PED GPAs Should Get an Asterisk

I was having a conversation with my 6th grader the other day and almost gave my wife an aneurism. We were casually discussing school when the subject of one of his pals came up. This kid used to be a real paste-eater, and I'd be lying if I said I don't enjoy a little schadenfreude at the expense of those parents whose kids are truly a mess, versus mine who are merely aggravating.

Anyway, my kid is bright enough but hates school - something I certainly understand. He particularly struggles in math, so I was really happy for him when he got a 90% on his last math test. I know how much effort it took to get that grade. Then he tells me this other kid, the paste-eater, got 100%. I call bullshit. He then explains to me that he's a completely different kid these days and that he gets straight As and never gets into trouble anymore.

Me: Are you kidding me? What changed?

Son: He got ADD. He takes medicine and he's not hyper anymore.

Me: ADD isn't a thing.

Son: *Blank stare*

Me: Look, his parents are drugging him because he was a little shithead and they got tired of dealing with it. He's taking drugs that make him get good grades, so he's cheating. He'll probably get your spot in college.

At this point my wife loses it and starts yelling at me.

Wife: You can't tell him stuff like that! You know he repeats everything!

Me: I don't give a shit. The kid's transcript should have an asterisk.

Son: What's an asterisk?

Me: It's when an athlete breaks a record but he does it because he took drugs to make him stronger and faster than everyone else. So they put an asterisk on the record so everyone knows he did it, but not really.

Wife: Seriously, Eddie, shut up. He's too young to know these things.

Son: Wait, there's drugs I can take that will make me get straight As? Why aren't I taking them?

He was being completely serious.

The PED Arms Race

At least 1 school-aged child in 10 in the United States is currently diagnosed as ADD and/or ADHD. Which is ironic, because it's a diagnosis that doesn't exist outside the US. The most common treatment for it is prescription drugs, which today means Adderall.

Anyone who has ever taken Adderall will tell you that it's a performance enhancing drug. That's why 1 in 4 American adults are willing to fake ADHD just to get it. Adderall abuse in the workplace has become common enough to lead some doctors to call it an epidemic.

Adderall is not a benign drug. It increases your heart rate and affects your neurotransmitters like norepinephrine and dopamine, not unlike co***ne. Coming down can be awful too, which is why many users never stop taking it. Of course I have no problem with adults taking whatever they want to take (I'm a huge fan of nootropics), but you can understand why any reasonable parent would hesitate to put their kid on speed.

But there are plenty of unreasonable parents out there. Parents who have no qualms about risking their kid's wellbeing if it means they get better grades and higher test scores. Who cares if my kid's a zombie? He got into Stanford!

Unfortunately for the rest of the kids, they're forced to compete on this uneven playing field. Kids who are solid "B" students lose ground to the "C" and "D" students who are juiced to get straight As. Which is why we need to put an asterisk on those transcripts.

The Asterisk

How would the game change if the transcripts of kids who used performance enhancing drugs came with an asterisk? I imagine an admissions committee coming together with two separate stacks of applications, one "natural" and the other "juiced". At least then there would be some accountability.

Think about it: how would it change the K-12 landscape if colleges capped the "juiced" pile at 10% of total admissions? How many parents would risk their kid's health and wellbeing for those odds?

What about on the job? Imagine hiring managers having an increased appetite for those applicants who are naturally gifted versus those who took drugs to get there? I know I'd rather hire somebody who checked all the boxes without ever taking any PEDs. (I'd have a bottle of Adderall waiting for them in their cubicle, too, just to see what kind of production they were really capable of.)

Obviously a lot of this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's a real issue. Parents of school-aged kids are forced to make a decision about the kind of childhood they want for their children. When you're competing against kids who are juicing, you either have to juice your kid to keep up or accept the fact that they're going to lose opportunities.

For me it's a no-brainer. My kids are assholes, but I'm not about to change who they are for a better shot at a target school. I know a lot of parents who really struggle with it, though, especially with today's focus on standardized testing. Which is ironic, because the very purpose of standardized testing is to measure everyone against the same standard.

So what's the answer? Should we put an asterisk on the juicers? Or should every kid be drugged to level the playing field?

 

why do you care if a paste eater gets more A's than your non-paste-eater?

you are building your entire argument on the theory that ADD "is not a thing" ... I am not a clinician, and I highly doubt you are .. so let's let the doctors play doctor, and you make the best decisions for your kid and not worry about the rest.

who knows, maybe eating paste is worse for you than Adderall. Plus, I hear paste is the gateway drug to cement, so Adderall probably saved his life....

Caveat: I didn't try Adderall until college, and my first few experiences resulted in forgetting to study and balling out on some Call of Duty ... It's awesome, but I prefer who I am not on it

 

This.

