Another rant on mental health

[kellinator]

From the August 23, 2004 issue of Newsweek:

"MIT admissions dean Marilee Jones says she's looking to enroll 'emotionally resilient' students. 'If we think someone will crumble the first time they do poorly on an exam, we're not going to admit them,' she says. 'So many kids are coming in, feeling the need to be perfect, and so many kids are medicated now. If you need a lot of pharmaceutical support to get through the day, you're not a good match for a place like MIT.'"

Wow, how wonderful to see such sensitivity in a person working with teenagers.

There are so many things that offend me about this statement that I don't even know where to start. Are Prozac and Ritalin overprescribed? Certainly. Are there students with mental health issues who would be better served in smaller, more supportive environments than the pressure cooker of MIT? Without a doubt. Is it fair to expect universities to bear all the responsibilty for the problems of troubled students? I don't think so. Do some of these students need to just suck it up and deal? Probably. But still...

To me, what Dean Jones seems to be saying is, "There's so much pressure on students to be perfect, and we want to make sure they can do it without drugs. Because, you know, it's not real if you can't do it without drugs. Antidepressants are for wusses."

What about diabetic students who need insulin? Technically, that's pharmaceutical support. Can you imagine the outcry if Dean Jones said this, and rightly so? I believe they have something called the Americans with Disabilities Act that says you can't do that.

Perhaps MIT is trying to dodge some of the responsibility it must bear for creating an environment where suicides and nervous breakdowns are very real issues. They may be legally adults, but most eighteen-year-olds aren't ready to deal with extreme pressure, especially on top of huge life changes like college usually involves (moving, being away from your support network...). Maybe MIT doesn't feel that expending funds on decent mental health care is a worthy use of their dollars. Never mind the old adage that says "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

During a final exam at the end of my first semester of Vanderbilt, I burst into tears and left the room to sob for twenty minutes. I got an A on that exam and went on to graduate summa cum laude. I suppose Dean Jones would have called me one of those problem students and rejected my application?

Or maybe I'm just bitter because I couldn't cut it in my grad school experience (at a school whose mental health services were much harder to obtain than those at Vanderbilt). So let's think over some of the others with mental health issues that MIT might pass over. Lincoln, Beethoven, Churchill, Van Gogh, just about every great writer of the twentieth century... would you tell them they couldn't come to your school?

EDIT: the1mouse has helpfully provided this link to the article.

Comments

[moongarden1971.livejournal.com]

FUCK YOU MIT!

[lula-fortune.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's really shitty thing to say, IMO.

I mean, COME ON. What college kid doesn't have a lot of stress? WHO CARES if some people need different things in order to deal with it?

I wanna kick her.

[dslartoo.livejournal.com]

What it says to *me* is that the school is under fire from parents or students who are claiming that the schedule or the pressure is causing them to have mental breakdowns, then are bringing lawsuits. "Oh boo hoo, poor little me, I couldn't deal with the pressure and it made me have a nervous breakdown and now the school should have to foot the bill for my many prescriptions and for my continuing psychological scarring".

In other words, I think they're trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility for said problems, and to get people to deal with their issues on their own -- medicated or not. They just don't want to be blamed for every little thing that goes wrong in a student's life. Which is the way it should be.

And just to reiterate: needing medications to cope with certain problems in one's life does NOT make you weak.

cheers,
Phil

[gaiagurl.livejournal.com]

so then my question is, why is it necessary to turn a school into a pressure cooker? is there some reason you NEED to stress people out in order to educate them?

i wouldn't think so. i think the whole pressure-cooker-college culture is sick, and needs reforming. if i want an education, it isn't to prove i'm better than other people. i take grades as a sign of my own progress, not as a sign of how much better i am than other people.

it's no wonder education in america is going down the tubes. our priorities are way fucked up.

