Why Are 38 Percent of Stanford Students Saying They're Disabled?

https://reason.com/2025/12/04/why-are-38-percent-of-stanford-students-saying-theyre-disabled/

44•delichon•42m ago

Comments

pavel_lishin•28m ago

> 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?

bluefirebrand•21m ago

It is probably not good if nearly half (38% qualifies as nearly half, right?) of students are considered disabled and needing accommodations, right?

Surely nearly half of any given public population can't be disabled?

cynicalpeace•18m ago

They're quite obviously not.

They're lying so they can get unlimited time on the test and/or look at their phone.

They're smart kids that see a loophole in the system. They will take advantage!

bluefirebrand•15m ago

Right. What I'm saying is that we've probably screwed up by creating a system that incentivizes people to "be disabled" even if they really are stretching the definition of disabled

skywhopper•6m ago

I hope you realize that the students don’t think of themselves as “disabled” in the disparaging way you mean it. I have ADHD and I’m color blind. Both conditions make me “disabled” in some sense, and yet I went to college and have managed to have a job my whole adult life. Being “disabled” doesn’t mean “useless” or “incapable of doing anything” as you seem to imply.

skywhopper•8m ago

You clearly know nothing about how these accommodations are handled.

bananalychee•14m ago

Even 5% would be pushing it at a university. It's easy today to get a diagnosis for something like mild ADHD whether one has it or not, and everyone is on some kind of spectrum. Legitimacy aside, classifying mild, manageable conditions as disabilities that require special accommodations and/or medication is counter-productive long-term.

rovr138•11m ago

Who are you to say what should be included or not, that something can be gauged as mild or not, and that there should be a treshold?

rovr138•13m ago

25% of Americans have a disability, https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/media/pdfs/disabil...

We don't know what's the percentage broken down by age.

If 38% is almost 50%, 25% is almost 38%.

almosthere•5m ago

My dad at 50 got a disabled parking placard. He did have knee surgery, but he really didn't struggle with it about 4 months after his surgery. I asked him why he still had it - I got the impression that at this point he wanted his priority parking spot anyway. Didn't like driving around with him much after that.

SilasX•4m ago

That's over the entire population, which includes the elderly. For the 18-34yo block, it's 8.3%, and you'd probably expect it even lower for ... well, the population that, to put it bluntly, succeeded in life enough to get into Standford.

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2024/comm/disa...

skywhopper•9m ago

Most everyone has some disability or other. Just because you may work around it or not think of it that way, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

invalidOrTaken•13m ago

once expertise can drive benefits, expertise becomes a target for corruption

weirdly: if you want good scientists, don't listen to them!

this_user•13m ago

Any system that can be gamed will be gamed.

bvisness•12m ago

The Reason article leaves out some helpful context from the original Atlantic article:

> In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association expanded the definition of ADHD. Previously, the threshold for diagnosis had been “clear evidence of clinically significant impairment.” After the release of the DSM‑5, the symptoms needed only to “interfere with, or reduce the quality” of, academic functioning.

So it's dramatically easier to get said doctor's note these days.

almosthere•8m ago

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

swatcoder•8m ago

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, they're people. Some of them are not so discerning, some of them are not so bright, some of take pleasure in gaming the system or playing Robin Hood, some of them accept bribes and trade favors, some of them are averse to conflict.

Next thing you know, you've got a lot of people with certificates saying that they have unobvious disabilities that grant them accommodations. Like, way more than you would have expected and some whose certified disabilities are really unobvious.

Might the genuinely good system you put in place have been abused? How can you know? What can you do? And if it's not been gamed, then what the heck is going on that sooooo many people are disabled? That seems like it would reflect some kind of social crisis itself.

hollerith•20m ago

>the current language of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows students to get expansive accommodations with little more than a doctor's note.

Stanford can make the student pay any costs of the accommodation if Stanford wants to push back on the student. E.g., if the student requests extra time on tests, Stanford can estimate the total cost of employing the proctor and bill that (amortized of course over the amount of extra time).

But yeah, it is kind of excessive how much special treatment a person can get in US society just by being rich enough to afford a doctor who will sign whatever letters the person needs (and being shameless enough to request the letters). Another example is apartment buildings with a strict policy of no dogs. With a doctor's letter, the pet dog becomes a medically-necessary emotional-support animal, which the landlord must allow per the same ADA discussed in the OP.

sallveburrpi•11m ago

So rich people should be able to pay for extra time on tests?

I don’t see how that is pushing back or solving any of the problems the article talks about.

lotsofpulp•3m ago

I don’t think the ADA allows charging people with disabilities extra.

sct202•17m ago

With rates that high, it's a disadvantage if you don't have specialists assess your kid for all the things that could qualify them for extra testing time if you have the money to do it.

ChrisArchitect•17m ago

Accommodation Nation: America's colleges have an extra-time-on-tests problem

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46121559

skywhopper•16m ago

This is a really poor article that has no research behind it, and no attempt to investigate anything or talk to anyone with a different view. The only source is the terrible Atlantic article about the topic.

There’s plenty to discuss and disagree with these policies but the author’s willingness to make broad judgments about college students’ behaviors and internal states based on poor understanding of ADHD, the ADA, and what’s actually going on at these schools is incredibly poor journalism by this author and by Reason.

asacrowflies•6m ago

As a "real" disabled person with autism...whatever that means.... This entire thread is very saddening. And lacking the usual debate vibe and is just people dumping their hate and frustration with no real sources or data or understanding :(

heddelt•15m ago

People respond to incentives. Give disabled people advantages and you get more disabled people.

renewiltord•15m ago

It's amusing to think that so many people have had so many explanations for why autism and ADHD are skyrocketing when the actual thing is that it's because it gives you an advantage in exams that get you into Stanford or because you can parasitize the state for money like the Somalis in Minnesota.

It's the gold standard. It's the phones. It's microplastics. Nope, just good old cheesing the miniboss.

reducesuffering•11m ago

Incentives. Did you know that mental health specialists like therapists as a field are entirely in lock-step in giving an immediate diagnosis of anything, because otherwise most insurance won't reimburse?

Any functioning individual can go to a therapist and get an immediate diagnosis of an affliction, simply because therapists won't get clients if they don't provide the avenue for being funded by health insurance.

delichon•10m ago

If 38% of the top 1% of students have learning disabilities then I'd expect students near the mean to be 100% learning disabled, if those words have any meaning left.

everdrive•3m ago

I was sure you were going to say "then it follows that the top 0.1% must be 100% learning disabled."

morkalork•3m ago

Maybe they're all that academically gifted kinda autism and students near the mean are less likely to be disabled? /s

OGEnthusiast•9m ago

American society is at the point where if you don't play these sort of games/tricks, you'll get out-competed by those who do. Bleak.

acedTrex•3m ago

Basic game theory at work right there. You only need a few bad apples to cause the entire system to devolve.

dogleash•9m ago

Whether I care depends on the accommodation they're seeking.

When I was in school, the department that dealt with accessibility could chop the spine off a book, scan it and give you a high quality ebook. I also knew someone who was flagrantly cheating with some test-taking accommodation.

That ebook service was just a nice thing that more people should have taken advantage of. One or two of the professors even subtly encouraged using it to pirate textbooks.

whalesalad•7m ago

It's like when all the prisoners in Orange is the new Black start to claim they are Jewish in order to get the nicer Kosher meals from the cafeteria.