I think that if you are old enough (and responsible enough) to consciously choose to take Adderall, fine. I got a script in college and still use it if I need to sit down and crank for several hours. As for the whole asterisk thing . . . I'd rather not have whitecollarandsuspenders, CFA* on my business cards.

But it does indeed alter your personality, so I think feeding it to your kid everyday is kinda fucked up. The kids I knew in elementary/middle school that took Adderall were fucking zombies, and we all thought of them as SPEDs.

"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence." - Thomas Sowell
 

For real now, I don't drink coffee/tea or take any pills. But does this stuff actually work or is it mostly the placebo effect kicking in? Would I actually be more efficient and productive with my time if I take these pills?

 

Caffeine will help with absolutely everything. Adderall helps significantly with focusing and dialing in on a task, but in general, it doesn't help with any high order or creative thinking. For example, adderall would let you sit down and crush through the 4-6 hours of boring accounting studying you have to do for a final without ever getting bored/distracted or help with your long math assignment, but if you had to do a computer science assignment, present on a complex topic, or do brain teasers, it wouldn't help (and possibly hurt your performance). Although, you'll feel like you're acing whatever you're doing, because it affects the brain the same way all amphetamines do - releasing dopamine.

 
Eddie Braverman:
Which is ironic, because it's a diagnosis that doesn't exist outside the US.

False. I left Australia >10 years ago and Australia had ADD/ADHD diagnosis then, still does now.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 

"nonexistent"? You linked an article that said that 0.5% of all French are still medicated, and although a lot less than the US, that'd still mean even at their diagnosis rate that 1.5M Americans would be medicated.

Not disagreeing with the idea that ADD/ADHD is wildly over-prescribed (I say this as someone who doesn't have either and is looking for a doctor to get an addy RX before my IB SA stint), but it's still a pretty widespread condition. However, I doubt that treating these diseases with an amphetamine is the best way to handle them, but I'm not a doctor.

 

in Argentina it seems they're pretty strict on giving out Ritalin (no adderall here) whereas in the US i was able to get a prescription within 30minutes & a simple questionnaire about my attention span etc

tried taking it a few times but even the smallest dose f's with my sleep so i stay away from it completely now

WSO Content & Social Media. Follow us: Linkedin, IG, Facebook, Twitter.
 

Im Aus based, and i recall my year 1 teacher advising 80% of the parents to get their kids tested ASAP. Off hand, around 5 or so came back "diagnosed". Not sure how many actually tested ofc.

She was a middle aged hippy, so the kids probably seemed out of step with her slow, spiritual thought patterns. No one ever believes me on this last part, but her name actually was Theresa Green. She was 100% conceived in a combi, there is no other logical explanation.

 

My complaint wasn't the adderall. It was the extended time. If you're in an honors or AP math class, you shouldn't be allowed to claim mental handicap to get an extra 20 minutes to finish a timed math test.

Look, it's one thing to let the Russian athletes take performance enhancing drugs. Fine, whatever. Maybe they can find a way to justify it ethically, but we can still beat them. But it's another thing to let them claim they're handicapped so they can get a 20 minute head start on the Marathon at the Olympic finals. Everyone knows that's ridiculous.

 
Eddie Braverman:

Hadn't even considered this, and you're right, this is something they do at my kids' school. Jaysus.

I'm not even against extended time in the regular college prep classes. But in Honors classes, extended time is not a reasonable accomodation. The learning disabled should of course be allowed to take these classes-- but it's a logical contradiction to claim you're gifted and disabled at the same time.

I also think we should waive the ADA for intellectual disabilities and mental illness at the top 50 universities. If you're smart enough to study Engineering at UIUC or merely even Econ at Yale, you probably don't need much protection when it comes to discrimination against the mentally disabled.

 

100% agree with you on this one. I went to a school with one of the largest and best programs for students with disabilities. It was bullshit when I had an hour or two to finish my finals, and plenty of students with "disabilities" had unlimited test time and someone to sit next to them in case they felt they were having some problems mentally during the exam.

...
 

In fact I did. I told him that life was hard and that it was best that he figured that out now.

With as hard as he works to maintain a 2.8ish GPA, he'd probably be a good candidate for meds, but I've seen the tradeoff firsthand with my friends' kids who are medicated.

It's like I always tell my wife: Pressure does one of two things, it either bursts pipes or makes diamonds. We'll find out which one he is. He's a tough little bastard, so I'm thinking diamond.

 
Eddie Braverman:
Pressure does one of two things, it either bursts pipes or makes diamonds.

Interesting, so the same action can have different effects depending on the person. I wonder where else that might apply...

