> I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this.

What on earth is a "malicious" explanation of this?

That people know they do not actually need/qualify for accommodations, but misrepresent themselves in order to get them?

Cheating is the malicious interpretation, same way steroids are considered cheating in other competitions. (college admission is a competition, there are fixed number of seats and you cheating to get a seat hurts someone else.)

Getting a diagnosis to get more time to complete tests. https://accommodations.collegeboard.org/how-accommodations-w...

I don't understand how yous can be ignorant of this. In the USofA you get advertised at continuously by drug companies.

Do you really think they spend that money advertising, and that you can then not buy the products?!?

Sure, you need a corrupt doctor. But the amount of advertising tells you exactly the amount of corrupt doctors that can act as drug dealers for you.

If someone is advertising something at you, it's because you can get it and you are potential market.

Not rocket science.

Somehow the whole country has collective blindness to this fact that is scarily obvious to anyone from outside the USofA that drops by.

Drugs adverts for prescription drugs should be illegal: because there is no legal justification for them.

One example of a malicious explanation would be: people are lying about having a disability to get some sort of benefits they don’t need, likely at the expense of someone who does need those benefits.