Over 280 University of California STEM faculty members have signed an open letter calling on the UC Board of Regents to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly is a remedial math class in college? What topics are covered and what format are those classes taught?

Algebra and Geometry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

Courtesy of ChatGPT: Yes, 12.5% of students receiving academic accommodations at Stanford is quite plausible, and it doesn't necessarily conflict with the observation that students with IEPs and 504 plans, on average, perform less well academically than their peers.

A few reasons:

1. "Students with accommodations" is not the same as "students with severe academic impairment"

The K–12 accommodation population is very heterogeneous.

An IEP can cover:

* Dyslexia
* ADHD
* Autism
* Hearing or visual impairments
* Chronic health conditions
* Mobility impairments
* Speech/language disorders
* Emotional disabilities

Many of these conditions have little to no impact on intellectual ability. Some are actually overrepresented among very high-IQ individuals.

For example, there is substantial overlap between:

* ADHD and high intelligence
* Autism spectrum conditions and exceptional quantitative ability
* Dyslexia and high verbal reasoning or creativity

A student can be in the top 1% academically while still qualifying for accommodations.

2. Selection effects are enormous at Stanford

Suppose 10% of the general population has a condition that qualifies for accommodations.

The relevant question isn't:

> What fraction of accommodated students go to Stanford?

It's:

> Among exceptionally talented students, what fraction happen to have disabilities?

Many disabilities are largely independent of intelligence.

For example:

* ADHD prevalence is roughly similar across the IQ distribution.
* Dyslexia occurs across the IQ distribution.
* Physical disabilities occur across the IQ distribution.

If a condition is independent of cognitive ability, you'd expect roughly similar rates among highly selective university populations.

3. Accommodations may increase, rather than decrease, access to elite schools

A student with untreated ADHD might underperform.

A student with diagnosed ADHD who receives:

* extra time,
* medication,
* executive-function support,

may perform much closer to their underlying ability.

In other words, accommodations can reduce the academic penalty associated with the disability.

4. Stanford's accommodation population is probably not the same mix as K–12's

This is important.

In K–12, special education includes many students with:

* intellectual disability,
* severe developmental disabilities,
* substantial learning impairments.

Those students are rarely represented at Stanford.

The Stanford accommodation population is likely concentrated in conditions such as:

* ADHD
* Dyslexia
* Autism without intellectual impairment
* Chronic medical conditions
* Mental health conditions
* Sensory or physical disabilities

Those groups have much higher probabilities of reaching elite academic levels.

5. There is evidence that disability rates can actually be high at elite universities

Elite colleges often report accommodation rates around 10–20%, much higher than people intuitively expect.

Several factors contribute:

* Better access to diagnosis among affluent students.
* Greater willingness to seek accommodations.
* Increased recognition of ADHD and learning disabilities.
* Students who were previously undiagnosed obtaining documentation in college.
* Mental-health-related accommodations.

[Anonymous]

If the UC's are forced to backtrack on abandoning its equity-based SAT test blind policy, you will see an increase in the amount of disabled students, not a decrease.

Berkeley in particular has seen a massive increase in the number of disabled students over the past year.

In 2021, there were 3,822 requests for test accommodations like extra time.
It has grown as follows:
2022: 7824
2023: 10722
2024L 14103

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say standardized tests are racist or unfair: think about the message this sends to students who spend years studying, improving their reading and math skills, and putting real effort into learning. When you tell them their success is only because they are privileged or wealthy, what does that do psychologically? It tells them their hard work does not truly matter or deserve recognition. How is that fair to students who genuinely worked to improve themselves?

On the other hand, for those who avoid effort and hide behind excuses or distractions in the name of whatever BS reasons to avoid studying, think about what is lost over time. You lose valuable years that could have been spent learning skills, building discipline, and becoming independent. Instead, you risk becoming someone who constantly depends on others for help, support, or remediation.

Is this what we really want our society to turn into?

I got a great score on the sat and worked damned hard, but this is mostly bs. You aren’t sending much of a message at all. No- your 1550 SAT doesn’t mean much. You live in a globalized society, and, to be frank, your intelligence is probably dogshit compared to peers in Europe and Asia. If the pinnacle of your hard work is an sat score, you’re not very smart.

Intelligence in your example is overrated. I was from Japan. People are worked to death. Eventually young people withdrawal from that stupid rat race. You are thinking too much about intelligence. Intelligence is only valuable if it contributes to the society in a positive way.

Then why do we keep on getting our best graduate students from other countries? Americas science contribution is only so strong because we essentially import people into Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton for graduate school.

