“Strong steel is forged in the hottest fire.” I remember how hard it was to stop myself from stepping in whenever my kids were facing adversity. One of our running jokes was when they’d ask me how to spell something—I’d just say, “D‑I‑C‑T‑I‑O‑N‑A‑R‑Y!”
Great piece, Robert. I wonder if the break down in community hastened by (if not caused by) social media is at the heart of this trend. Families, in their growing isolation, have a mindset of “my child against the world” instead of “my child with the world.” I would love your thoughts on the deeper origins of this trend.
I’ve been thinking about this article and want to offer a different perspective. I was reading in Forbes that nearly 50% of Gen Z identify as neurodivergent. Because of social media, there is a growing awareness around autism, ADHD and other neurotypes that just didn’t exist when I was in school.
As someone who was diagnosed with adhd in my mid 30s, I often think about how much I could have benefited from accommodations in my school years. Instead, I was chronically burnt out, full of anxiety and fighting against a system that wasn’t meant for my brain. I took an extra year to finish my degree as I could never take a full course load. I was physically ill with stress for 5 years (03-08), just suffering my way through for an A- average.
Now as a parent to a neurodiverse kid who’s having a really hard time with school, there is a fine balance between pushing him and forcing him into a state of chronic dysregulation. He’s only 7, so the stakes aren’t even high yet. He’s extremely bright, but he’s told me that he’s chronically stressed and overwhelmed at school because of the environment. I can imagine for him to succeed in life, he shouldn’t have to choose between being accommodated and his mental health. I think my generation was told to suck it up and suffer and the new generations are unwilling to.
I’m just wondering if instead of looking at Stanford as ableist, maybe they’re actually more progressive than other universities. How can you be so sure that the 40% isn’t in need of an accommodation? I’d be curious to see more research around this. Some food for thought!
Thank you for sharing this, and I hear you. I was also undiagnosed ADHD and not tested until my 30s, so I know what it feels like to struggle in systems not built for how your brain works.
I agree that greater awareness is real and overdue. But if Stanford were simply more progressive, we would expect to see similar rates at peer institutions drawing from the same applicant pool. MIT reports about 8 percent. Community colleges report 4 to 5 percent. That is a massive gap that awareness alone cannot explain, and it points to very different standards and incentives, not just different disability rates.
Why that matters for parents is when the system stretches beyond genuine need, those who truly need accommodations face diluted support and undeserved skepticism. Your son should never have to justify his needs because others are asking for things that are not truly needed to thrive, versus achieve perfection.
There is actually more research on this. It just wasn’t included in this opinion piece with misleading numbers in the first paragraph. The article this links to in reference to “almost 40 percent” requesting accommodations at Stanford also indicates that 21% at Harvard receive accommodations, whereas US undergraduates in 2011-2012 showed 11% receiving accommodations.
The actual ADHD prevalence data globally does not show dramatic increases over that timeline (2011-2021). However, there is increased awareness, and so previously undiagnosed individuals, like you and I, are now getting diagnosed and their kids diagnosed. If the actual prevalence data from solid studies shows a prevalence of only ADHD at 10 percent in the US, which still very likely is underreported due to lack of access to many groups, why does it seem such a stretch that 38% are registered as with a disability? That does not mean that all 38% receive accommodations in all of their classes. It only means that 38% of the student body in the undergrad at Stanford is registered with a disability of any kind.
As with anything, there is likely some abuse of the system, just as we see that people abuse systems of other kinds. But to imply that a large number of this population is falsely receiving support, especially without actually delving into the hard data before publishing this opinion, is very disappointing.
Thank you for engaging. You are right that ADHD prevalence has been stable for a while. But I think that may actually reinforce the point. If prevalence is flat, why are Stanford's numbers growing and so much higher than MIT, drawing from a nearly identical applicant pool? Even using Stanford's own number of 24 percent actually receiving accommodations in fall quarter, that is still three times MIT. Community colleges serving students with far fewer resources report 3 to 5 percent.
When the system stretches beyond genuine need, those who truly need accommodations face diluted support and undeserved skepticism. Many students clearly need these services, but the gaps across schools with overlapping students point to very different standards and incentives, not simply different disability rates. I think that is the question worth examining. These students had near-perfect GPAs and test scores to get into Stanford, so for many of them, accommodations are not bridging a gap to access. They may be the difference between an A- and an A, and that pursuit of perfection is not what these systems were built for. In fact, that pressure for perfection can be a source of anxiety, burnout, and fragility on its own.
I also have two kids in college and have heard plenty of stories about what students will do to secure better dorms and other advantages. The incentives are known, real and those who are honest sometimes lose out.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I think most people want the same thing, a system that works for the students who truly need it.
Thank you for your response. I agree with your last paragraph. However, I think that the conclusions you drew and wrote about were based on insufficient analysis of incomplete data. I often find your analysis broader and so was disappointed by this piece. Here is a link to a smaller study that looks at possible reasons why there are such discrepancies by looking at disclosure of disability by students, and digging into more details. I hope that it helps reframe the issue so that you consider other perspectives you may not have to date.
