[76lsjumb]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

My point is that reasonable accommodations for the purposes of employment settings generally do not entail providing double time to complete tasks or allowing you to break deadlines repeatedly with almost no advanced notice - they entail shifting you to different tasks you can complete, or, potentially, removing your from the position altogether if the position's essential functions include timeliness and meeting deadlines. Moreover, the employer is entitled to ask about your disability and work with you about making changes in both your actions and theirs. None of that is true in my university setting.

Here's what an ADHD-focused magazine says is likely to happen for ADHD accommodations in the workplace, quoting the New York Law Journal:

What have employers been told about ADHD and the ADA?

An article published by the New York Law Journal was not very encouraging. It says, “As more employees learn that their work-related problems may be attributable to Adult ADHD, some will likely seek protection fromdiscrimination under the Act. Employers faced with these disability discrimination claims should institute a two-pronged defense.”

“First, the employer should force the employee to meet his burden of proving that he does in fact suffer from ADHD, and that the employee’s ADHD impairs a major life activity. If the employee successfully establishes that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the employer should argue that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his job. This argument will be aided if the employer can point to a written job description stating that general skills such as following instructions, completing tasks on time and getting along with others are essential functions of the employee’s particular position.”

“The symptoms of Adult ADHD are such that they will likely prevent the employee from performing these essential functions. Therefore, employees who are terminated because of behavior attributable to Adult ADHD will probably not be entitled to protection under the Act.”

Thus, again, my point is that I don't know how these accommodations in educational environments help students in the long run, because they will be very unlikely to succeed in workplaces that will not be required to provide them.

And in the mean time, bringing things back to the topic of the thread, they enable rich parents to help their children cheat their way into college by not being held to the same standard as most everyone else.

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...

[76lsjumb]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

My point is that reasonable accommodations for the purposes of employment settings generally do not entail providing double time to complete tasks or allowing you to break deadlines repeatedly with almost no advanced notice - they entail shifting you to different tasks you can complete, or, potentially, removing your from the position altogether if the position's essential functions include timeliness and meeting deadlines. Moreover, the employer is entitled to ask about your disability and work with you about making changes in both your actions and theirs. None of that is true in my university setting.

Here's what an ADHD-focused magazine says is likely to happen for ADHD accommodations in the workplace, quoting the New York Law Journal:

What have employers been told about ADHD and the ADA?

An article published by the New York Law Journal was not very encouraging. It says, “As more employees learn that their work-related problems may be attributable to Adult ADHD, some will likely seek protection fromdiscrimination under the Act. Employers faced with these disability discrimination claims should institute a two-pronged defense.”

“First, the employer should force the employee to meet his burden of proving that he does in fact suffer from ADHD, and that the employee’s ADHD impairs a major life activity. If the employee successfully establishes that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the employer should argue that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his job. This argument will be aided if the employer can point to a written job description stating that general skills such as following instructions, completing tasks on time and getting along with others are essential functions of the employee’s particular position.”

“The symptoms of Adult ADHD are such that they will likely prevent the employee from performing these essential functions. Therefore, employees who are terminated because of behavior attributable to Adult ADHD will probably not be entitled to protection under the Act.”

Thus, again, my point is that I don't know how these accommodations in educational environments help students in the long run, because they will be very unlikely to succeed in workplaces that will not be required to provide them.

And in the mean time, bringing things back to the topic of the thread, they enable rich parents to help their children cheat their way into college by not being held to the same standard as most everyone else.

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...