Our institutions have more money for research than other countries. Unfortunately, Trump's policies have weakened our institutions, and we will feel that for years to come. Other countries have been courting the best and brightest away from the US.

We shouldn't be taking in international students in the first place. Make American institutions American.

There aren't enough American STEM PhD candidates. Even Trump said the "US lacks enough" talented people.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who said, "We have plenty of talented people here," Trump responded: “No, you don’t have — you don’t have certain talents. And you have to — people have to learn.”

[Anonymous]

CA resident checking in. We now see UCs as outstanding graduate schools, not great college experiences. Not only has the peer group changed significantly, these schools are massively overcrowded (triples, quads in former double rooms) and there's so much competition for every single resource.

For those who can afford it, they are going to medium size private schools (IvyPlus & New Ivy for top of the class, and more attainable schools like Loyola Marymount/USC/BU or easier LACs for the rest).

[Anonymous]

It's not the lack of a test, it's the lack pf preparation even for kids who took the test and did well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

+1 also needing accommodations is unrelated to intellect and IQ at the college level. It's a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:280 is a really paltry number for the size of UC. This is simply rage bait for anti CA MAGAs.

1. UCs require placement tests, so the unprepared students aren’t walking into Calculas.
2. UCs focus on conceptual math and don’t allow calculators which is the exact opposite of what is happening in high school. You can get a 750+ on the math SAT, a 5 on AP Calculus, score high enough to place into Calculus and still struggle. This is great and I’m glad they do it this way.
3. Some UCs have math professors and TAs with such strong accents that no one outside their region can understand them.
4. Math courses are weeder courses for STEM and economics. You have top students and cheaters at the top but then #2 /#3 drop too many to the bottom. The school wants a bell curve for distribution but they have a K.

The reality in CA is that there isn’t a bell curve if your class is representative of the geography, race and socioeconomic groups in CA. UCs could reinstate the SAT but that doesn’t mean that they would scrap the geographic and socioeconomic goals. Using the SAT would not reopen seats for high performing Asians and Whites.

Ultimately what needs to happen is there needs to be better math instruction in public schools AND the top students in poor schools need to be separated into honors classes that are not filled with unmotivated students. CA has taken away tracking at many poor schools so the brightest kids are stuck with loser kids who constantly disrupt the class. So who supports detracking and does not believe the top Latino and Black students should be grouped into high performing math classes- yup you guessed it UCSD's School of Education.

UCSD runs a charter middle and high school of 850 students that is on UCSD's campus where 93% of students qualify for Free/Reduced Price Lunch, with Hispanic students making up 57% and African American 22%. There are NO honors math classes at the school. They do NOT even offer AP Calculus (not even AB) only non-honors Calculus. They don't offer true honors English since the ONLY 9th and 10th grade English classes are called Advanced English.

So how does UCSD do teaching this population. Well only 33% of AP exams taken at the school received a score of 3 or higher. Only 13% exceeded math standards in 8th grade and 25% in 12th grade. These students are mixed in the same class as the 65% of students who received scores of not passing (received scores of not met or nearly met) in 8th grade and the 50% who didn't pass in 11th grade. How are smart poor kids supposed to thrive in this environment?

Maybe UCSD should be looking at the high school that is on their campus and realize this model for teaching math doesn't work. How are they not mortified at what is going on?

And how does this compare to the affluent high school by UCSD called La Jolla High School that is 7 miles away? Of course they track students into regular and advanced math. They also offer dual enrollment community college math classes at the high school - MESA COLLEGE MATH 150 CALCULUS WITH ANALYTIC GEOMETY I (Fall) Grades 11-12, MESA COLLEGE MATH 151 CALCULUS WITH ANALYTIC GEOMETY II (Spring) Grades 11-12, MESA COLLEGE MATH 254 (INTRO TO LINEAR ALGEBRA) (Fall)Grades 11-12, and MESA COLLEGE MATH 245 (DISCRETE MATH) (Spring) Grades 11-12. You get a completely different education if you are a top student here.

The other point is how lazy UCSD is about actually teaching the remedial class once they get admitted. Student who are in that class are often the ones who attend horrifically bad high schools in the poorest areas of the state. They never got quality instruction in math. (There was an article about a student who was enrolled in AP Calculus at Lincoln High in San Diego and because they couldn't get enough students to take the class the school dropped the calculus class two weeks before the end of the first semester. The school then enrolled all the students who were in the class into Ceramics. This seems like a crazy story but it is true! This is what the poorest students often face trying to take math.) UCSD instead of actually having a person directly teaching the class they sit the students in front of computers on a curriculum called Aleks and students have to complete work all online. If they have question they can ask the TA proctoring the class but no one is actually teaching the students. And like the post above says, many students really can't understand some TA's due to really strong accents.

