Another rant on mental health
Aug. 20th, 2004 02:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kellinatorFrom 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:![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
the1mouse has helpfully provided this link to the article.
"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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.