this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
79 points (97.6% liked)
Slop.
764 readers
731 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The premise of the article seems more or less correct. Students can pay to get diagnosed with learning disabilities^[not in a Dr. Spaceman diagnosis-mill type of way, but moreso it just takes money to get diagnosed and a massive chunk of the population meets criteria for diagnosis of various disorders.] and receive a competitive advantage as a result. This makes diagnosed learning disorders that warrant accomadtion overrepresented high-income populations (who are already overrepresented in higher education) and gives them an advantage, causing them to be overrepresented in higher education. The US gives massive advantages for accommodations (1.5 to 2x time as compared to GCSEs which offer 1.25x and the gaokao which offers no extra time for learning disabilities). There's a massive advantage here, so people use it and are rewarded.
Yes and the solution is to make testing more accessible and not even more policing of the legitimacy of ND diagnoses.
When I was in college I had to fight tooth and nail for the barest of accommodations and I was still struggling. The reactions from the profs when I sent them the accommodation file typically ranged from annoyance to condescending suspicion. My grades still generally lagged behind NT students.
The professor quoted in the article pretty obviously doesn’t give a shit about the accessibility of testing and just want to tell their ND students to go fuck themselves.
Good on America for doing more to help the ND compared to others.
The solution to that is just allowing these accommodations for anyone regardless of diagnosis, on a “If it helps you it’s for you” basis.
There’s no difference between 1.25x time and 2x time on exams for most people, because most exams are designed so most people finish with time left over.
We really need to normalize disabilities as a fact of life more and have more accessibility tools be "if it helps you it's for you". I feel weird using "accessible" stuff that's a Big Deal to use, even stuff that looking at its technical design is better for everyone including perfectly abled folks. If I have to look like a jerk or disclose my neurodivergence for an accessibility tool, I'm not going to try it. If it's just available for anyone to use, and I'm not depriving someone with a physical disability of access to it, I'll try anything that looks useful.