We’ve all heard versions of the same narrative across campus. Having roommate issues and want to change rooms? Go to Integrative Wellbeing Services (IWS) and say it’s impacting your mental health. Struggling in some classes and worried about your grades? Apply for disability accommodations that will give you more time on all your tests. Want to live on the first floor? Say you have a knee problem. Whether these statements are accurate is beside the point. The narratives around accommodations have circulated widely enough to shape student behavior and perception, and have had a corrosive impact on the community.
During the last academic year, 25 percent of the College’s student body had some form of disability accommodation, with 18 percent of students receiving academic accommodations like extended time for exams or the ability to take tests in distraction-free environments. With a quarter of the student body receiving accommodations and the issue gaining more attention nationally, it is important for the College community to take a hard and honest look at its accommodation system and its impact on all students. The College would not be alone in this self-examination. At selective colleges and universities across the country, “Accommodation Nation,” The Atlantic’s widely-cited January 2026 cover story, has brought to the forefront a debate that administrators have often kept behind closed doors.
Since mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), were more fully recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) nearly two decades ago, the number of students receiving accommodations has grown significantly. At many colleges, the number of accommodations has reached a possible tipping point where students with documented disabilities represent such a large portion of the student population that individualized accommodations could become a central part of the academic climate. The expansion of accommodations for these disabilities has raised important questions about fairness, and incentives that have the potential to divide students and faculty.
The issue is, in many ways, a tale of two realities. At its best, the prevalence of accommodations can be looked at as a civil rights victory that levels the playing field for students with disabilities, allowing them to reach their full potential and participate in a rigorous academic experience that takes into consideration their unique needs. The stories of past college students who did not receive accommodations for their disabilities are unsettling and troubling. The expansion of the ADA’s definition of disabilities in 2008 reflects meaningful progress in recognizing mental health as a covered disability.
At its worst, however, the expansion of the ADA has created opportunities for abuse — particularly among those with greater resources to navigate the medical and documentation process — especially for the diagnoses of ADHD, depression, and anxiety. This is because diagnoses for these conditions often rely on self-reporting and they aren’t always measurable simply with one test. All too often, students with access to the right doctors, the right language, and the right networks will find a path to accommodations more easily than those without.
Because test grades are often curved and GPAs are critical for graduate school admissions and post-college employment, we must recognize that one student receiving a higher grade can disadvantage another. As much as we might prefer to view the College as a non-competitive academic environment, a student with overly generous accommodations may negatively impact outcomes for those without them. A difficult question emerges when accommodations become the norm in a zero-sum grading environment: Are students without accommodations placed at a disadvantage academically?
With the number of students receiving accommodations likely to rise further in the coming years, the College community needs to confront this issue head-on. The community should consider the following three actions:
Gather Better Data: In order to confront it, we first need high-quality data on this issue. Currently, the debate seems to be shaped by anecdotes, not data. It is imperative that the administration and faculty conduct anonymous statistical studies on the impact of accommodations on grades, for both students with and without accommodations. The common benchmarks of granting 50 percent or 100 percent extra time on exams need to be analyzed. What is the science behind those numbers?
Reevaluation of Time-Based Exams: As more students receive extra time accommodations, professors may need to reconsider the structure of their exams so they measure subject matter mastery, and not test performance skills under time constraints. Too often, the difference between an A and a B comes down to whether a student gets to the final question before time runs out. This system incentivizes students to get extra time accommodations. An extra half hour or hour on an exam can allow a student to double-check or edit their answers, which can easily impact their final grade.
Form a Stakeholder Committee on Fairness: The College should consider forming a committee of disability advocates, faculty, and students from a range of backgrounds, including those who do not receive accommodations. The committee should evaluate whether the current accommodation system is affecting the overall grading system of the College, and then permanently oversee the system to ensure both transparency and confidentiality for all students. The College should exmaine questions of fairness and equity. Does the current system give disproportionate benefits to wealthier students whose parents were able to navigate the system? There must be an honest recognition that, in a curved grading environment, there are some winners and some losers in grading. This tension deserves attention and should not be brushed aside.
As the national debate around accommodations grows, the College has an opportunity to be at the forefront of this issue. It is not an easy conversation, but the College will be a stronger institution if we address these questions openly and acknowledge the tensions and incentives embedded in the current system.
Nora Sherman ‘29 is from Arlington, Va.