Lots of options when it comes to the drug buffet. Coffee, energy drinks, cocaine, etc etc

PS extra time on timed tests is outrageous. You might as well just give out some of the answers

 

I've always thought of adderall as a PED. For those who took the SATs without addy, imagine your performance on it? Sure, it's not gunna magically make you smarter, but you'll be energized and locked in throughout the whole test. I'm obviously no doc but I agree with OP in the sense that in most cases "ADD" is absolute BS.

 
David Aames:

back in the day had a girlfriend who was prescribed generic adderall, so no brand name, and the bottle literally said "Amphetamine Salts"...wtf

salts huh?! good thing she never bit your dick off ... or did she??? :)

"I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. " -GG
 

I actually have those, it's like a similar compound to meth vs the adderall dopamine. Got it my 2nd semester senior year of college- highest gpa of my college career that semester while working 2 internships/ jobs.

26 Broadway where's your sense of humor?
 

Completely agree with this. Friend in college got denied from current school, then "diagnosed" with ADD just to be able to reapply with a disability and got in. Now pops adderall daily and went from a C student in high school to straight A student in college. So on paper they look better than half the population, but in reality all credit should be given to the adderall.

 

Wait, so people who are on ADD/ADHD medications are allowed to apply to colleges as having a disability? What disability do they even indicate? Would this even increase their chances of getting into a university? I guess I am so hung up on this because this seems bizzare to me... I don't mean to offend or be insensitive, I just haven't heard of this before.

 

I agree. When I take adderal at work, I become a super human (srs). I make 2x per hour than anyone else here.

"It is better to have a friendship based on business, than a business based on friendship." - Rockefeller. "Live fast, die hard. Leave a good looking body." - Navy SEAL
 

Great Post, allow me to respond by framing the issues as follows.

1) Childhood use of amphetamine. A) Development: There is no medical doubt that this effects the development of a child's brain. The argument is to what degree, and is this a positive or negative effect. It is my personal opinion (based on common sense, close cause with drug users over the years, and a fledgling interest and understanding of neurobiology) That this is an extremely harmful drug to take while your brain is developing.

B) Drug Addiction: There has also been strong correlation between childhood ADD and adult drug addiction. However, it is not known whether it is the daily amphetamine consumption, or the "disease" itself which relates to the addiction later in life. Some researchers hypothesis that all three are related.

C) Misdiagnosis: What are the symptoms of diagnosis? While the neurobiological causes are related to imbalances in neurotrasnmitter pathways, the diagnosis is related to restlessness, head movement, and ability to click a button on a screen for 30 minutes. Just think about when you were a kid: If someone told you to stare at a screen for 30 minutes, without a full understanding of the consequences if you didn't (which include lifetime use of amphetamine and the consequnces as stated above) would you click that button. Would you stake the rest of your life on it?

2) Performance of stimulant takers. A) From elementary to high-school (and depending on what they do in college / first jobs) these users benefit immensely from use of stimulants. Their entire education and early career years are based on volume. volume of information retained on a test. Volume of work product cranked out in a period of time. Their tests are based on learning how to take tests, and their work functions are based on learning how to complete tasks.

B) In the long term, stimulant users are hurt greatly. Learning to learn as described above in 2(a) does not promote the kind of mental functioning that is required at top levels of management.

Obviously, there is an argument that 2(a) will better set up the child for life, by allowing them to enter into good schools, and good jobs early on in their careers. However, as a capitalist I would prefer my future special snowflake to have a small shot at the highest spot, rather than a high chance of being above-average. Also I consider amphetamine use in children to be child abuse, so I probably won't go that route when the time comes.

Unrelated Question: How much adderall do you see consumed in the industry? What percent of analysts / assoc / VP take stimulants what percent of days in the week?

 

Just to chip in: Adderall is definately a thing in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. However, even at my top UK target the only kids that use addy even though they don't have a prescription are US students and a kids who went to American schools in singapore and HK. I'd say that ADHD is much less prevalent in northern europe, and definately casual usage of those drugs is way less common than it seems to be in the US.

 

When I was in college still (graduated 1 year ago) this always pissed me off. It's insane how many people addy up to cram for a test, then addy up once more to take the test.

I remember in middle school before the ADD/ADHD craze began one kid who was actually diagnosed. He was a really fun person, a bit eccentric, then got put on the ol' Adderall and changed significantly in a short period of time. Grades aside, he wasn't much of a talker afterwards and shifted to an entirely different friend group. Was he better for it? Who knows. My vote is no.

Now older I see my cousin's kids being absolute madmen in family settings, clearly due to poor discipline and parenting. With a stay-at-home pothead dad, and art degree mom I don't see that changing anytime soon. I lose hope of real parenting when parents take their 5 year old kid to a Woodstock wanabe concert.