UC's could make everyone take a placement exam in April /May and then tell anyone majoring STEM who doesn't pass they need to take a community college class or take an intensive math class over the summer at the UC.

La Jolla high school is a majority white school. Compare apples to apples.

So the white students get rigorous classes while the brown kids get access only to remedial classes? How is this fair? If you want to hold all students to the same standard then they all need the same opportunities to advance. In too many poor schools, bright students are not grouped together in honors classes. They are constantly being held back by disruptive students.

UCSD doesn’t control La Jolla High?

Of course it doesn’t! Why would a UC school
Have any control over local public elementary schools?

this comment doesn't make any sense.

The PP said “UCSD doesn’t control La Jolla high?” Of course it doesn’t

You're really struggling with reading. it's because the PP's comment didn't make sense. Why are they talking about fairness of classes when La Jolla is an independent high school (why did you say public elementary school?) and has nothing to do with UCSD's charter public high school.

La Jolla High school is a public high school that is part of San Diego Unified School District. The closest high school is Preuss Charter School on the campus of UCSD. It is the height of hypocrisy for any STEM faculty at UCSD to be appalled at the math placement exams when the public high school on UCSD's campus has awful math test scores. They offer ZERO honors math classes and don't even offer AP Calculus. They need to take a walk and see what is being offered to high school kids on the UCSD campus.

People are clamoring for students to be treated the same and for UC's to go back to using SAT's. If high performing high school students in ALL high schools had the same opportunities that would make sense. The problem is they do NOT. For some crazy reason University Schools of Education push for detracking at poor schools. Affluent public school parents push back and insist there be tracking so their kids are challenged. San Diego Unified Math Department declared middle schools and high schools couldn't track, which goes along with what they publish under what students will learn in high school math classes, which the number one thing they list is "Building a Community of Math Learners". Yet somehow La Jolla High and its feeder schools were allowed to keep tracking and offering honors math classes.

For better or worse the juvenile incarceration rate in CA has fallen 75% between 2000 and 2023. Where do you think those kids who used to go to juvenile hall and juvenile camps are? They are attending poor schools and wreaking havoc. It used to be in these poor schools the academically advanced kids were able to be sheltered in honors classes, but now there is this tragic push that the top students shouldn't be isolated from the lowest performing students. They took honors classes away so those poor, brilliant kids are sitting in regular English and math classes with students who are far below grade level and kids who wouldn't have been in a regular public high school 20 years ago because they were too disruptive.

It is ridiculous that 40 years ago Jaime Escalante at Garfield High in LA (Stand and Deliver) showed that if you provide rigorous curriculum to poor students and give them opportunity to learn, they can excel, yet the model today is to lower expectations for poor students. In 1987 there were 73 students at that poor, primarily Latino High school that passed AP Calculus. Escalante ended up leaving Garfield High due to a large part that a new principal and administration didn't think was right all the emphasis was going toward the top students and not toward remedial students.

This is not necessarily true and runs into strange narratives that we MUST imprison black and brown kids. Maybe you believe that, but it's a gross insinuation. Also who are these poor brilliant kids? According to you, most are intellectually defunct and can't do algebra.

Are you aware that Escalante's students cheated? You also mostly invented why he left. He isolated himself from the rest of the school and then cried wolf that no one supported him, all while his students were cheating on exams, since there was a national spotlight on their progress. You're mostly spewing boring propaganda and making it sound revolutionary.

You aren't making any sense. Whatever happens to juvenile delinquents it is wrong to place them in classes with the poor bright students who are academically motivated. This is what is happening in many poor schools today because so many administrators and University Education departments champion mixed ability math classes. It is really insulting and ignorant to not understand how many really smart poor kids there are. There are so many who could be academically so much higher if given the opportunity to get ahead. There is nothing in my post that says they are intellectually defunct, they are the exact opposite.

And Escalante's students retook the Calculus exam while being proctored by College Board officials and passed. He had amazing success and did the other Calculus teacher at Garfield. Once a new administration came in they lost support. Escalante left then two years later the other amazing Calculus teacher left. They had between them around 120 students taking AP Calculus.

It is tragic what is happening to academically motivated students in many poor schools in CA.

Why did you write an entire paragraph just to say "imprison black kids." It's a lot easier to make the message short and clear. There's not that many elite-level poor children in the US. That's just a statistical fact.

