Neurodiversity In Higher Education
Colleges commonly consider race, gender, and ethnicity in considering their applicants, and for good reason. Many studies, including ones done by McKinsey, have documented the significant performance-enhancing properties of diversity, from non-linear/creative thinking to more intelligent design. And because colleges see diverse backgrounds and experiences as invaluable for the developmental experiences of their students, they will make it a priority to ensure that each and every class of theirs is diverse. This can be seen through evidence from the recent Harvard lawsuit, where Asian American students sued Harvard because of an apparent gap in SAT scores, among other things, between Asian Americans and White, African-Americans, and Latinos. However, I am not here to address the lawsuit.
However, a major remaining problem lies in how elite universities value other types of diversity and perspectives — notably neurodiversity. Although an admissions officer would never be caught dead saying it on the record, as someone who has attended a few off-the-record admissions talks with a good amount of elite universities, all of them, when inquired, stated that although their school has accommodations for people with Autism, ADHD, anxiety, etc. that they don't accept these as an excuse for a subpar SAT score or grades. Unlike African Americans and Latinos, whose diverse backgrounds and experiences are valued by the universities, Neurodivergent applicants don't appear to receive nearly the same level of consideration for their unique challenges, life experiences, and way of thinking.
This is especially insulting to this population in light of the fact that assessments, often grades and standardized tests, are inadequate and poorly designed to measure the “intelligence” of neurodiverse people, seemingly due to the fact that they were designed to measure neurotypical patterns of thinking and behavior. This can best be seen in how schools and institutes of higher education attempt to solve the problem of fitting neurodivergent people into their neurotypical paradigm: e.g., giving students extra time for assessments or projects. Autism, ADHD, anxiety, and more all can qualify you for extra time for in-school exams, as well as standardized tests. For The College Board, which administers Advanced Placement exams as well as the SAT, to qualify for this extra time, a student's “disability” must demonstrate a “functional limitation.” Considering the fact that many neurodivergent individuals literally function differently, the stretching of the time dimensions in the administration of these exams is, at worst insulting and, at best, not enough. This is apt to a children's shape-fit game, where instead of making a new hole for the new shape, you just make an existing hole bigger to “accommodate” it. Sure, it may do the job, but in the process, you lose the entire point of the game. A big square hole might fit a star-shaped peg, but that doesn't change the fact that these shapes are inherently incompatible.
And although the very racist origins of standardized tests like the SAT have served as fodder for the fight against it in higher education, its complete inability to asses neurodivergent applicants is often ignored by those in higher education, further underscoring that the strife of the neuroatypical is seen as intrinsic to them, while the strife of other diverse and discriminate against people is seen as a systemic, extrinsic failure of the system. However, although the differentiating feature of the neurodivergent lies inside them, the societal systems that fail to accommodate them are also very much external.
That is all to say that the barriers neurodivergent individuals face in a world designed for the neurotypical are immense and remain unsolved. And yet, despite being measured in a fundamentally incompatible way, they are held to the “same” standards (standards that are harder to achieve for the neurodivergent) as the neurotypical.
Unlike minority demographics and the lived experiences of marginalized, excluded, disadvantaged, and discrimination against them, the unique background, experiences, and way of thinking of neurodivergent individuals are seemingly not similarly valued by the admissions committees of the institutes of higher education