Thankfully they're insane enough to not believe in medicine, so the kids won't be on Addarall anytime soon. But it does bear the question: if the parents are too shitty to teach the kids how to calm the fuck down, is Addarall a better option than letting them grow up failing? Maybe parenting is a better option, but when that's not available, is addy ethical then?

 
Best Response

I was surprised to read this. I'm usually a big fan of your thoughts, Edmundo, but I can't say I follow you on this one.

What the hell is this idea of a "level playing field?" People decide what they're willing to do and what sacrifices they're willing to make in order to perform on a test (of any kind-- academic, professional, or physical).

Let's change the scenario. We are going to have a 100m race in a few months that will be the sole determinant of who gets scholarships to track programs (let's say the better your time, the bigger your scholarship).

Kid #1 is a good kid. Does the work, listens to the coach, gets along with teammates. Has supportive parents, neither of which are tremendous athletes, who want him to enjoy the sport. Generally eats well and rests, but nothing we'd see as extreme. Runs an 11.24.

Kid #2 is fulfilling all of his dad's dreams. His dad ran track and the pressure to perform is pretty high. He has some natural talent, but his family also has the money to hire a nutritionist and a private sprint coach. You get the sense he's not having much fun. Runs a 10.61.

Kid #3 is under a different kind of pressure. He has a big family with too many mouths to feed. He knows his only way out is this race. He scrounged together enough cash for a cycle of test. Juiced to the gills, he ties kid #2 at 10.61.

Kid #4 is a kid you feel bad for. Broken home, not even enough money for the right shoes. From what you've seen, pretty good natural talent and a great attitude, but keeps getting sidelined with foot and ankle problems. You think that with the right equipment and support, he could do the same training as the others and would be a strong candidate to win, but is a DNF here because of injury.

Kid #5 is a piece of shit. He eats candy and drinks beer and screams at his teammates. His natural talent is unassailable, and he is an absolute beast. He runs a 10.17 and demolishes the field.

Kid #6 is a girl. She is an outstanding athlete. She runs an 11.45 and gets dead last.

There are an infinite number of ways the "field" could be tipped in someone's favor, as displayed in the above scenario. So which ones are ok? Should the kid with the nutritionist get an asterisk? What about the kid on drugs? What about the kid with crazy talent? Should we help the poor injured kid to make it more fair? What about the girl?

Our society prefers to reward inherent advantages, either God-given (like "natural talent") or chosen (like "hard work"), especially when it involves sacrifice (see "deprived, sleep"). Depending on the person, we choose to inflate ("I didn't get in because I'm not white") or ignore ("Being white didn't give me an advantage") other sources of field-tipping.

Especially with chemistry, we have a tough time determining "fairness." We have a vague notion that if people were born that way, it's ok, but if they "alter" themselves somehow, it's not. It turns out that we get some pretty inconsistent rules. We can't seem to decide where to draw the line on altering our brain chemistry. If all we are doing is increasing norepinephrine concentrations, what's the difference between spending time in the sun (OK), eating more vegetables (OK), drinking coffee (OK), taking caffeine pills (sort of OK), taking amphetamine salts (sometimes OK), and snorting cocaine (never OK, as far as legality goes). If the difference is just a raised concentration of a chemical, then why does it matter how it happened?

I guess the whole point is the idea of adding asterisks is a never-ending abyss into qualifying success. If you're going to qualify some of the advantages, you have to qualify all of them, and then you'll be right back where you started, trying to design a different test that people are going to try to game. I'd spend less time worrying about the paste-eater.

"Son, life is hard. But it's harder if you're stupid." - my dad
 

I think if people sign a contract saying they'll participate in a sport under a clearly defined set of rules and regulations, then they should follow those rules and regulations, and be subject to punitive action when they don't.

...now what those rules and regulations should BE, well, that's a more interesting discussion. We all know that a cyclist can't "dope" his blood. What we're really saying is he can't "unnaturally" increase his red blood cell count. Going back to the same argument as with stimulants, if living at altitude (allowed), sleeping in a hypoxic chamber (allowed), drawing your own blood and re-infusing your own blood cells into your bloodstream (NOT allowed), and taking more of a chemical your body already produces to promote RBC production (NOT allowed) all end up doing the same damn thing...then does the process matter?

If I'm watching a weightlifting competition, the winner should be the guy that lifts the most weight, not the guy who lifts the most weight under a set of seemingly arbitrary constraints.

Net/net: athletes should follow the rules, but the rules should be different.

"Son, life is hard. But it's harder if you're stupid." - my dad
 

Let the nitwit parents raise robot kids, you just have to find ways to help your kids compete in different and more effective ways.

