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

Debating the Numbers and Definitions

• Thread centers on a reported figure that 38% of Stanford undergrads are registered as disabled, ~24% receiving academic or housing accommodations.
• Some see this as obviously implausible (“no way 38% are disabled”), citing US data of ~8% disability in ages 18–34 and ~25% overall.
• Others argue the term “disability” has broadened (ADHD, anxiety, depression, autism, chronic pain, dyslexia, etc.) and is not incompatible with high academic performance; many “twice exceptional” students exist.
• Several distinguish between diagnosis, disability, and need for accommodations—diagnosed neurodivergence does not automatically imply functional impairment.

Incentives, Cheating, and System Gaming

• Strong theme: people respond to incentives. Extra test time, easier housing, priority course treatment, and even access to prescription stimulants create pressure to “get a diagnosis.”
• Many believe affluent families and consultants actively game this: shopping for compliant doctors, telehealth “mills,” and stacking conditions to force single rooms near clinics.
• Others push back that this framing erases real needs and leans into ableist suspicion; they stress that abuse doesn’t erase legitimate cases.

What Accommodations Look Like in Practice

• Reported accommodations: extended (often 1.5–2×) or effectively unlimited test time, quiet rooms, recording lectures, flexible deadlines, separate proctoring, housing modifications (single rooms, emotional‑support animals, proximity to facilities).
• Several disabled students and faculty say getting formal accommodations is hard: repeated documentation, specific wording, multiple forms, meetings with every professor, and frequent pushback.
• Others report very quick ADHD diagnoses and straightforward access to meds, underscoring uneven practice.

Impact on Genuinely Disabled Students

• Widespread worry that normalization/abuse will backfire: stricter gatekeeping, more skepticism, higher bureaucratic burdens, and less social support for accommodations.
• Some disabled commenters describe the thread as deeply discouraging and stigmatizing; they rely on accommodations for basic fairness, not advantage.
• Others argue that lowered diagnostic thresholds and identity politics are crowding out those with profound disabilities (e.g., non‑verbal autism, major physical impairments).

Diagnostics, Mental Health, and Medication

• Discussion of DSM‑5 changes (e.g., ADHD criteria from “clinically significant impairment” to “interferes with or reduces quality”) as a driver of rising diagnosis.
• Debate whether therapists and psychiatrists over‑diagnose to satisfy insurance requirements or patient demand.
• Long subthread on Adderall/Vyvanse: some see legal stimulants as a performance hack; others note tolerance, side‑effects, and studies showing limited cognitive gains in neurotypicals.

Elite vs Non‑elite Schools and Class

• Noted contrast: elite privates report much higher disability registration than community colleges, which some see as evidence of gaming; others point to access gaps (poor students can’t afford testing, treatment, or consultants).
• Hypotheses for higher elite rates: more stressful environments make mild issues debilitating; gifted and neurodivergent kids are over‑represented; wealth buys diagnosis and advocacy.

Proposed Fixes and Structural Critiques

• Suggestions:
  • Give everyone longer (or effectively unlimited) exam time; evaluate understanding, not speed.
  • If speed matters, make timing uniform and stop granting differential time.
  • Focus enforcement on doctors/consultancies rather than students.
  • Mark accommodations or conditions on transcripts/diplomas (controversial, many see this as punitive).
• Broader critiques: grade‑ and credential‑obsessed systems plus high‑stakes competition naturally reward gaming. Some argue the real problem is the barrel (admissions arms race, scarcity of good jobs and housing), not just the “bad apples.”