Escalante had multiple students who id not accept taking the retest and admitted to cheating on their AP exam.

2 of escalante's students did not retake the test. 16 of them did and passed on the second go around as well with most getting 4s and 5s.

9 likely cheated.

Not on the second test, which they passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not the lack of a test, it's the lack pf preparation even for
kids who took the test and did well.

+1 my guess is there is a lack of mastering of the content and just memorizing and cramming the information to get a high SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

+1 also needing accommodations is unrelated to intellect and IQ at the college level. It's a non-issue.

Berkeley number getting extra time to take a test (which even with my pea sized brain I know affords one a massive advantage)

2021:3822
2022: 7824
2023: 10722
2024L 14103

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

Courtesy of ChatGPT: Yes, 12.5% of students receiving academic accommodations at Stanford is quite plausible, and it doesn't necessarily conflict with the observation that students with IEPs and 504 plans, on average, perform less well academically than their peers.

A few reasons:

1. "Students with accommodations" is not the same as "students with severe academic impairment"

The K–12 accommodation population is very heterogeneous.

An IEP can cover:

* Dyslexia
* ADHD
* Autism
* Hearing or visual impairments
* Chronic health conditions
* Mobility impairments
* Speech/language disorders
* Emotional disabilities

Many of these conditions have little to no impact on intellectual ability. Some are actually overrepresented among very high-IQ individuals.

For example, there is substantial overlap between:

* ADHD and high intelligence
* Autism spectrum conditions and exceptional quantitative ability
* Dyslexia and high verbal reasoning or creativity

A student can be in the top 1% academically while still qualifying for accommodations.

2. Selection effects are enormous at Stanford

Suppose 10% of the general population has a condition that qualifies for accommodations.

The relevant question isn't:

> What fraction of accommodated students go to Stanford?

It's:

> Among exceptionally talented students, what fraction happen to have disabilities?

Many disabilities are largely independent of intelligence.

For example:

* ADHD prevalence is roughly similar across the IQ distribution.
* Dyslexia occurs across the IQ distribution.
* Physical disabilities occur across the IQ distribution.

If a condition is independent of cognitive ability, you'd expect roughly similar rates among highly selective university populations.

3. Accommodations may increase, rather than decrease, access to elite schools

A student with untreated ADHD might underperform.

A student with diagnosed ADHD who receives:

* extra time,
* medication,
* executive-function support,

may perform much closer to their underlying ability.

In other words, accommodations can reduce the academic penalty associated with the disability.

4. Stanford's accommodation population is probably not the same mix as K–12's

This is important.

In K–12, special education includes many students with:

* intellectual disability,
* severe developmental disabilities,
* substantial learning impairments.

Those students are rarely represented at Stanford.

The Stanford accommodation population is likely concentrated in conditions such as:

* ADHD
* Dyslexia
* Autism without intellectual impairment
* Chronic medical conditions
* Mental health conditions
* Sensory or physical disabilities

Those groups have much higher probabilities of reaching elite academic levels.

5. There is evidence that disability rates can actually be high at elite universities

Elite colleges often report accommodation rates around 10–20%, much higher than people intuitively expect.

Several factors contribute:

* Better access to diagnosis among affluent students.
* Greater willingness to seek accommodations.
* Increased recognition of ADHD and learning disabilities.
* Students who were previously undiagnosed obtaining documentation in college.
* Mental-health-related accommodations.

They are the ones that made the reference to IEP and 504 to make the case that 12.5% isn't high for academic accommodations. \

12.5% is 1 in 8. That is exceedingly high

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

Courtesy of ChatGPT: Yes, 12.5% of students receiving academic accommodations at Stanford is quite plausible, and it doesn't necessarily conflict with the observation that students with IEPs and 504 plans, on average, perform less well academically than their peers.

A few reasons:

1. "Students with accommodations" is not the same as "students with severe academic impairment"

The K–12 accommodation population is very heterogeneous.

An IEP can cover:

* Dyslexia
* ADHD
* Autism
* Hearing or visual impairments
* Chronic health conditions
* Mobility impairments
* Speech/language disorders
* Emotional disabilities

Many of these conditions have little to no impact on intellectual ability. Some are actually overrepresented among very high-IQ individuals.

For example, there is substantial overlap between:

* ADHD and high intelligence
* Autism spectrum conditions and exceptional quantitative ability
* Dyslexia and high verbal reasoning or creativity

A student can be in the top 1% academically while still qualifying for accommodations.

