What’s the prevalence of mental health problems at elite/Ivy universities compared to “normal” universities? I would be willing to bet the numbers are not good…
I believe the author has made some very valid observations. His tone may be biased, but the observations are nonetheless true.
On what statistical basis can you and he make the claim that the observations are “true”? He has no statistical data to justify saying that “most” students are caricatures of drug-dependency, cynicism, over-privileged wealth. cutthroat competition, etc. Second, as has been noted, the depression that he acknowledges elsewhere distorts perception, such that “some” = “most.” Thirdly, it may even be true that “most” of his own experiences bore some resemblance to the described experiences, but we have no idea how small that sample was. He doesn’t strike me as that socially adept, and he seemed overly concerned with connecting with others as his primary activity/purpose once he got to Columbia. And if he is depressed, combined with being an immigrant, combined with being focused on feeling accepted or part of the campus in whatever way he imagined that, chances are that he didn’t venture far enough to see that “most” students are not like the caricature he describes.
“What’s the prevalence of mental health problems at elite/Ivy universities compared to “normal” universities? I would be willing to bet the numbers are not good…”
I bet every university has to deal with mental health issues these days. Depression, anxiety, other issues don’t particularly care if you’re Joe Brilliant or Jane Average.
The author should set up what they have at Brown University for students: “The room contains all the staples of a daycare center, complete with Play-Doh, coloring books, bubbles, pillows and blankets, videos of puppies and more.”
Depression and suicide is an issue, I’m not disregarding that at all. As to whether is is more prevalent at elite universities? Not sure, but here is an article from Inside Higher Ed:
In part:
Suicide Realities
April 22, 2010
By
Victor Schwartz
Victor Schwartz and Jerald Kay
The recent suicides of college students at Yale and Cornell Universities are rightfully cause for shock and sadness, but also a call to action. No doubt, we wonder how young people with so much talent and promise could end their own lives. In struggling to make sense of these tragic events, it is all too appealing – and unhelpful – to resort to simple explanations and casting of blame. In fact, the science of suicide is highly complex, and suicide prediction and prevention present mental health clinicians, and college administrators, with formidable challenges. Even institutions with quality prevention services, like Cornell and Yale, are not immune from these calamities…
We do know that most young people who die by suicide have a diagnosable, and often treatable, psychiatric condition, and, frequently, they have told someone of their plan. Regrettably, numerous studies have found that less than 50 percent of depressed college students seek help. And not all manifest obvious signs of their depression…
Despite this, it is important to keep the issues in perspective. While universities are seeing larger numbers of students with psychiatric difficulties – in part because improvements in treatment make it possible for more students with such problems to successfully attend college – the number of suicides on campuses has remained stable over the past 10 years. This suggests that we may be doing a better job at identifying and treating the underlying causes of suicide, such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and substance abuse…
We also know that elite colleges do not have higher rates of suicide than others. Academic competition and pressures are not frequent precipitants of suicide in undergraduates. More often, suicide is precipitated by family or relationship problems, often in the context of substance use…
Moreover, we have learned quite a bit about college suicide prevention in the past 15 years. We know that keeping the means used for self-harm out of the hands of potentially suicidal people will save lives. College students have about half the rate of suicide of non-college-attending young people, in part, it appears, because few guns are allowed on college campuses. And there are definitive measures that can prevent an impulsive young person from taking tragic action. The securing and alarming of windows and roofs have been helpful deterrents. Actions such as Cornell’s adding barriers on its bridges are therefore prudent and sensible…
When I worked on a long term project for a known pressure cooker school (including being there when a suicide was handled,) I found these openly promoted resources for pressured, troubled or disconnected kids, in no particular order: via the dean’s office, the chaplaincy, the heath center, res life, disabilities office and etc. In several of those (probably all, but I can only speak to two,) the practice was, if a kid is in trouble, clear your schedule asap for him/her and after a meet, refer appropriately, then follow up. In my dept the key staff had weekly meets with the other depts, to identify and monitor how at risk kids were being mentored and doing. Then at our meetings, same was brought up.
The issue is partly that not all kids do seek help or drop obvious warning signs.
I don’t think it is that straight forward. Colleges are colleges, not parents or guardians.
There should be general education about depression and what people should do to address it. And advisors who can help people determine how to adjust their course load, etc. But I think on-going treatment is another matter.
If people wouldn’t expect that the college would treat them if they are diagnosed with cancer while they are attending college, why would they expect the college to treat their depression?
There is one college I am aware of that is being criticized for only providing 10 1-1 counseling sessions for depression. Which is certainly not enough to deal with depression, but it should be enough to get them directed to professionals who can help them.
The colleges can also make sure that the health insurance that they sell covers counseling and that students have that type of coverage if they don’t use the college plan.
