From The Star Phoenix of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan:
If you lived in Niagara Falls, Ont., and got benefits for an intellectual disability, then moved across the Canada-U.S. border to Niagara Falls, N.Y., you wouldn't get them.
Psychologists can use two different yardsticks to determine your IQ, which, in turn, determines whether you are considered to have a disability, which, in turn, determines whether you get a disability cheque in the mail every month.
One yardstick is Canadian, the other American. And research by Dr. Allyson Harrison, who heads the Regional Assessment and Resource Centre at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., finds that five times more people are diagnosed with a disability when the Canadian yardstick, or standard, is used in tests than when the U.S. standard is used. ...
In a research study, Harrison administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition, (WAIS-IV) test to Ontario university students who had been referred to her by a doctor.
But because of how the test works - it's standardized, like SATs - their answers don't mean anything unless they are measured against a standard derived from test results of people in their own demographic as determined by gender, age and educational level. ...
Of Harrison's sample, 21.2 per cent qualify for disability cheques when they're scored using Canadian standards. Only 4.2 per cent qualify using the American standards. That number - 4.2 per cent - is what you'd expect in the population of college and university students she studied.
12 comments:
So, you are saying that 4.2% of all college and university students have IQ's low enough to be disabled?? BS...
That explains a lot of the college grads in my office!
But on a serious note...what the heck is going on? Is the goal to get as many people on disability as possible?
I believe Mr. Hall is ever so gently pointing out that we currently have a program with rather strict (yet - for the most part - appropriate) standards as opposed to other places and that the rampant award of benefits to the undeserving isn't what our conservative counterparts characterize it to be.
The 4.2% is not of all college and university students, but of students that had been referred to her by a doctor - presumably because they had some problem. And the standard used was for college and university students, so the students referred scored low relative to other students, not the general population, which is presumably a higher standard.
I understand. Based on most I read here, it seems many wouldn't mind the Canadian standards.
I don't think there's enough information to decide between the two standards. I don't want as many people on disability as possible, nor do I want the minimum number. I want the number to correspond to how many people are unable to get work because of a disability.
I think there are a lot more people with low IQ than there are jobs for such people. So what should happen to the excess? I think more of such people are now homeless than are on disability. And there are large costs in having a lot of homeless people (in addition to the morality of it).
Whatever happened to the highschool janitors that were notoriously lacking in IQ? Those jobs are still around...
Perhaps janitorial "jobs" which could be done by those with low IQs may be available, BUT, in an adverse economy such as ours, you can demand a high school diploma for such jobs. Also, one must spend an inordinate amount of time supervising such employees. For those of you who think low-functioning people should be able to get jobs, I ask, would YOU hire them and pay a decent wage which allows them to make a living?
A couple of observations.
First. Have you folks looked at college graduation rates? The number of people that attempt college versus actually graduating is not a pretty sight, but plays well for the folks who loan high interest money for it.
Second. There's one of those "janitor" jobs being worked by someone I've had the pleasure of dealing with at a local grocery store. His job is to work the bottle return. Empty machines etc. I've personally reported him to the store management twice for either cursing at me and other customers, or just randomly spewing profanity at no one in general as he wanders around the store performing his menial tasks. Society is clearly benefitting from him being employed. And there's no doubt he needs massive supervision.
I wouldn't hire them and pay them well, but that doesn't make them disabled.
Which is why pushing everyone to go to college is not acceptable. It's a money maker as you correctly point out for the loan makers. But, just because you attempt to go to college and then can't cut it, doesn't equal a disability. I'm only in my early 40's but when I was going to college, it wasn't advertised as "for everyone" that I remember. Now, with all of the online schools and student loans and affirmative action - it seems schools are full of people of all backgrounds that get in for reasons other than academic achievement. This can't be a good trend but again says nothing about a cognitive disability.
10:53, then what would you propose our society do with those who are so cognitively or emotionally impaired that gainful employment is impossible? They may not be "disabled" by your criteria, but what should be done with them? SSI might be a better solution then turning them onto the streets. The we'll spend more tax money on prisons, etc.
Post a Comment