[theashifaction.livejournal.com]

while she was thinking on a grander scale of mental instability, youre paring her comment down to imply she'll reject the entire medicated populace. shes not trying to discriminate against mental disorders, shes trying to take preventative measures in situations where students and parents are too focused on the prize that they refuse to take into consideration the inevitable in some cases.

take into consideration the armed forces. there is a psych exam involved in the higher elite fields to determine who may or may not freak out under pressure, and thats acceptable because ultimately the safety of all involved is at stake. MIT is in the same caliber as special forces. they have a responsibilty to discern who can and can not actually live through the process.

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

MIT is *not* in the same category as the special forces--no other lives depend on your performance.

[crowyhead.livejournal.com]

they have a responsibilty to discern who can and can not actually live through the process.

Thius may be true, but by focusing on those students who "need a lot of pharmaceutical support to get through the day," she's missing the boat -- she should be worried about the people who AREN'T getting the care they need.

[the1mouse.livejournal.com]

I want to wade in here, but I don't like taking quotes out of context... could someone scan and post the whole article???

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

OMGWTF!!!!!!!

I was told by the head of Stanford's anthro program that I should probably quit grad school, given my "medical issues."

>_

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

By the way, Clint's had a number of students who "crumbled" on the first exam, but through his support have come back to do just fine in the class. I suppose that if their teachers were the kind who only focus on the class and not the students, they would have had to drop out. MIT may well have this kind of atmosphere, being a research-focused school (research schools tend to have an unfortunate habit of not caring whether their faculty can actually teach or relate to students). This is a failing on MIT's part, though, not the students'.

[ilexx.livejournal.com]

considering everything that *is* achieved at MIT, what do you expect? other schools that have more of a caring focus on students - well, that's great, they should go to those schools. there's only so much you can put under one roof, only so many hours in a day. i don't think it's realistic to have an institution like MIT slow down and focus on hand-holding, considering everything else it provides in the way of education and research and technology. there are other schools who provide less of that and more personal support, and parents and their children need to consider all avenues, rather than pushing MIT in a situation where the student may need something a little more gentle. and i think that's what she's trying express here. maybe her wording sucked, but *shrug*.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

At universities like that, you need to be at the top of your game. I'm sure there are a number of students who require medication there and do just fine. I truly think she is referring to those individuals who let the handicap hold them back and expect the rest of the world to make allowances for them. Everyone has their ups and downs at school, but if the whole university needs to walk on egg shells because there's a growing number of kids who spendmore time freaking out than learning, I don't think sensitivity is the issue. They shouldn't be subjecting themselves to an environment that cannot be comfortable in. Maybe they need a different type of learning, maybe they need a different college. That doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I would let those guys come to my school. They transcend school. These were people who were gifted beyond institutions. Einstein dropped out, didn't he? I think these were examples of people who didn't need, nor would not have thrived in the structure of a college institution.

[ilexx.livejournal.com]

i daresay it was more meant in a situation where "crumbling" is used as an excuse for failing and filing a lawsuit.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Mmm. Sorry. I have to side with MIT on this one.
As a person who flunked college his first time around due to not being able to hack it, I fully admit it was my responsibility and not UGA's. I was not mentally ready and should not have gone. Period.

The only way MIT can rectify the issue towards students who do not react well to high-intensity schooling pressure is to depressurize and dumb down the curriculum. If they did this, what makes them any different from Joe Blow Community College? Nope. Don't think so.

Also, considering that my second round of university is geared towards teaching college-level history, I have to agree with the non-coddling concept. A student who blows their first exam due to mental breakdown will a) get whatever grade their exam is due and b) have to hope they do better the rest of the semester.

Though most people think it's cliched, "No pain, no gain." pretty much sums up my view. I would treat a complaint of the nature stated somewhere along with complaints that a subject is being graded on the curve. "And your point is...?"

Welcome to college, your first experience at a zero-sum game.

[ariedana.livejournal.com]

Anyone who's been to a top-flight school (or heck, any school) has had their "crumbling" moments. Heck, I ended up having a panic attack in the middle of a religious studies exam at UNC. We've all been there.

