. They should be available to all students, without diagnosis or discrimination.

If you think limited time on tests doesn't serve a useful purpose, then why give 'extra' time to only some students, and not to all students?