Joseph Rogan: College admissions scandal hurts students with disabilities |
Featured Commentary

Joseph Rogan: College admissions scandal hurts students with disabilities

Lori Loughlin is seen with daughters Bella, left, and Olivia in 2017. The actress has pleaded not guilty to charges of paying $500,000 to guarantee her daughters’ admission to USC.

The national college admissions scandal creates many problems, but it especially harms students with real disabilities.

That parents paid a corrupt private counselor tens of thousands of dollars to fudge their children’s college applications raises concerns about their ethics, but also about the admission standards and processes of the institutions that accepted the corrupted students.

Over the years, I have worked with admissions officers at many colleges and universities. In making their decisions, each of them took the time to consider many variables — not just SAT scores. Maybe I am naive, but I never met one who might be conned by a faked application.

I am mostly concerned, though, about the latest revelation that over the last few years the number of students diagnosed with disabilities in order to make them eligible for extra time on standardized tests increased dramatically. If the players in the scandal can fake diagnoses, students with real disabilities are the victims.

Thirty years ago, Misericordia University in eastern Pennsylvania launched its Alternative Learners Program (ALP), the state’s first collegiate program for students with primarily learning disabilities. Our first order of business was to create an admissions process that fairly selected students with legitimate disabilities who were otherwise qualified to succeed in college. Typically, the diagnosis occurred in elementary school when they demonstrated trouble learning to read; it did not suddenly manifest when they had to take the college boards as high school students.

We did our best to verify that applicants were otherwise qualified, that they had the ability to succeed despite their disabilities. When we received calls from counselors or parents about the SAT, we were honest. We told them that the SATs do not really predict anything. We explained that the tests were not normed on students with disabilities so the scores of students with disabilities were simply not valid and thus were useless in making decisions. When some wondered whether students should take the tests with extra time, we noted that doing that completely defeated the standardization routines of the standardized test, thus scores from untimed tests were also invalid and, therefore, useless. Every college admission officer and service provider knows that.

We found other information to be far more useful. Scores on IQ tests were sometimes informative, but we mostly valued letters of recommendation from teachers of college-prep courses who said things like “this student struggled, worked hard, never gave up — and succeeded.” Maybe their grades were not always great, but those who took real courses were far better prepared for college. Applicants who took easy courses or “adapted” special courses were just not prepared.

Misericordia’s program became the state’s model. We helped many colleges and universities implement our simple recipe. We tell applicants, their families and whatever support personnel are in the mix that, if accepted, students will take nothing but real college-level, program-required courses. We never promise alternative courses and never promise that our professors will adjust their standards or requirements in any way. Moreover, we never would ask them to do so.

Then we promise two other things: First, based on the details of their diagnostics, we will provide students with the reasonable accommodations they need, not necessarily those they got in high school. The federal law that requires “specially designed instruction” in basic education does not pertain to higher education. When diagnostics say a student needs extra time on tests and when the students actually used extra time in high school, we arrange to provide that — most often, time and a half.

In addition, we promise to try to teach our students how to meet the demands of their courses.

The combination of rigorous regular education, reasonable accommodations and learning strategies is usually sufficient. We did not and could not guarantee success, but over three decades students served by ALP posted GPAs about the same as other students in their majors and they graduated at about the same rate. Hundreds of students with disabilities who did not otherwise have a chance went on to careers as teachers, social workers, business professionals, therapists and nurses. Our recipe worked; however, it would not work for students with faked disabilities. Nothing does.

When corrupt families pull strings for fake diagnostics, programs like ALP and students with actual disabilities suffer. Sadly, the college admissions scandal jeopardizes programs that help students with disabilities succeed. That is terribly unfair.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.