<p>No, sylvan8798, actually the other sense of “grind” that I was distancing myself from was the form of couples’ dance in which the couples are very close together . . . It is not allowed at the local school.</p>
<p>I thought “grind” was pejorative when I just thought it referred to someone who worked hard!</p>
<p>Not that I am saying that working hard is a negative!</p>
<p>Cobrat,
Google seems to present a more accurate and representative picture than your constant over generalizations. Can you simply acknowledge when you are in error rather than justifying it?</p>
<p>For the record, cobrat, when I Google, I don’t go for the wiki level of info . Nor settle for NYT or WSJ. But, sure, not everyone was/is aware.</p>
<p>As for over generalizations and misinformation, yes.</p>
<p>jym626,</p>
<p>I theorized about your assumption of greater awareness because you’re in the psych field because your assertions there was greater public awareness back in the '80’s and '90’s reminds me of several hardcore CS nerds who assume because they picked up computer teching/programming skills so easily, everyone else can and those who aren’t proficient in more technically demanding operating systems like FreeBSD or Gentoo linux are “not trying” or “inexplicably clueless”.</p>
<p>They haven’t considered that 1.) Not everyone can pick computing teching/programming skills so easily and 2.) There is a substantial learning curve to the more technically demanding operating systems…especially for folks who aren’t experienced or technically inclined with computers. 3.) Most people aren’t even going to be aware or care to be aware of all this stuff unless there is a need for them to learn it for a class or work related purposes. Not going to happen with the vast majority. </p>
<h1>3 especially probably applies to general public awareness for ADD back in the '80s & '90s. And that’s assuming families had the finances and/or the awareness to even think about having their children tested as my older college classmate’s case demonstrated.</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sometimes, this stereotype carries over into workplace assessments. Probably a reason why a mentor in my first job out of college warned me about “ is a reliable and hardworking employee” could be used as a backhanded compliment in some organizations to denote “works hard, but not possessing much intelligence, initiative, and/or promotion potential.”</p>
<p>AAAGGGHHHH!!! Its like nails on a blackboard. Stop already. You are wrong. Don’t care how you try to justify/spin it. Maybe YOU were in the dark about ADHD but many others were not. In fact, back in the 90’s there was concern raised about the over-prescription of Ritalin/methylphenidate.
[DEA</a> Report on Ritalin: “Ritalin: addictive, abusable” – “Ritalin: over-prescribed, over-marketed, and over-sold”](<a href=“Diagnosed with ADHD? - Optometrists.org”>Diagnosed with ADHD? - Optometrists.org) </p>
<p>Could you perhaps defer to the people who are knowledgeable in this area rather than to continue to insist that just because you were clueless that " Back when we were in college, knowledge and awareness of this LD was still not popularly known among even most upper-middle class parents like his or by many higher-ed professionals." because thats absolutely WRONG-- untrue and incorrect on many fronts. Statements like “awareness among the greater public and higher ed professionals was practically nil considering I didn’t start hearing about ADD testing among college kids until after I graduated.” Are ridiculous. Feel free to say that YOU weren’t familiar with it- but PLEASE PLEASE stop saying that just because you were ignorant of it that the knowledge elsewhere was practically nil. Thats what is soooo annoyingly absurd.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that unless one lives in an upper/upper-middle class area where families have the finances and awareness or happens to live in a public school district where they won’t balk at performing such tests for financial reasons, most middle, working class, and low-income families aren’t going to have nearly the same exposure or awareness as you and those families have. </p>
<p>Even as late as the mid-'00s, there were still some ignorant newsmedia reports which painted ADD as a “pseudo-illness” for upper/upper-middle class families to gain further “advantageous” accommodations for their children for poor academic performance and/or behavioral issues at the expense of less well-off families and their kids.</p>
<p>People still question/challenge the diagnosis, cobrat. Thats nothing new, and merely an attempt to digress from the issue. First you said that middle/upper class families were ignorant of it, and now you say that they were gaming the system? Talking out of both sides of your mouth now?? The other stuff is pure BS. Back then public mental health clinics were actually better than they are now, and there was access to services for all incomes. I am done discussing this with you. Take it up with your cousins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cousins? Wait, Cobrat has cousins?</p>
<p>And the fact that some people challenge it or were unaware or whatever in this world, doesn’t change that these syndromes were recognized well before the 1980’s.</p>
<p>Forgive this; I’m sitting in a magnificent used bookstore : a little research can yield wonderful results.</p>
<p>EXACTLY, lookingforward (on the first paragraph AND the additional one! 