However, the only thing that's going to happen when college administrators make statements like this is that bright students are going to go in the closet with their mental health issues. They're going to either not get the help they need because they're afraid of the repercussions, or they'll sneak around to do it. And both of those things could cause even worse problems. It's very dangerous to make a judgement call that someone is weaker because they've actually had the strength to seek out help for their problems. And if someone went to the trouble of doing an anonymous poll of MIT grads asking them how many had sought psychiatric help during their collegiate years and then tracked their later success, I daresay that those who did seek help probably had greater success than many who didn't.

That said, I don't think it's a college's job to "coddle" anyone. It's their job to teach them. But I think that most of them manage to strattle the line between the two. This particular administrator is an exception to the rule, I think.

[thystle.livejournal.com]

That quote really is a dumb thing to say.
Whether or not you are on medication is no indication of mental or academic potential. Other mental and emotional issues that are not being treated, maybe. Just the fact of having pharmaceutical support, no.

My (Slightly More Educated Now) Opinion

[the1mouse.livejournal.com]

Now that I've read this article in its entirety, I feel like I can offer comment.

First off, let me preface with three things:

1. I have mental health problems, including a mortal fear of failure.
2. I gave up college because I was bored with it.
3. My cousin, who is very similar to me in personality, has been in and out of the post-graduate program at the University of Illinois and has attempted suicide (after one incidence of quitting school and going home because she was too stressed out), so I feel that I have at least some small frame of reference.

Assertion: I think it is perfectly reasonable for schools to psychologically screen applicants, and I think this is especially applicable to highly specialized schools such as MIT.

Qualification #1: I do not think it is appropriate to deny someone an education based on any disability - mental, emotional, or otherwise. I do, however, agree that certain schools are not equipped to deal with certain disabilities.

Qualification #2: I do not think it is fair to discriminate against a potential student because he/she is taking medication to manage depression.

Now, here is my totally biased opinion: The issue is not whether or not a person has trouble with depression, or whether or not a person needs pharmaceutical support to get through the day. The issue is whether or not this person will be capable of functioning on a day-to-day basis in the environs to which they are applying. If that means they are going to be under intense pressure to perform, then they'd better damn well have the appropriate support system in place and ready to go.

I think you could take me and my cousin as a good example... We are the same age. We are both clinical depressive borderline personalities (for lack of a more accurate stereotype). On top of that, suicide runs in my family. She's tried, and I've come damn close. She's still fucked up, and I'm not. I am, however, dependent on a pharmaceutical regimen to maintain that even keel. We are both equally intelligent, and would both be intellectually capable of succeeding at MIT.

Now, here's the difference: I focus on maintaining my support system, keeping my insurance up-to-date, going to counselling appointments, and taking my meds. If I went to MIT, I'd kick major fucking ass. I guarantee it.

My cousin doesn't have insurance and therefore doesn't get meds (or want to take them anyway) and can't go to counselling unless it's provided by the school (and we all know how well folks get paid doing that vs. private practice billing the shit out of insurance companies). If she went to MIT, chances are - even with equal ability to perform - she'd crack under the pressure.

That being said, I think that the statement, "If you need a lot of pharmaceutical support to get through the day, you're not a good match for a place like MIT," is blatantly offensive and potentially discriminatory, and I am of a mind to write a letter to Ms. MIT and let her know exactly that.

Should they screen people for psychological issues? Absolutely yes... but I don't think the issue ought to be whether or not a person has (or has a history of) emotional instability. I think the issue is to determine whether the individual is functional and is getting the appropriate care. EXACTLY like a diabetic on insulin.

Shit man... maybe we all oughta wear bracelets or something.

Hmmm.

[happy-buddha.livejournal.com]

To go through a program like the one at MIT, you need to have the complete ability to handle it. That implies intellect, responsibilty and stability.

Why, you ask?

