Nobody there is “gaming” the system. Stanford has set the bar for claimed disabilities low, and the vast majority meet the standards that Stanford set. If Stanford has determined that night terrors are a disability, which shouldn’t a kid with night terrors claim it as a disability?
Elsa Johnson compared her physical condition to those claimed by other kids who were being given accommodations, and did not see that her condition was less severe than those of her classmates. Stanford thought so as well, and gave her the accommodations that she thought that she needed.
Of course, Elsa Johnson is not qualified the slightest to have an informed opinion on how much other kids are disabled. Her definition of “gamed the system” are kind of BS:
How exactly is Callie “gaming” the system? She has been diagnosed as ASD by a qualified psychiatrist, and Stanford decided that her symptoms, as described by a specialist, required her to live alone and get extra time. Kids on the spectrum sometimes have difficulty sharing living space, and time accommodations are standard for people with ADHD. The fact that Elsa Johnson seems to have no idea what ADHD is, or why time accommodations are needed, does not mean that a person with ADHD getting tine accommodations is “gaming the system”.
There are indeed students whose parents are gaming this system - there are no lack of pay-per-diagnoses psychologists. However, what Elsa Johnson is calling “gaming the system” is not, by any means “gaming”. It’s taking advantage of the opportunities that the university has available to all students.
Stanford is likely pandering to their body of wealthy connected students, and, if they have enough space in the dorms to allow every kid who feels the need for a private room to get one, that IS the system, and nobody needs to game it.
The linked page says that 38% are registered with a disability at Stanford, and 24% have some kind of accommodation. 38% is high compared to the overall college student average of 20.5%, but is not the “vast majority”.
I mean that “vast majority of disabilities that the students declare meet that standards that Stanford has set to be considered disabilities”. However, it should be “all the disabilities that receive accommodations”.
It seems to be from her own words, that she felt she may be gaming the system.
“In college, I haven’t had that many ‘in real life’ tests as opposed to take-home essays,” Callie told me. “When I did use the extra time, I felt guilty, because I probably didn’t deserve the accommodations, given the fact I got into Stanford and could compete at a high academic level. Extra time on tests — some students even get double time — seems unfair to me.”
Also Elsa gave other examples of gaming, like the
“The students I know who claim to be Jain (but aren’t) spend their meal money at Whole Foods instead and enjoy freshly made salads and other yummy dishes“
And the discussion with other students
“But at Stanford, almost no one talks about the system with shame. Rather, we openly discuss, strategise and even joke about it. .“
Based on what she wrote, there are people gaming the system at Stanford.
That is the first time I have ever heard somebody consider being a Jain to be “a disability”. As far as I understand, this is a religious accommodation, and does not fall under the ADA.
Now I’m wondering how this woman was ever accepted to Stanford, much less graduate. In this piece she manages to:
A. Demonstrate a lack of understanding about conditions like ADHD and ASM.
B. Demonstrate a lack of knowledge about what accommodations are normal for disabilities
C. Demonstrate an ignorance of the what an ADA mandated accommodation actually is
D. Insult an entire religious community by comparing their religious observances to a disability.
No, she perceives that these people are “gaming” the system. Just because she perceives it to be that way does not make that into a reality. What she describes is that the people are using the system the way that Stanford has set it up.