Technological progress: better hearing than normal hearing

Lavender said:
Well, same w/ ex-hoh has a master degree graduated from Columbia Univ, but not from deaf school. I have some of my dhh friends from mainstream. They have B.A. & M.A. graduated from Univ of Irvine, CSUF, Montana State Univ. n' Stanford Univ. Two of their bro n' sis are deaf graduated from gally. They are different perspective of hearing loss. They're not the same typical language.
Click to expand...

My wife didn't graduate from Gallaudet University, she graduated from Niagara College Canada (Welland, Ontario, Canada), Brock University (St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada), Canisius College (Buffalo, New York, USA) and University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada).
 
Beowulf said:
I was mainstreamed from an early age, and an academic failure. In retrospect, the nightmares I had to deal with had an effect on my psyche.
Click to expand...

It seems odd to "like" a post that makes the statement yours does. But I liked it because it takes courage to step up and say, 'Hey, this is the way it is." and because by doing so, one more person the mainstream has failed academically and messed with psychologically can know that they are not alone.
 
Banjo said:
My wife didn't graduate from Gallaudet University, she graduated from Niagara College Canada (Welland, Ontario, Canada), Brock University (St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada), Canisius College (Buffalo, New York, USA) and University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada).
Click to expand...

All very well respected schools. And I am sure that having attended a deaf school prior to college gave her an advantage academically and socially.
 
Lavender said:
Well, same w/ ex-hoh has a master degree graduated from Columbia Univ, but not from deaf school. I have some of my dhh friends from mainstream. They have B.A. & M.A. graduated from Univ of Irvine, CSUF, Montana State Univ. n' Stanford Univ. Two of their bro n' sis are deaf graduated from gally. They are different perspective of hearing loss. They're not the same typical language.
Click to expand...

Did you attend the mainstream?
 
jillio said:
Just curious. Do you think that you received a better education than a student at a deaf school would have? Where did you go after the 6th grade?
Click to expand...

jillo, do you find the argument from auditory-verbalists that the education is better as a mainstream solotaire bullshit? I really think that the auditory verbalists are well meaning, but they are ALSO super out of touch. Yes, solotairing was a GREAT option back in the old days, when mainstream teachers had the idea that dhh kids in the mainstream were the smart ones. Seriously, even someone like ME got lumped in with the dumbasses in special ed....and there was NOTHING deaf related. The whole system of mainstreaming is such a scam!
 
deafdyke said:
jillo, do you find the argument from auditory-verbalists that the education is better as a mainstream solotaire bullshit? I really think that the auditory verbalists are well meaning, but they are ALSO super out of touch. Yes, solotairing was a GREAT option back in the old days, when mainstream teachers had the idea that dhh kids in the mainstream were the smart ones. Seriously, even someone like ME got lumped in with the dumbasses in special ed....and there was NOTHING deaf related. The whole system of mainstreaming is such a scam!
Click to expand...

Yep, that is exactly what I find it to be.
 
jillio said:
I know many deaf kids who went to Deaf schools that have ended up with Master degrees and Ph.D.'s and are successful professionals in their field.:cool2: Success is much more likely when coming from a deaf school than from the mainstream, for any number of reasons. You are so very misinformed regarding these topics.
Click to expand...
Banjo said:
My wife was a student at a school for the deaf and she has a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters as well.
Click to expand...
All very easy looking at a person you know, deaf wife, friend etc that is successfull, and say.. See, he/she did it "deaf". Deaf school. Anything is possible... Just keep your child deaf.

I asked to look at it the other way...
Take a "deaf" class of 1995, and see where they all ended up...

Suddenly.. it's a complete different ballgame...

Looking down at a 1-persons path of success is easy... But try looking up the path of 100 deaf children a decade ago...
 
Banjo said:
My wife didn't graduate from Gallaudet University, she graduated from Niagara College Canada (Welland, Ontario, Canada), Brock University (St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada), Canisius College (Buffalo, New York, USA) and University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada).
Click to expand...
Very impressive. Not many people that can claim the same...


In Europe you would go to a University - paid by loans from the state, and after graduation, one would start working, paying off the loans..
How does that work in USA / Canada? A different course each year in a different town? And, who pays for the intuition and living?
 
Last edited:
posts from hell said:
Tell me the ratio of these deaf kids compared to the ones that did not succeed, along with the comparison of their hearing counterparts.
Click to expand...
"Deaf mainstream" vs "Deaf" is hard to find. But "Not able to hear" vs "Able to hear": 2 to 1

Here's a start..
....

