A Third of College Students Have Disabilities. What That Number Actually Means.
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
A New York Times article published March 2, 2026 reported that at some colleges, more than a third of enrolled students have registered a physical or mental disability. At elite institutions, a population that was once 2 to 5 percent has grown to 10 to 25 percent or more. The article raised the possibility that students are gaming the system.
That framing deserves more precision. Neuropsychologists who conduct evaluations for the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, and other high-stakes exams work directly with this population. The picture is more complicated than the headline suggests.
Why the Numbers Are Rising
ADHD and autism diagnoses have increased over two decades, driven partly by better diagnostic tools and broader clinical awareness. Anxiety disorders have become more prevalent among young adults since COVID and are now more consistently recognized as functional impairments rather than personal shortcomings. Reduced stigma around mental health means students who once avoided disclosure are more willing to seek support, too.
Families have also become more familiar with the accommodation process. Parents who secured 504 Plans or IEPs during their child's K-12 years understand how to carry that documentation forward into college and eventually into graduate-level testing. That continuity of documentation is shows that the system is working as intended.
The Problem Is Documentation Quality, Not the Population
Most people seeking accommodations have real impairments. The documentation process exists precisely because objective data, not self-report, is what distinguishes a valid request from an invalid one. When that process is applied rigorously, it does its job.
The cases worth scrutinizing are the ones where the evaluation is inadequate: no standardized testing, no performance validity data, no connection between the diagnosis and the functional limitation claimed. That is a documentation quality problem. It is not evidence that the population seeking accommodations is primarily composed of people gaming the system, and treating it that way directs skepticism at the wrong target.
The relevant question is not whether someone carries a diagnosis. It is whether there is objective neuropsychological data showing functional impairment under conditions relevant to the test at issue. A diagnosis alone does not meet that standard. A letter from a treating provider without standardized testing does not meet that standard.
What Adequate Documentation Requires
For professional exams like the LSAT or MCAT, documentation standards are demanding by design. LSAC requires evidence of a current functional limitation under timed conditions, supported by standardized cognitive testing and a report that connects the data to the impairment claimed. The AAMC requires a comprehensive evaluation, prior standardized test scores, transcripts, and a documented history of prior accommodations. Both organizations review submissions against those criteria, and partial approvals are common when the data only partially supports the request.
A thorough neuropsychological evaluation includes formal assessment of attention, processing speed, executive function, memory, and academic achievement, along with performance validity testing to rule out symptom exaggeration. The written report typically runs 10 to 15 pages and ties each accommodation recommendation directly to the test data.
That level of documentation takes time to build. Starting the process several months before an exam is not optional for many applicants.
The Equity Issue Runs in Both Directions
Critics quoted in the article raised concerns about affluent students gaining disproportionate access to accommodations. That concern has some empirical basis. Neuropsychological evaluations are expensive, and families with resources are better positioned to obtain them, understand the process, and establish documentation histories beginning in grade school.
The answer to that disparity is not to restrict accommodations. It is to expand access to quality evaluations for students from under-resourced backgrounds who have equally real impairments and no clear path to documentation. That gap received less attention in the article than the gaming narrative, and it is a more tractable problem to address.
What Follows from This
Rising disability registration rates on college campuses reflect real diagnostic and cultural shifts, not primarily manipulation of a flawed system. The cases that warrant scrutiny are the ones backed by weak or missing objective data, not the people trying to navigate a process that exists for legitimate reasons.
The structural answer is better evaluation standards, more consistent review by testing boards, and broader access to qualified evaluators for students who cannot readily access them independently.
If you are navigating the accommodations process for the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, or GMAT and want to understand what documentation is required, schedule a free 15-minute consultation.
Neuropsychologists who conduct these evaluations provide the documentation that makes the process work as intended. More detail on what that process involves is available on the Testing Accommodations Evaluations page.
Jason Olin, PhD is a licensed clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist in Newport Beach, CA. He conducts neuropsychological evaluations for FAA/HIMS cases and testing accommodations for the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, and GMAT. jasonolinphd.com
Comments