For example, I've always believed that in the long run someone with stellar work ethic, ambition, and communication and leadership skills will beat out a medicated robot who managed to get straight-As on all their HS and college exams. These days, social skills are totally overlooked. Kids are graduating with perfect ACT/SAT scores but they can't even hold a 1st grade-level phone conversation. This creates opportunity for those are willing to teach themselves/their kids how to influence people.

This is purely anecdotal as I don't have kids yet, but I feel i'm a beneficiary of this approach. I always did well in school but it took me a ton of effort. I easily could have gotten a made-up diagnosis for ADD to get adderall (many of my friends growing up did), but I always thought it was cheating. I did relatively poorly (at least relative to what most people on this forum tout,) on my standardized tests and I initially didn't get into the college programs I wanted to. However, I always felt one of my strengths was my ability to communicate with people, especially adults. So, through college I focused on meeting the right people, popping into office hours, and building relationships with the professors and deans in the programs I wanted to be in. Along with some hard work those relationships helped me transfer into the program I'd first set my sites on.

The same story holds true for all of my jobs after college. Effective communication and hard work (i.e. networking) opened the door to several 'prestigious' (LOL) jobs. Sure, my resume with a good school, decent GPA, and the right program on the top doesn't hurt. But, I know tons of people in my college graduating class with even better credentials who are stuck grinding it out at dead-end 9 to 5s.

Point is, you can teach you kids stuff outside the classroom that will help them become at least as, if not more, successful than the paste-eating, medicated robots who get straight-As on their tests (and who have nitwit, trapper-keeper parents.)

 

Taking adderall does not make you instantly smarter. Much like taking steroids doesn't suddenly make you better at baseball. My younger brother was on adderall and he's still pretty stupid. It just helps you focus.

As for your question most parents don't want kids : they want tiny roommates who function on their own. So when a seven year old is hyper active, fidgets, and doesn't pay attention in school the first thing parents do is to run to the doctor and throw the kid on meds.

Also it gives you gyno. That's enough of a punishment.

I'm not a real banker though...
 

So much (amphetamine) salt in this thread. Time to crack open those philosophy books and look at this from a different perspective. But seriously, lets see who's opinion supports our own opinion.

**How is my grammar? Drop me a note with any errors you see!**
 

I think the larger question is, shouldn't we be re-evaluating how we teach young males? The classroom environment is a poor environment for many young males, who, in turn, are prescribed drugs in order to fit their behavior into the arbitrary and unnatural classroom setting. I have no kids--I don't even have a girlfriend (I don't even have a prospect of a girlfriend!)--but if I ever have boys I would seriously consider homeschooling them (or putting them into some sort of alternative program) if they have my personality, which is not conducive for lecture-based classroom settings. Our classrooms are designed for girls to succeed, not for boys.

Array
 

What about the plausible scenario that this kid actually does have an issue, ADD/ADHD is in the DSM-V, and this treatment has allowed him to actually perform at the level he’s capable of? This is no different to me than someone being treated for depression, seeking out counseling, undergoing physical therapy for injuries or any number of other treatments.

You make it sound like the only way for your kid to compete with other students is to face the choice of essentially drugging them, which is preposterous. Meanwhile all the evidence about children’s success in an academic setting boils down to parental involvement, not parents blaming drugs for other kid’s successes.

Have you taken a proactive role in your kid’s academic career? Do you help with homework? Have you hired tutors? Are you in regular correspondence with their teachers on the best way to move forward? Do you actively seek out additional resources that may be more conducive to your kid learning math?

Not many parents take an active role in their kid’s success; most of them view school as an extension of day-care. Not saying you view it that way, but my point is there are many ways for you or anyone else to give their kid a leg up.

 

Sb'ed. Never took adderall until I worked in banking, and after I took it I definitely felt like it would be cheating had I taken it in college (and kinda regretted not doing so). ADD is not a thing, it's what rich parents tell doctors to get the kid a prescription.

I'll just sit back and wait for the monkey poo from everyone with a prescription.

 

Couple things:

  1. Tend to agree that ADD is way over diagnosed.
  2. Also tend to agree that giving kids heavy hitting drugs every day is a bad idea unless they clearly need it to even come close to functioning normally.

That said, I disagree with your solution.

First, the academic playing field isn't level in many ways and that's really not the point of a GPA - for example, do you want every kid who has parents who gets them a tutor (performance enhancing person, 'PEP') to have an asterisk next to their GPA? What about kids who are allowed to drink coffee (also a PED)? If the answer is no, then you'd have to demonstrate to why PEDs should be treated differently - that is, a lack of fairness isn't the core issue.