Blanchfield BB, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL, Gardner EN. 2001.
• Of the U.S. population, 18.7% did not graduate from high school
. . . . . . . in contrast to 44.4% of individuals with a severe to profound hearing loss.
• 18- to 44-year-old age group – hearing population – 82% were in the labor force,
. . . persons with a severe to profound hearing loss - 58% were in the labor force
• 45- to 64-year-old age group – hearing population 73% of the hearing population was in the labor force,
. . . . . . . . . . deaf and hard of hearing population - 46% were in the labor force
• College graduation - 12.8% of the hearing population graduated from college
. . . . . . . . . whereas 5.1% of the deaf or hard-of-hearing population graduated.
• Post-college education—9.2% of the hearing population had some post-college education with
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . only 4.8% of the deaf or hard-of-hearing population having any post-college education
• Family income comparisons for the U.S. population and population of severely to profoundly deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals.
- Hearing families - 26% earned between $10,000 and $24,999 annually,deaf or hardof-hearing families -
. . . . . . . . . . . . 28% earned incomes in the same range.
- Hearing families- 29% earned $50,000 or more, deaf or hard-of-hearing families -
. . . . . . . . . . . . 14% had incomes in the same range.

SOURCE: Blanchfield BB, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL, Gardner EN. The severely to profoundly hearing impaired population in the United States: Prevalence estimates and demographics. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 2001;12:183-189.
This study informs policy makers and third-party payers of the prevalence and characteristics of the severely to profoundly hearing-impaired population in the United States. Nationally representative data were used for estimations in consultation with an expert advisory panel. The prevalence of severe to profound hearing impairment among the US population ranges from 464,000 to 738,000, with 54 percent of this population over age 65 years. Persons with hearing impairment are more likely to be publicly insured, less likely to have private insurance, have lower family incomes, are less educated, and are more likely to be unemployed than the general population. Approximately half a million Americans are severely to profoundly hearing impaired and appear to be more vulnerable, both financially and educationally, as compared to the US population. As a result, access to medical and technological interventions that may assist their hearing loss may be limited.
 
Last edited:
Interesting and important finding....

Effect of Postsecondary Education on the Economic Status of Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Sara Schley*,1, Gerard G. Walter1, Robert R. Weathers II2, Jeffrey Hemmeter2, John C. Hennessey2 and Richard V. Burkhauser3

Abstract

This article examines the effect that postsecondary education has on earnings and the duration of time spent in the Social Security disability programs for young persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Our hypothesis is that investments in postsecondary training increase the likelihood of employment for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and thus reduce dependency on disability-related income support programs. A longitudinal data set based upon records from the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and Social Security administrative records is used for this analysis. We find that those who graduate, even those who graduate with vocational degrees, experience significant earnings benefits and reductions in the duration of time spent on federal disability programs when compared with those who do not graduate with a degree. This finding suggests that reductions in the duration of time spent on Social Security programs are not limited to those with the highest level of scholastic aptitude and that investments in post-secondary education can benefit a broad group of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons. In addition, the data show that individuals who attend college, but withdraw before graduation, fair no better economically than individuals who never attended college.
 
Lavender said:
That's becuz they got free tuitions from ssi gov't than hoh from mainstream.
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Free tuition doesn't give you the ability to earn an advanced degree, nor does it have anything to do with them making a success of their lives after graduation. Additionally, SSI only provides tuition assistance for the first undergrad degree. I am referring to deaf students who have earned advanced degrees. Umad?
Click to expand...

jillio is correct. SSI program is only to provide for undergrad students, not grad students. Most i know they had been applied for the grants, or any many funds on their own.
 
Cloggy said:
"Deaf mainstream" vs "Deaf" is hard to find. But "Not able to hear" vs "Able to hear": 2 to 1
Click to expand...

Like I said.... It already has been demonstrated in Indiana and Maryland. As a matter of fact, Indiana School for the Deaf's superintendent was blocked from using the FOIA because he proved that long time ISD students actually fared better than these who were in mainstream. It's not hard to find statistics on these who are in the mainstream - all you have to do here is to narrow it down to these who are: 1.) On an IEP, 2.) Deaf.

Before you even think of it... Don't give me the run around saying you wonder how many of "Deaf/HOH" are not on the IEP. School districts here WANTS more kids to be on the IEP. Reason: money.

Not only that. I've also provided links and research on this forum showing you guys this.

Now, my question to you, Cloggy, would be "what do you category consider these with CI's in?"
 
Cloggy said:
And.. how is this "audist"?
Click to expand...

Better question: How is it not? Though I suppose I can take some comfort in the fact that your bigotry is apparently due to ignorance and not malicious intent.

