BUT-- I'd argue (having been in higher ed) that the huge failing of our system of accommodations for special needs is that the world doesn't always continue to offer those accommodations, nor is it obliged to do so. The working world is task-oriented and highly cost- and time-sensitive, so it can't always offer needed accommodations. I'm torn about whether it is a good idea to offer them unilaterally in a collegiate setting for that reason-- it's not that I don't think them necessary. Far from it. It's that it seems to set some students up for later failure by not developing realistic expectations or individual coping methods. Academia is really bad at addressing that issue, preferring to tiptoe around it instead.


A surgeon or air-traffic controller who needs "extra time" for tasks probably shouldn't be in those fields, YK? On the other hand, a writer or researcher who is willing to work 25% more hours (on salary) in order to provide him/herself with that additional time should be allowed to do that, no questions asked. It's really hard to know what things can be worked around with individual mitigation, but that is often what it comes down to in the end, once a student ends up entering the working world. I may not LIKE the fact that my child is forever barred from military service-- and the lifelong benefits that those who serve are entitled to-- but I understand that she isn't suited for it from THEIR perspective.

I'd say that the disparity also points up a huge failing in BOTH systems (ours and the completely meritocratic, high-performance oriented one)-- that is that there really ought to be a pathway that doesn't seem to exist anywhere currently-- one in which the challenges faced by those with special needs, particular challenges with classroom/book learning, so to speak; well, maybe the answer is to provide a pathway that DOES match their strengths, rather than just "leveling" what doesn't by effectively lowering the performance bar or forcing them to go through 10X as much effort to accomplish an impossible task via bizarre work-arounds. This always just seemed downright PAINFUL to me as a faculty member and student adviser; it was effectively pounding square pegs into round holes, and it was just absurd, on some level to me-- I desperately wished that I had some better advice for those students. They worked unbelievably hard (even with accommodations) and their classmates still thought that they weren't doing the same work (and in some cases, they weren't). I have no idea what happened to them once they left college, but I can't think that employers were going to go to the same lengths to accommodate task completion... which means that college had failed them on some level by not preparing them for adult life.



It's not that I don't think that such people have a lot of high potential-- not at all-- just that maybe university education isn't a great way of tapping into that potential to start with. One of the most unique, bright students I ever encountered was one of them, in fact, and it broke my heart to watch that student struggle to be a "mediocre" major... while I could see full well that without the limitations imposed by the environment (and the field as it exists), he would have been much better off.

So that's my perspective. If I had one scholarship to offer, I'd give it to the high-achiever rather than the high-potential student mentioned... but the reason isn't because I don't value the high-potential student with challenges. It's about educational benefit and which of them is more suited to the environment. The high-achievers have demonstrated that they can get a lot out of the setting (well-- okay, this USED TO BE the case, not sure what an ability to take multiple choice tests indicates... ) and those who aren't high-achieving have demonstrated lower probability in that regard. Societally, that's just the way that it goes, pretty much.

Those who aren't well-suited to higher education, though, they need another path to full potential. A secondary education certainly doesn't get most people there-- much less those with truly high potential. As far as I can tell, NO culture has done very well in this regard; some consider them unworthy, some consider them slackers, and nobody really stops to consider what they CAN do-- only what they cannot.


I'm not even sure what the "something else" needs to look like. It probably needs to look like a lot of things, and mostly like life-experience-based credentialing-- but the REAL kind, not the diploma-mill kind. Maybe like the Guild system used to look; respect for experiential learning as much as for BOOK learning.


Mk13, I think that your point really needs highlighting. It's critical; when you look at the numbers, this is between 1-8% of adolescents we're talking about.


Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.