Based on your post, your answer appears to be something along the lines of "ADD meds provide an unfair advantage and are detrimental to kid's wellbeing/development, so we need to remove the incentive for unscrupulous parents to drug their kids". I dislike this argument because as squishy/nonexistent as the science behind the ADD diagnosis process is, the evidence of long term damage or personality change as a result of taking ADD meds as recommended is just as flimsy. More importantly, this is a totally different standard than what we use for any other prescription drug - if ADD meds are bad for kids and being prescribed incorrectly, why should you or I be okay with that just because they're no longer competing with our kids for admission slots?

Imagine if we were to suddenly discover that millions of elementary kids had been legally prescribed steroids and the proposed policy solution was 'we'll just not let them play college sports, cause fairness, but they can keep using shooting up' - all it would achieve is fucking over a bunch of kids (who've already suffered health consequences, mind you) for having shitty parents who trusted 'medical experts' the government licensed and supported.

Life's is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 

great post! I believe the pills work wonders, yet would never give to anyone at such a young age. Nothing you do until upper level college courses would require focus levels given by Adderall etc. Kid will be addicted and progress to further drugs since parents were soft and kid wasn't disciplined. sad.

 

Good post, Eddie, made me consider a few things I haven't before.

The tricky part of this is: which kids legitimately get to the academic performance level of a "normal" kid by going on meds and which abuse the system and in practice make it into more of a PED situation?

I've never used any med like you described, but from what some friends said in college and user comments above, it's clear that it helps tremendously, it's given out like candy (and anti-depressants, another post idea?), and abused. Doctors push pills on folks, and that's too bad.

Also, next time don't get too fast and loose by saying things like, "it's a diagnosis that doesn't exist outside the US" when that's an exaggeration of the truth. Good points on all sides, but I agree that passing out prescriptions like lollipops is a bad deal for the typical American.

 

As someone who can attest to the fact that ADD/ADHD is in fact real I disagree with your post on many levels. When it was out of control my mind would wonder to the point where I couldn't watch TV without getting distracted.

I don't want to get too far into my condition, but adderall, ritalin, vyvanse didn't work for me. Strattera did, it is a non-stimulant and not a drug prone to abuse since it doesn't give a buzz and takes about 60 days to fully build up in your system. I went from a kid attending summer school to receiving an award for the highest standardized test scores (regents) in my high school (>400 kids) in NYS. Those numbers may be meaningless, but consider that I used to score single digits on exams, I vividly recall receiving a 6/100 on a math exam in 6th grade.

However I will concede that these drugs are over-prescribed and particularly in college they are abused. Most of the people I know who have taken these drugs that TRULY have ADD/ADHD benefit most from strattera, in some cases strattera is augmented with a low dose of adderall XR (10mg) or ritalin as needed. Nowhere near the dosages that kids are abusing to stay up all night studying because they decided to smoke weed all semester instead of studying.

 

I'm someone who has excelled in college after getting prescribed. I truthfully told my doctor some of my situations (not being able to pay attention during high school lectures, having to reteach myself material as a result). However, after reading OP's post and these comments I'm a bit discouraged because I want to think that what I accomplish is not a result of drugs and obviously I'm against any possibility or reliance/addiction. I'm currently on Adderall, would you recommend talking to my doctor about Strattera?

 
bigtxwig:

I'm someone who has excelled in college after getting prescribed. I truthfully told my doctor some of my situations (not being able to pay attention during high school lectures, having to reteach myself material as a result). However, after reading OP's post and these comments I'm a bit discouraged because I want to think that what I accomplish is not a result of drugs and obviously I'm against any possibility or reliance/addiction. I'm currently on Adderall, would you recommend talking to my doctor about Strattera?

Give it a shot.

You can be on both. Lower the dosage of adderall and add strattera. Takes like 30/40 days to impact you.

 

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but the students who get "extra time" on projects and exams annoy me the most. While I understand there are learning differences — it seems insane to me that students can get the same GPA as me and be given 1.5x on all exams. One of my buddies in high school was tied with a girl in terms of GPA, she got extra time and he did not. She also ended up at Stanford and he did not.

Frankly I have no issue with this academically — but if I am on a group project and the student is consistently needing accommodation I would get so angry.

I don't care who your dad is
 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/resources/skills/finance/ebit>EBIT</a></span>.duh:

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but the students who get "extra time" on projects and exams annoy me the most. While I understand there are learning differences -- it seems insane to me that students can get the same GPA as me and be given 1.5x on all exams. One of my buddies in high school was tied with a girl in terms of GPA, she got extra time and he did not. She also ended up at Stanford and he did not.

Frankly I have no issue with this academically -- but if I am on a group project and the student is consistently needing accommodation I would get so angry.

