Dan J. Harkey

Master Educator | Business & Finance Consultant | Mentor

When Most Students Claim Disability: How It Affects Quality Education

Does the process become a systematic form of fraud, like many other subsets of the American Enterprise? There appears to be systemic fraud (conning the system) in almost every subgroup of the American Enterprise. How much fraud in the American enterprise is possible without toppling the entire system?

by Dan J. Harkey

Share This Article

Overview

Administering an exam used to be simple.  Today, at many American universities, logistics look more like air-traffic control: multiple testing centers, staggered start times, specialized proctors, and technology approvals.  The expansion of disability accommodations—especially extended time and “reduced-distraction” rooms—has transformed assessment, scheduling, and, more broadly, the meaning of fairness in higher education.

This article examines how we arrived here, why the trend is concentrated at elite institutions, what it’s doing to teaching and learning, and how universities can re-center equity without abandoning students who genuinely need support.

From Ramps and Braille to Extra Time and Quiet Rooms

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 promised “reasonable accommodations” so that individuals with significant impairments could participate fully in public life, including higher education.  Over time, case Law initially narrowed who qualified.  Still, Congress reversed course with the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008, instructing agencies and courts to construe disability broadly and expanding the list of major life activities to include “learning, reading, concentrating, [and] thinking.” This shift made it easier to qualify for protections and pushed universities to support cognitive and psychological conditions alongside physical ones.

Postsecondary institutions, responding to ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, built disability offices, codified testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, assistive tech), and adopted documentation practices.  The ADA National Network’s research briefs capture the arc: from basic civil-rights compliance to universal design and robust campus services intended to equalize access. 

The New Landscape: Capacity, Complexity, and Concentration at Elites

On the ground, exam administration has become a logistical challenge that calls for collaborative solutions.  Recognizing this can inspire confidence in the audience’s ability to improve systems and address fairness concerns effectively.

The accommodation surge is most pronounced at prestigious institutions.  Recent reporting summarizes eyebrow-raising percentages: more than 20% of undergraduates registered as disabled at Harvard and Brown, and approximately 34% at Amherst, with many receiving testing-related accommodations.  Several campuses report that disability registrations have tripled or quintupled over roughly a decade.  While replication and independent verification are warranted, multiple outlets echo the same pattern identified in The Atlantic’s primary reporting. 

The phenomenon is not limited to one campus.  Faculty at the University of Chicago describe “low distraction” testing centers as so busy that they can feel more distracting than primary classrooms.  That quip captures a paradox: accommodations designed to isolate and quiet have scaled to the point of altering campus operations and, sometimes, eroding their own intent. 

Why the Spike?  Diagnosis, Culture, and Policy

Three forces appear to drive the expansion:

·       Broader Legal Eligibility
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) directive to interpret disability broadly, including mental health conditions like anxiety and Depression, has expanded eligibility.  Acknowledging this can help the audience feel responsible for shaping equitable university support systems.

·       Institutional Practices
Guidance from higher-ed associations encouraged schools to emphasize functional Impact over onerous diagnostic proof, and many disability offices simplified paperwork—often accepting medical notes that describe limitations and recommended adjustments.  (Surveys over the past decade have found many institutions require relatively modest documentation to grant accommodation.)

·       Mental-Health Epidemiology and Awareness
College mental-health indicators rose throughout the 2010s and early 2020s, with large percentages of students screening positive for anxiety or Depression—conditions that plausibly impair academic performance and prompt accommodation requests.  While some metrics have moderated since the pandemic peak, the overall burden remains high.

The Equity Paradox: Access vs. Advantage

Accommodation is, in principle, corrective lenses—they should neutralize barriers and uphold fairness, not confer unwarranted advantage.  This focus can help the audience feel responsible for equitable policies.

  • Diagnostic Access Is Uneven.  Evaluations for ADHD or learning differences can be costly and time-consuming.  Families with resources secure thorough assessments and polished documentation, while low-income students struggle to access specialists, even when their needs are real.  This can skew accommodation uptake toward wealthier students at selective colleges.
  • Operational Capacity Creates Waitlists.  When testing centers fill up, faculty must reschedule or improvise.  Students who navigate systems early (or who are coached to do so) benefit; those who request late—often the less resourced—find limited slots or suboptimal timing.
  • Assessment Integrity Can Blur.  The more exam conditions fragment—with different start times, rooms, and permissible tech—the more opportunities arise for information leakage or inconsistent proctoring.  Even with vigilant protocols in place, fragmentation raises legitimate fairness concerns among students tested under standard conditions.
  • Accommodation Creep, as accommodations scale, can unintentionally redefine assessment norms rather than simply compensating for barriers.  When many students have extended time, faculty may feel pressured to redesign assessments, which could inadvertently advantage students without documented disabilities and raise fairness concerns among students tested under standard conditions.

Does Extra Time Improve Learning—or Just Scores?