The reason for the rise in mental health problems is the adoption of bigger, heavier student backpacks since the mid-90's when schools closed school lockers out of fear of drugs and guns on campus. In 2000, we noticed kids entering our swim camps had less chest expansion than before. As we released the scar tissue (microfibers) restricting their chests, they recalled carrying a heavy school backpack as the cause. When we followed up with their parents, they reported their kids improved their swim times up to 18% and their school grades up to a full letter grade. This reminded us of a study by two psychologists of 10 of our runners with the Adjective Check List before and after we doubled their chest expansion. They found unprecedented improvements in positive feelings and equally large drops in negative feelings. Graphs can be seen at http://www.somaxsports.com/breathing.php An entire generation has been crippled mentally and emotionally by these backpacks. Many of the problems attributed to social media are really the result of low brain oxygen.
Great quote, "Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child." Life experiences are what give us growth and understanding. Without taking chances, risks or failure, we cannot enjoy the prizes and wonders of living.
While I agree with you that excellence does not come from prebuilt excuses, I am surprised that in your article, you are pointing to the meal plan at Stanford. Have you cross-referenced and confirmed the student's claim that other students use the Jain religious exemption to avoid having to pay $7944? How many students actually make these claims? This junior student's article is rife with innuendos and hearsay. While my child is attending a different university, this Standford's students' claim sounds poorly researched and hence not really a worthy example of leadership shortcomings. May I also point out that that meal plan is very expensive, and that it is possible to eat healthy and for less when getting groceries at Whole Foods.
Thank you, Gabriella. The religious exemption example was a small part of a much broader article about accommodation standards and incentives across institutions.
That said, the student essay was published in The Times and described what she observed firsthand on campus. I also have two kids in college right now and have heard very similar stories about students finding creative ways to game systems for better dorms, meal plans, and other advantages. These are not isolated anecdotes.
You are right that the meal plan is expensive and that grocery shopping can be more affordable. But the concern is not the economics of meal plans. It is that claiming a religious identity you do not hold in order to redirect funds is dishonest, and when that behavior becomes normalized at institutions of higher education, it sends a troubling message about what we are teaching alongside the coursework. If the meal plan is genuinely too expensive, that is a legitimate issue that should be addressed directly, not through a false religious claim.
“Strong steel is forged in the hottest fire.” I remember how hard it was to stop myself from stepping in whenever my kids were facing adversity. One of our running jokes was when they’d ask me how to spell something—I’d just say, “D‑I‑C‑T‑I‑O‑N‑A‑R‑Y!”
Great piece, Robert. I wonder if the break down in community hastened by (if not caused by) social media is at the heart of this trend. Families, in their growing isolation, have a mindset of “my child against the world” instead of “my child with the world.” I would love your thoughts on the deeper origins of this trend.
Jack, lots of reasons. I think a greater cause is the push for perfectionism and the belief that anything less than perfect is a problem
I think you would appreciate the poem “do not ask your children to strive” by William Martin. It captures your idea beautifully, poetically ☺️
I’ve been thinking about this article and want to offer a different perspective. I was reading in Forbes that nearly 50% of Gen Z identify as neurodivergent. Because of social media, there is a growing awareness around autism, ADHD and other neurotypes that just didn’t exist when I was in school.
As someone who was diagnosed with adhd in my mid 30s, I often think about how much I could have benefited from accommodations in my school years. Instead, I was chronically burnt out, full of anxiety and fighting against a system that wasn’t meant for my brain. I took an extra year to finish my degree as I could never take a full course load. I was physically ill with stress for 5 years (03-08), just suffering my way through for an A- average.
Now as a parent to a neurodiverse kid who’s having a really hard time with school, there is a fine balance between pushing him and forcing him into a state of chronic dysregulation. He’s only 7, so the stakes aren’t even high yet. He’s extremely bright, but he’s told me that he’s chronically stressed and overwhelmed at school because of the environment. I can imagine for him to succeed in life, he shouldn’t have to choose between being accommodated and his mental health. I think my generation was told to suck it up and suffer and the new generations are unwilling to.
I’m just wondering if instead of looking at Stanford as ableist, maybe they’re actually more progressive than other universities. How can you be so sure that the 40% isn’t in need of an accommodation? I’d be curious to see more research around this. Some food for thought!
Saira,
Thank you for sharing this, and I hear you. I was also undiagnosed ADHD and not tested until my 30s, so I know what it feels like to struggle in systems not built for how your brain works.
I agree that greater awareness is real and overdue. But if Stanford were simply more progressive, we would expect to see similar rates at peer institutions drawing from the same applicant pool. MIT reports about 8 percent. Community colleges report 4 to 5 percent. That is a massive gap that awareness alone cannot explain, and it points to very different standards and incentives, not just different disability rates.
Why that matters for parents is when the system stretches beyond genuine need, those who truly need accommodations face diluted support and undeserved skepticism. Your son should never have to justify his needs because others are asking for things that are not truly needed to thrive, versus achieve perfection.