Cloggy said:
the right comparison would be:
"I don't hate being black. I cannot hate it because I am not black. I am white.."
Click to expand...

To make your version more accurately reflect what you actually said regarding deafness: "I don't hate being black. I cannot hate it because I am not black. But I love being white, and so does my daughter after we got her that special surgery that lightens her pigmentation."

Now do you see it?
 
It's not a Binary equation, or a zero sum game -- to say you "love" something doesn't mean you 'hate' everything else. I might "love" swimming in the ocean, dancing in the moonlight, and a daughter, but that doesn't mean I "hate" hiking in the mountains, riding in sunlight, and a son. As Rick said, some concepts can be held together and are not mutually exclusive. My daughter might love being a deaf person AND love her ability to access sounds, to 'hear' with the help of CIs without any conflict. And unlike most, hearing or deaf, she can decide if she wants to hear things or not at any given time and turn sound on and off. But from what we've discussed and what i've observed, She may think about these things, but I think she's far more focused on interacting with the world she senses around her than on navel- gazing ( pondering whether or not she loves or hates her eyesight, sense of taste, hearing, feeling, etc.). She IS chinese, american, deaf, 5yearsold, artist, gymnast, massachusetts-grown, vegetarian, etc., and doesn't spend a lot of effort judging how much she loves/hates being who she is. That effort is put to deciding what she likes to /wants to do (or not do), and who she is is reflected in those actions.
 
Cloggy said:
All very easy looking at a person you know, deaf wife, friend etc that is successfull, and say.. See, he/she did it "deaf". Deaf school. Anything is possible... Just keep your child deaf.

I asked to look at it the other way...
Take a "deaf" class of 1995, and see where they all ended up...

Suddenly.. it's a complete different ballgame...

Looking down at a 1-persons path of success is easy... But try looking up the path of 100 deaf children a decade ago...
Click to expand...

It isn't a different ball game in the least.

But I do find it ironic that you would accuse others of using their singular experience and attempting to apply it to the whole, because that is exactly what you do as a hearing parent of an implanted child. You use your second hand observation as proof positive of the benefit all will receive from a CI.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.:laugh2:
 
Cloggy said:
"Deaf mainstream" vs "Deaf" is hard to find. But "Not able to hear" vs "Able to hear": 2 to 1

Here's a start..
....

Blanchfield BB, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL, Gardner EN. 2001.
• Of the U.S. population, 18.7% did not graduate from high school
. . . . . . . in contrast to 44.4% of individuals with a severe to profound hearing loss.
• 18- to 44-year-old age group – hearing population – 82% were in the labor force,
. . . persons with a severe to profound hearing loss - 58% were in the labor force
• 45- to 64-year-old age group – hearing population 73% of the hearing population was in the labor force,
. . . . . . . . . . deaf and hard of hearing population - 46% were in the labor force
• College graduation - 12.8% of the hearing population graduated from college
. . . . . . . . . whereas 5.1% of the deaf or hard-of-hearing population graduated.
• Post-college education—9.2% of the hearing population had some post-college education with
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . only 4.8% of the deaf or hard-of-hearing population having any post-college education
• Family income comparisons for the U.S. population and population of severely to profoundly deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals.
- Hearing families - 26% earned between $10,000 and $24,999 annually,deaf or hardof-hearing families -
. . . . . . . . . . . . 28% earned incomes in the same range.
- Hearing families- 29% earned $50,000 or more, deaf or hard-of-hearing families -
. . . . . . . . . . . . 14% had incomes in the same range.

SOURCE: Blanchfield BB, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL, Gardner EN. The severely to profoundly hearing impaired population in the United States: Prevalence estimates and demographics. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 2001;12:183-189.
This study informs policy makers and third-party payers of the prevalence and characteristics of the severely to profoundly hearing-impaired population in the United States. Nationally representative data were used for estimations in consultation with an expert advisory panel. The prevalence of severe to profound hearing impairment among the US population ranges from 464,000 to 738,000, with 54 percent of this population over age 65 years. Persons with hearing impairment are more likely to be publicly insured, less likely to have private insurance, have lower family incomes, are less educated, and are more likely to be unemployed than the general population. Approximately half a million Americans are severely to profoundly hearing impaired and appear to be more vulnerable, both financially and educationally, as compared to the US population. As a result, access to medical and technological interventions that may assist their hearing loss may be limited.
Click to expand...

Taken out of context. Everyone needs to read the entire study to check the methodology. Abstract is not intended to be used as support. An abstract is simply meant to be used to decide if the research is applicable to your intended purpose.
 
Back
Top