Research on ADHD and accommodations raises questions about their actual Impact on learning.  Clarifying whether extended time and quiet rooms improve grades or executive functioning can help readers understand the effectiveness of current policies and their fairness.

Meanwhile, mental-health surveys show that academic Impact from psychological distress is widespread—far beyond those formally registered with disability services.  That raises a policy question: should universities pivot more toward universal design and scalable support (study skills, sleep hygiene, time management, flexible pedagogy) that benefit many, rather than channeling relief primarily through formal disability pathways?

What Happens When “Most” Students Claim Disability?

If most students at a given institution were formally accommodated, several system-level consequences would follow:

·       Assessment Logistics Would Dominate Academic Calendars.  Testing centers and proctor labor would become core operational constraints—like classroom capacity or housing.  Institutions would need industrial-scale scheduling, potentially moving away from synchronized exams entirely.

·       Standards Would Shift from Time-Bound to Mastery-Based. If extended time becomes quasi-universal, the meaning of “timed exams” erodes.  Programs may migrate to open-book, project-based, or oral defenses—each with its own rigor and integrity challenges, but with less reliance on clock limits.

·       Fairness Would Be Redefined—For Better and Worse.  Some inequities would shrink (e.g., students with genuine processing-speed or anxiety barriers would face fewer stakes around timing), but others might grow (e.g., students without documentation who nonetheless struggle; or students disadvantaged by fragmented logistics and proctoring).  The perception of merit might suffer if peers associate accommodation with privilege rather than need. 

·       Costs Would Rise.  More staff, space, and technology—plus training and compliance oversight—would expand budgets.  Public institutions under fiscal pressure might ration accommodation administratively, risking legal exposure; private institutions might absorb costs but face reputational debates about standards.

A Way Forward: Tighten Process, Broaden Support, Preserve Rigor

The solution is neither cynically dismissing accommodations nor uncritically expanding them.  Universities can adopt a both/and strategy:

1) Clarify and Calibrate Documentation

  • Align campus policies with ADAAA’s broad coverage while requiring functional Impact evidence relevant to the specific academic tasks (e.g., timed calculations, dense reading under time pressure).  Pair clinician notes with structured functional assessments conducted or reviewed by campus specialists. 
  • Standardize renewal intervals and periodic re-evaluation for conditions whose academic Impact can change with treatment or skill development. 

2) Expand Universal Design and Scalable Supports

  • Invest in learning centers that teach time management, metacognition, and test-taking strategies; integrate sleep and stress interventions backed by campus mental-health data.  This reaches students who struggle but are not registered, reducing over-reliance on formal accommodations. 
  • Encourage course-level flexibility where feasible (e.g., multiple low-stakes assessments, scaffolded projects) without diluting outcomes.  Faculty development should focus on developing rigorous alternatives to single, high-stakes, timed exams. 

3) Fortify Assessment Integrity

  • When extended time or separate rooms are used, adopt synchronized windows, uniform protocols, and technology controls to minimize information leakage.  Centralize logistics in testing centers that publish capacity and peak-load plans well in advance.
  • Audit accommodation patterns for equity (e.g., socioeconomic distribution, late-semester requests) and academic outcomes.  Use findings to refine processes and prevent inadvertent privilege loops.

4) Integrate Clinical Care with Academic Coaching

  • For ADHD, anxiety, and Depression, pair accommodations with evidence-based treatments and skills coaching.  Studies suggest accommodations alone may not improve GPA or functioning; integrated supports can.
  • Use campus-wide screening (e.g., via Healthy Minds) to identify high-need students early, and create fast lanes to both therapy and learning support—before exam crunch.

Reframing Fairness

At its best, accommodation policy restores fairness by removing arbitrary barriers unrelated to mastery.  At its worst, it reshapes competition in ways that reward those best positioned to navigate bureaucracies.  The recent surge—especially at elite campuses—forces an uncomfortable but necessary recalibration: fairness is not merely a pipeline of paperwork; it’s the integrity of assessment plus the universality of support.

Universities should neither undercut students with genuine disabilities nor allow accommodation systems to become shadow merit structures.  The path forward is pragmatic: tight documentation focused on functional Impact, robust universal supports, rigor-preserving assessment redesign, and transparent logistics.  Done well, this approach can honor the spirit of the ADA—equal access—while keeping higher education’s core promise intact: that grades reflect what students truly know and can do.

Closing Paragraph:

The surge in disability accommodations challenges universities to reconcile two competing ideals: access and fairness.  What began as a civil-rights imperative to remove barriers for a small minority has evolved into a system that touches a significant share of students, especially at elite campuses.  Suppose higher education is to preserve both equity and academic integrity.  In that case, it must move beyond a binary of “accommodate or deny” toward a model that combines rigorous documentation, universal design, and scalable mental health support.  Otherwise, the promise of inclusion risks becoming a new hierarchy—one where advantage flows not from ability, but from who can navigate the system best.

Sources & Further Reading