I had the option to take extra time and used it only once in college. Honestly bro there are kids who need it. A girl who got into Stanford with the same exact GPA as someone who didn't I look at it two ways - this is a legitimate disability for some people, others take advantage of it. If, for her, it was legitimate then I think performing at that level is remarkable. If she is one of the people gaming the system then hopefully it bites her in the ass in the long run.

I think the best way to describe it is to compare a human being to a computer, many studies have come out proving that the kids who need extra time usually have IQs that are either a standard deviation above the median or a standard deviation below. Many expressions you can use here, but not everyone understands hardware so I'll use software. Imagine your MD decided everyone on your team has all the standard up to date technology but one girl, maybe he just didn't like her face, got windows 95 and is using a dial-up connection. She may be the smartest person on the team, but she is going to need more time than everyone else to produce at the same level.

These people simply process things at a slower pace. I think the movie with Ben Affleck that just came out The Accountant (sans the guns and spyish theme to it) is one of the best efforts Hollywood has done at highlighting these sorts of developmental and mental health issues. Usually by adulthood people find ways to cope and they, as Steve Jobs always called for, truly do "think different". It is a blessing and a curse.

I wish there was a way to have a 100% accurate test to determine who truly needs these accommodations and who doesn't, I know a lot of kids at my uni who got diagnosed with ADHD or whatever just to get adderall and extra time on tests. Those sorts of people are scumbags.

 

I should have clarified some of my statements. I grew up in a hyper-competitive affluent community where plenty of students would get diagnosed simply so they could do better in high school and then place into a top school. Around 25% of my high school received some kind of accommodation (pills, extra time or both). Extra time was certainly intriguing because it was rarely the students consistently struggling. Instead, it was usually the result of 1-2 bad grades, parents freaking out, and then "doctor shopping". I even had conversations with students bragging how they are going to start getting extra time. This tactic worked for several students and created parental reinforcement (who tell their friends) which has basically fueled the Adderall/ Vyvanse craze. I'd also argue my (previous) community is one of the greatest hotbeds of prescription drug abuse. I see this today at my school (Mid Ivy League) and have consistently seen students seeking these drugs without prescription.

I completely understand that some people need it. My sister started out tanking her high school classes but now gets extra time and she certainly has recovered remarkably. It is good to hear that extra time has benefitted you too.

I don't care who your dad is
 

I've always agreed with you. To be completely honest it is because I always wished I had an amphetamine prescription but my parents were reasonable enough to realize that amphetamine addiction is worse for a kid than a mild inability to sit still.

ADHD isn't a "disorder" it's a personality type. Saying that amphetamines cure ADHD is like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant or better yet using Heroin to "cure" a toothache.

 

They aren't lazy fucks, I never said that. They also aren't special people with a life crippling disease that need to be fed amphetamines twice daily just to be able to compete with normal people though.

By bringing the value judgement of "lazy" into this I believe that you're demonstrating a problem. Taking amphetamines to give you motivation isn't the approved usage of such drugs. ADD isn't about motivation, yet that is why most people (in my experience) take amphetamines - to become more engaged in their work.

 

Had a similar thing happen to me when I was your boy's age. One day when I was in elementary school, my teacher called my parents to have a meeting with her about my "performance" in the class. My father was confused as to what she meant, being that I was getting all A's (yes, we had letter grades in elementary school...don't know if this is standard).

When my parents met with the teacher, she had told them that I was a very hyper child and that I had trouble refraining from being disruptive and talking while the teacher was talking. She recommended a doctor to my parents and said that she has seen many cases like this before and that she was highly suspicious that I suffered from "ADHD".

When my pops came home, like Eddie, he was never afraid to tell me the truth. He essentially told me that the teacher said I had trouble focusing and that if I went to the doctor and got these pills, they would make me more focused and allow me to achieve more academically. Being the naive child that I was, this sounded great to me! I told my dad, okay, let's get these brain boosting pills!

My father was very disappointed that this was my attitude towards the situation. He explained to me that getting these pills was "taking the easy way out" and that if I wanted to overcome my alleged "attention deficit", I'd have to do it the natural way, as is such with many obstacles in life. My parents are immigrants from a war-torn third world country, so they have always valued hard work and pure grit over natural intellect. This instance in my life was one of the first circumstances that demonstrated to me that the more difficult path is usually the more rewarding one.

I never actually tried adderall after that except for a handful of times in college. While it allowed me to get a lot of studying done in a short period of time, it kind of turned me into a tweak show. I don't believe that if I took it when I was a kid, it would have materially affected my current position in life.

At the end of the day, it comes down to parenting style and judgement. My pops believed that the pills were unnecessary for me to succeed, and I think it became somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy.

