The author argues that the current system of awarding degrees, particularly in the context of students with diagnosed disabilities, is flawed and benefits no one. They present two cases: Student A, who received extensive accommodations due to diagnosed disabilities, and Student B, who completed her degree without such accommodations. The author questions the fairness of awarding the same classification (2:1) to both students, suggesting that the accommodations provided to Student A may have inflated their performance. They argue that a degree should reflect a student's ability to manage their intelligence under pressure and adapt to agreed-upon constraints, which may not be accurately represented in the current system.
The author then delves into a personal anecdote about their own disability (a broken neck) and the importance of a psychological orientation that encourages overcoming challenges. They contrast this with the current educational system's approach to disabilities, which they argue is often counterproductive. The author criticizes the tendency to treat disabilities as immutable and to adapt the university's expectations around the student, rather than encouraging the student to adapt and overcome their challenges. They suggest that this approach benefits neither the student nor the university, as it fails to prepare students for independence and the demands of the job market.
The author concludes by emphasizing the need for a more balanced approach, one that encourages students to adapt and overcome their challenges while still providing necessary support. They argue that the current system, driven by good intentions, has led to a situation that benefits nobody and may even be detrimental to students' long-term success and well-being.