)</p>
<p>By 1992 when my oldest was in nursery school I remember tons of handwringing about the overmedication of kids for ADD or ADHD. I also remember some of my adult friends realizing that they probably had ADD when their kids were diagnosed. Really it was pretty common knowledge if you had kids at the time. I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist or teacher. My kids went to the cheapest nursery school in town - lots of blue collar and lower middle class families. Really!</p>
<p>re: Luck and Stanford, I’m sure Luck is very intelligent. He scored very high on the wonderlic, which they administer at the combines. However, I do have a hard time believing that a big time sports university like Stanford would not take a kid w/ avg stats if he was a difference maker,once in a generation talent, which Luck was.</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> University - GPA and Test Scores Needed for Admission](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/GPA-SAT-ACT-Graphs/ss/stanford-admission-gpa-sat-act.htm]Stanford”>Stanford University: Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA)</p>
<p>If you look at the left portion of the distribution above, it would be reasonable to say that those dozen or so folks with <1500 SAT are contributing in other ways besides academics (football, basketball, tennis, etc.).</p>
<p>I would not put any value in some site reporting self reported stats.</p>
<p>I also suggest athletes are not dropping by these websites to plug their numbers to show they got in despite those numbers.</p>
<p>OTOH, it is also possible that if those numbers are real, the parents bought a building for stanford.</p>
<p>On ADD, we can count on the great Ken Robinson. Watch the talk from the start or if too eager skip the first four minutes.</p>
<p>[Ken</a> Robinson: Changing education paradigms | Video on TED.com](<a href=“http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html]Ken”>http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html)</p>
<p>Fwiw, I’d rather pay attention -pun intended- to a professional than a collection of anecdotes. This said, one can trace the explosion of extended testing times to the silly forced decision to stop flagging the tests.</p>
<p>Interesting clip, xig. Start losing interest in Oklahoma. LOL.</p>
<p>Totally agree that removing the * to indicate a non-standard test administation has correlated directly with the increase in requests for accomodations of various shapes and sizes</p>
<p>COP, again, you must have picked the worst example in Andrew Luck. Obviously, one can form an opinion by reading the Internet, but your assumptions about him would make the people who actually know him since his Texas days smile and shake their head. </p>
<p>Despite all the publicity and scrutiny given to Stanford, many still fail to understand how admissions work in Palo Alto.</p>
<p>Good point Texas… we can’t forget the money factor. I forgot that having crazy rich parents who like to donate buildings helps out as well. 
I think the SAT requirement for college sports is around 800 but I don’t think Luck needed much help anyway. He is one really bright QB with a great pocket presence and I expect him to take the Colts pretty far this year.</p>
<p>As for Palo Alto admissions, you’re absolutely right Xigs. I do not have any internal knowledge re: Stanford admissions, particularly when it comes to athletes. My assumption that the standards for athletes fall short of non-athletes are my own based on what I have read and saw when I was going to school many years ago.</p>
<p>I just wanted to thank the community here for letting me voice my opinion for the past couple days. It’s addictive putting in your 2 cents worth, but the misses has unfortunately reminded me that I have other things to do around the house. It was fun voicing my opinion but also reading those of others.</p>
<p>I somehow got side tracked onto this thread looking for information about when the Lowell Putnam results are expected to come out… should be sometime soon according to another website. Anyhow, thanks again and good-bye everyone.</p>
<p>So, to summarize, we don’t have a clue how he got in, or why he didn’t get in.</p>
<p>And nobody who really knows the answer is going to tell us.</p>
<p>Did I miss anything?</p>
<p>I know that the only two kids to be accepted to Stanford from our high school both had SAT scores round 1200 (out of 1600) and were recruited athletes and URMs as well and one was a legacy and the other was politically connected. I have pretty good grip on how Stanford admissions work at our high school, in my imagination at least. :D</p>