The fool thinks himself to be a wise man, while the wise man thinks himself to be a fool.
 

Interesting take on things. The whole discussion reminds me of "Bigger, Stronger, Faster": "It's not cheating if everyone does it"

I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. See my Blog & AMA
 

I agree 100% that ADD doesn't exist at the outset. The only thing that causes ADD to exist is when a kid/adult becomes dependent upon the pill and off of it can no longer function and focus properly. The disease develops because the patient takes the pill for a prolonged period of time IMO

Our healthcare industry will do anything it can to diagnosis and sell drugs. I'm sure there are doctors out there that are incentivized by the drug companies (it has been made public in the past when doctors got busted) to prescribe certain drugs to patients.

I have a lot of problems with our healthcare industry.

I have two kids and I will never allow either of them to take any medications that are prescribed for claimed "brain chemical inbalances or psychiatric disorders" while they live in my household, these kind of drugs will always do more harm than good.

Kids need to learn to focus on their own without drugs. Any kid that is claimed to have ADD is bs and hasn't been taught properly to sit down and focus on something. It's a skill IMO, and the lazy way out is for the parent to feed their child drugs. These drugs will cause more issues down the road as the child's brain doesn't develop properly and they become dependent on a pill.

I'm completely against subscribing drugs to kids for speculated "psychiatric disorders." Every time (IMO) the issue is that the parents have failed to teach their kids what they need to know to act right and have success.

twitter: @StoicTrader1 instagram: @StoicTrader1
 

Consequatur nemo consequatur et sequi beatae qui dolor. Amet non repudiandae provident ea. Odit molestiae velit neque velit ab qui.

Hic a voluptate temporibus dolor quas amet assumenda. Quos assumenda est est delectus velit commodi magni sed. Aspernatur alias officia molestias repudiandae ratione. Repellendus ut est perspiciatis voluptatem. Eveniet animi aspernatur animi excepturi maxime pariatur. Magnam rerum aperiam ut aliquid et qui. Debitis quae deserunt est qui.

Ut suscipit animi corrupti praesentium. Modi rerum neque corporis. Fugiat assumenda dolor labore nulla. Molestiae veritatis eius sint dolorem voluptates alias architecto. Natus sit rerum exercitationem sapiente repellat magnam. Quia adipisci sed consequatur ullam.

Vitae asperiores sit dignissimos occaecati commodi occaecati. In perferendis atque perferendis temporibus eos. Necessitatibus qui odio quas asperiores odio enim. Omnis blanditiis sint magni itaque nemo maiores.

 

Qui ducimus nihil autem voluptate corrupti. Similique eligendi excepturi beatae dolorem. Veritatis aliquam omnis sed accusantium minima ea.

Commodi aperiam consequatur odio veritatis. Reiciendis ea eaque ea soluta officia aperiam.

Incidunt facilis nisi eum eos non. Aut sunt quasi nostrum. Iste saepe maxime vel assumenda similique. Et alias illo esse blanditiis rerum. Magni adipisci at ducimus. Sit nulla officiis in veritatis. Quos sed quidem dolores quia accusamus omnis aperiam.

 

Quae repellat labore unde aspernatur. Quia et magnam molestias saepe qui esse beatae.

Repellendus modi tenetur dolorum est fuga. Est omnis distinctio ea molestiae. Deleniti ipsum consequatur molestias. Quas quia illo pariatur.

Similique quia adipisci aperiam ipsa quas. Et dolorum consequatur et at. Ducimus sapiente rem et dolorem neque error ea hic. Tenetur officiis quis sint cupiditate. Delectus neque sit sed sed enim omnis. Sint consequuntur maiores autem voluptas ut. Voluptatem quia nam saepe ducimus facere.

Distinctio sit minus qui sint. Quia est et consequatur odio ullam officia incidunt enim. Et alias ratione eos eum deleniti mollitia odio consequatur.

 

Deserunt aut perferendis aspernatur est voluptas harum quam. Et quo quod corporis voluptatem dolorum impedit similique perferendis. Non minus aliquam recusandae ab dicta est aut. Id repudiandae omnis in ratione cupiditate et quia.

Perferendis perferendis totam modi est laborum dolor. Veritatis et deserunt quia dolor velit ea voluptas. Qui odio eligendi ad.

Quas sed vero magnam commodi reprehenderit vitae molestiae. Reprehenderit voluptatibus sit aliquam quod. Rerum rerum optio nobis assumenda. Qui accusamus aliquam molestias aut at ex amet.

Dolores asperiores tempore perspiciatis sunt. Cum earum itaque commodi quos porro. Fugit fugit ut sequi iure molestias omnis. Magni consequatur harum explicabo quis beatae.

Array

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”