2. Selection effects are enormous at Stanford

Suppose 10% of the general population has a condition that qualifies for accommodations.

The relevant question isn't:

> What fraction of accommodated students go to Stanford?

It's:

> Among exceptionally talented students, what fraction happen to have disabilities?

Many disabilities are largely independent of intelligence.

For example:

* ADHD prevalence is roughly similar across the IQ distribution.
* Dyslexia occurs across the IQ distribution.
* Physical disabilities occur across the IQ distribution.

If a condition is independent of cognitive ability, you'd expect roughly similar rates among highly selective university populations.

3. Accommodations may increase, rather than decrease, access to elite schools

A student with untreated ADHD might underperform.

A student with diagnosed ADHD who receives:

* extra time,
* medication,
* executive-function support,

may perform much closer to their underlying ability.

In other words, accommodations can reduce the academic penalty associated with the disability.

4. Stanford's accommodation population is probably not the same mix as K–12's

This is important.

In K–12, special education includes many students with:

* intellectual disability,
* severe developmental disabilities,
* substantial learning impairments.

Those students are rarely represented at Stanford.

The Stanford accommodation population is likely concentrated in conditions such as:

* ADHD
* Dyslexia
* Autism without intellectual impairment
* Chronic medical conditions
* Mental health conditions
* Sensory or physical disabilities

Those groups have much higher probabilities of reaching elite academic levels.

5. There is evidence that disability rates can actually be high at elite universities

Elite colleges often report accommodation rates around 10–20%, much higher than people intuitively expect.

Several factors contribute:

* Better access to diagnosis among affluent students.
* Greater willingness to seek accommodations.
* Increased recognition of ADHD and learning disabilities.
* Students who were previously undiagnosed obtaining documentation in college.
* Mental-health-related accommodations.

They are the ones that made the reference to IEP and 504 to make the case that 12.5% isn't high for academic accommodations. \

12.5% is 1 in 8. That is exceedingly high

Not following you. Who is “they”, and how is 12.5% receiving academic accommodations at Stanford “exceedingly high” when ~15% of K-12 students in the U.S. receive them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say standardized tests are racist or unfair: think about the message this sends to students who spend years studying, improving their reading and math skills, and putting real effort into learning. When you tell them their success is only because they are privileged or wealthy, what does that do psychologically? It tells them their hard work does not truly matter or deserve recognition. How is that fair to students who genuinely worked to improve themselves?

On the other hand, for those who avoid effort and hide behind excuses or distractions in the name of whatever BS reasons to avoid studying, think about what is lost over time. You lose valuable years that could have been spent learning skills, building discipline, and becoming independent. Instead, you risk becoming someone who constantly depends on others for help, support, or remediation.

Is this what we really want our society to turn into?

I got a great score on the sat and worked damned hard, but this is mostly bs. You aren’t sending much of a message at all. No- your 1550 SAT doesn’t mean much. You live in a globalized society, and, to be frank, your intelligence is probably dogshit compared to peers in Europe and Asia. If the pinnacle of your hard work is an sat score, you’re not very smart.

Intelligence in your example is overrated. I was from Japan. People are worked to death. Eventually young people withdrawal from that stupid rat race. You are thinking too much about intelligence. Intelligence is only valuable if it contributes to the society in a positive way.

Then why do we keep on getting our best graduate students from other countries? Americas science contribution is only so strong because we essentially import people into Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton for graduate school.

Our institutions have more money for research than other countries. Unfortunately, Trump's policies have weakened our institutions, and we will feel that for years to come. Other countries have been courting the best and brightest away from the US.

We shouldn't be taking in international students in the first place. Make American institutions American.

There's not enough homegrown talents. Your policy would be a pathway to making american research shitty. We have ALWAYS relied on brain drain

We should fix this? I don’t know. This isn’t a GOOD thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

I’d expect more disabled kids at smarter schools. Autistic people can be incredibly bright. Many top students with ADHD too. This also sounds bad but academia gives you a ton of boost in admissions if you’re physically disabled but smart. Disabled doesn’t mean you’re intellectually behind.

[Anonymous]

Back to the SAT. The materials to prep for the test are online and free. The expensive prep courses are no better than the free material. The UC recruiters on low performing campuses can run after school programs rather than just checking a box that yes so and so is the targeted demographic.

For equity, UC should not allow super-scoring and no more than two attempts. It’s really common among Asian Americans in our area to take it as many times as it takes to hit the highest score combination. Our public school only offered it once a year. Kids are flying around the state, staying in hotels and spending $$$ to get the highest superscore.