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:
I have mental health problems, including a mortal fear of failure.
I gave up college because I was bored with it.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
My (Slightly More Educated Now) Opinion
Date: 2004-08-20 02:48 pm (UTC)First off, let me preface with three things:
- I have mental health problems, including a mortal fear of failure.
- I gave up college because I was bored with it.
- 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.