Because the people they turn out tend to be the kind who do big things, and anyone who washes out of a slot has wasted the time of the school AND whoever was next on the wait list.

You are not entitled to an education at MIT. You are not owed it, nor is it divine right.

And as to your emotional examples of great writers, statesmen, artists and musicians...

Not a single one of THEM went to MIT and they did just fine.

So, yes. If there was soemone who did not fit my profile for success at a school I was responsible for, then you can be assured that I would refuse them. Anything else does an injustice to all parties- including the student. Why set someone up for failure?

Re: Hmmm.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Certainly, no one should be set up for failure. You're correct, it's a waste of resources and the loss of a chance for someone else. However, what I'm taking issue with is Dean Jones' statement: "If you need a lot of pharmaceutical support to get through the day, you're not a good match for a place like MIT." Hopefully the school has something more nuanced in mind, but I'm working with her words here, which I think pretty clearly state "don't even think about it if you're on meds, you're not our material." After learning from other LJers about statements she's made in the past explaining female students' performance with "Women have pheromones and things like that", I'm frankly amazed anyone at the university will let her anywhere near a reporter.

[ex-ilk.livejournal.com]

Anyone who enacts or attempts to enact a mental health admissions policy should be willing to sumbit herself and her staff to a full mental health screening.

That is all.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

I think I love you. :)

[ilexx.livejournal.com]

and of course, there's the fact that everything in a summarized article like this is taken out of context.

At MIT, Jones, the admissions dean, gives preference to students who are "self-driven" (read: not being pushed by their parents), based on her belief that self-motivated students are better able to cope with failures. "Our culture has become insane—we're making people sick," Jones says.

and then the story of Elizabeth Shin. well, she told everyone except her own FAMILY that she was suicidal? yeah, THERE'S a healthy relationship, one that makes you wonder who's desire it was that she go to MIT in the first place. in which case, where's the most pressure - from the school's expectations? or from her family's, if she wasn't willing to call home and tell SOMEONE that she was losing it?

one more thing...

[ilexx.livejournal.com]

if they bring up the meds issue, and then they DO admit someone who is on psych meds, and that person doesn't take their meds as prescribed and loses it, killing themselves and/or others - who is going to be held responsible in that situation? they already have lawsuits for suicides, so what then?

the dean made a huge mistake in saying anything like that at all, because it just opens a HUGE can of worms they'll have to deal with in some form or another.

[kmeghan.livejournal.com]

I have to say that the smartest thing I did was go to community college for two years, then went away to school. I was much more prepaired for a major college and the pressures that came along with it. I didn't have much a problem with school pressures, except in math....but I also knew what resources were avaliable to help me. Maybe their focus should be on getting that kind of info to incoming students before they are overwhelmed.

Apparently mental illness still has a stigma, even among those who should know better

[cartman94501.livejournal.com]

I think (ex) Dean Jones's statement illustrates the divide that still persists in our society over "physical" versus "mental" illness. No one would suggest that an insulin-dependent diabetic shouldn't go to the college of his/her choice. Dependence on antidepressants is no more of a problem than dependence on insulin, as long as you don't run out of pills and money at the same time.

When my mother was dying of cancer, she refused pain medication because she didn't want to "become addicted." I explained patiently that people who take pain medication for actual pain rarely become addicted, and that even if she did, it was no problem, because she would always be able to get it. She was stubborn, but eventually the pain got too bad, and she had to take it. Did she become addicted? Perhaps, but who cares? Addiction isn't a problem if you're terminally ill and have cash and/or health insurance.

I wonder whether the stigma attached to mental illness has anything to do with the unusual level of religiosity in the US compared to other rich countries. After all, if consciousness resides in the brain, and the brain is a body organ, sometimes it goes kerflooey and needs to be fixed. No big deal. But if consciousness is the individual's link to God, then perhaps God is punishing the mentally ill, or they're morally weak, or possessed by demons, or all sort of other preposterous notions.