I explored this in much more depth on the podcast episode that accompanied this piece, and I think you would find it more nuanced than the short format allows: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/weekend-conversations-are-40-of-stanford-students/id1454045560?i=1000749729690
Appreciate the thoughtful pushback.
There is actually more research on this. It just wasn’t included in this opinion piece with misleading numbers in the first paragraph. The article this links to in reference to “almost 40 percent” requesting accommodations at Stanford also indicates that 21% at Harvard receive accommodations, whereas US undergraduates in 2011-2012 showed 11% receiving accommodations.
The actual ADHD prevalence data globally does not show dramatic increases over that timeline (2011-2021). However, there is increased awareness, and so previously undiagnosed individuals, like you and I, are now getting diagnosed and their kids diagnosed. If the actual prevalence data from solid studies shows a prevalence of only ADHD at 10 percent in the US, which still very likely is underreported due to lack of access to many groups, why does it seem such a stretch that 38% are registered as with a disability? That does not mean that all 38% receive accommodations in all of their classes. It only means that 38% of the student body in the undergrad at Stanford is registered with a disability of any kind.
As with anything, there is likely some abuse of the system, just as we see that people abuse systems of other kinds. But to imply that a large number of this population is falsely receiving support, especially without actually delving into the hard data before publishing this opinion, is very disappointing.
Katherine,
Thank you for engaging. You are right that ADHD prevalence has been stable for a while. But I think that may actually reinforce the point. If prevalence is flat, why are Stanford's numbers growing and so much higher than MIT, drawing from a nearly identical applicant pool? Even using Stanford's own number of 24 percent actually receiving accommodations in fall quarter, that is still three times MIT. Community colleges serving students with far fewer resources report 3 to 5 percent.
When the system stretches beyond genuine need, those who truly need accommodations face diluted support and undeserved skepticism. Many students clearly need these services, but the gaps across schools with overlapping students point to very different standards and incentives, not simply different disability rates. I think that is the question worth examining. These students had near-perfect GPAs and test scores to get into Stanford, so for many of them, accommodations are not bridging a gap to access. They may be the difference between an A- and an A, and that pursuit of perfection is not what these systems were built for. In fact, that pressure for perfection can be a source of anxiety, burnout, and fragility on its own.
I also have two kids in college and have heard plenty of stories about what students will do to secure better dorms and other advantages. The incentives are known, real and those who are honest sometimes lose out.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I think most people want the same thing, a system that works for the students who truly need it.
Robert,
Thank you for your response. I agree with your last paragraph. However, I think that the conclusions you drew and wrote about were based on insufficient analysis of incomplete data. I often find your analysis broader and so was disappointed by this piece. Here is a link to a smaller study that looks at possible reasons why there are such discrepancies by looking at disclosure of disability by students, and digging into more details. I hope that it helps reframe the issue so that you consider other perspectives you may not have to date.
https://nationaldisabilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Student-Access-Report-2025-Accessible.pdf
Thanks
Katherine
The reason for the rise in mental health problems is the adoption of bigger, heavier student backpacks since the mid-90's when schools closed school lockers out of fear of drugs and guns on campus. In 2000, we noticed kids entering our swim camps had less chest expansion than before. As we released the scar tissue (microfibers) restricting their chests, they recalled carrying a heavy school backpack as the cause. When we followed up with their parents, they reported their kids improved their swim times up to 18% and their school grades up to a full letter grade. This reminded us of a study by two psychologists of 10 of our runners with the Adjective Check List before and after we doubled their chest expansion. They found unprecedented improvements in positive feelings and equally large drops in negative feelings. Graphs can be seen at http://www.somaxsports.com/breathing.php An entire generation has been crippled mentally and emotionally by these backpacks. Many of the problems attributed to social media are really the result of low brain oxygen.
Great quote, "Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child." Life experiences are what give us growth and understanding. Without taking chances, risks or failure, we cannot enjoy the prizes and wonders of living.
While I agree with you that excellence does not come from prebuilt excuses, I am surprised that in your article, you are pointing to the meal plan at Stanford. Have you cross-referenced and confirmed the student's claim that other students use the Jain religious exemption to avoid having to pay $7944? How many students actually make these claims? This junior student's article is rife with innuendos and hearsay. While my child is attending a different university, this Standford's students' claim sounds poorly researched and hence not really a worthy example of leadership shortcomings. May I also point out that that meal plan is very expensive, and that it is possible to eat healthy and for less when getting groceries at Whole Foods.
Thank you, Gabriella. The religious exemption example was a small part of a much broader article about accommodation standards and incentives across institutions.
That said, the student essay was published in The Times and described what she observed firsthand on campus. I also have two kids in college right now and have heard very similar stories about students finding creative ways to game systems for better dorms, meal plans, and other advantages. These are not isolated anecdotes.
You are right that the meal plan is expensive and that grocery shopping can be more affordable. But the concern is not the economics of meal plans. It is that claiming a religious identity you do not hold in order to redirect funds is dishonest, and when that behavior becomes normalized at institutions of higher education, it sends a troubling message about what we are teaching alongside the coursework. If the meal plan is genuinely too expensive, that is a legitimate issue that should be addressed directly, not through a false religious claim.