I’ve never posted on CC before, just lurked a bit. My kids aren’t college age yet, but I’ve found it interesting to read about current experiences compared to when I applied, in preparation for what’s to come.
I understand that the author’s views are a bit skewed, but I think he makes a lot of good points to at least think about regarding the high pressure and highly competitive environment that exists at many top schools (whether Ivy or not) and the variable ability of students who are able to get into these schools to thrive in such an environment. The generalizations may be a bit broad, but I think these are valid things to think about in terms of whether aspiring to such schools is necessarily the going to end up resulting in the best fit. That’s not to say that the kind of issues discussed are unique to these environments, or that experiences don’t differ wildly.
I’ve had some personal experience with these environments, though dated. My older brother went to Harvard (over Yale, among others) and was fairly miserable there. He was plenty bright and talented enough, but his personality was not aggressive enough for Harvard, and his confidence was severely tested his freshman year. That’s not to say that he didn’t get a fine education or make some excellent friends, but overall he was pretty unhappy, and he’s never shown any interest or connection to Harvard since. I think the experience was somewhat traumatic for him, and he subsequently chose to get his PhD from a state school and teach at a small state college.
I went to Stanford back when it wasn’t a mainstream option for people from the east coast, and I was influenced by my brother’s experience at Harvard. I turned down Harvard, Columbia (John Jay Scholarship) and UChicago, among others, because I thought that Stanford offered a more balanced and wholesome environment, even though I’d never visited (and this was pre-internet). It was a great decision. That’s not to say that Stanford was perfect, or that I didn’t struggle at times - I did in fact go through some significant depression my senior year. But I suspect that any problems I had would have been much greater in a more pressurized environment. I later went to Harvard for medical school, and wasn’t very happy there. Lots of great resources and some wonderful teachers, but the overall environment was markedly more competitive and less supportive than Stanford. I’ve spent time at UChicago, too - very different than either Harvard or Stanford, but of the two I’d say that I found Harvard markedly more of a pressurized environment and more cut-throat than either.
It’s overly simplistic to say that “the people suck” or are fake. But I don’t disagree with the author’s conclusion that going to an Ivy [or any other highly competitive school] can be a big mistake if you’re not suited and/or prepared for it, regardless of your intellectual ability and accomplishments. It’s something for applicants and parents to think about, so I found the article useful, though to be taken with a grain of salt.
This is plain ludicrous.The author seems naive and lacking some common sense. How did he get in Columbia?
"The recent suicides of college students at Yale and Cornell Universities are rightfully cause for shock and sadness, but also a call to action. No doubt, we wonder how young people with so much talent and promise could end their own lives. "
You know, the suicides at East Nowheresville State U are still rightfully cause for shock and sadness, too. I don’t know, something just struck me as off - it’s not as though people at ENSU are “lesser” or that their sadness and death hurts their families and loved ones less because they didn’t get 2300’s on their SAT’s.
Mental illness often manifests in young adults. What I don’t know is whether being in high-pressure environment has a significant impact on that or not.
If you are doing drugs in high school in order to do well enough to get into a college, you probably aren’t going to do well in that college, unless you can up the level of drugs, since colleges are more challenging that HS.
It is always interesting to see posts about “chance me for college X” and yet very few posts about “if I get into college X, can I thrive or even survive?”. There is a weird underlying assumption that the only thing that matters is getting in, not doing well there.
fta:
Naivete and common sense aren’t tested for nor indicated in the Common App.
This is getting kind of off topic from the original article, but for what it’s worth, the suicide rate (attempts and successes) among college students is substantially less than the rate among the comparable cohorts in society at large. http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/SuicideAmongCollegeStudentsInUS.pdf So the question isn’t whether the lives of Yale students are being valued more than those of Directional State U, but why the lives of college students are being valued more than those of McDonald’s fry cooks.
where is anyone making value judgements about which lives are valued more?
No surprise that a thread about issues at an Ivy League school will probably talk about issues at Ivy League schools.
The pdf you linked to highlights the protective factors that mitigate suicide risk. There are several factors there that are probably more prevalent in college students, and no factors there that would be more prevalent in fry cooks.
Regardless of what we might think of the author or his specific take on things, I think it provokes an important conversation. The ivies and their ilk are NOT the best choice for everyone, and it’s a shame that so many kids are turning themselves inside out to try for admission when they might actually do better in a less fraught environment. I know a bunch of wonderful kids thriving at some of the ivies, but it’s not something every kid needs, by a long shot, nor is it something I’ve encouraged my own kids to pursue.
I don’t get it. I see the same issues where I teach, a state college. Just being in any college makes them feel superior to others. Our honors students come in with stats that would make them in the running for an Ivy, but when they are given real work - application of knowledge not just rote, half cave.
I just don’t think this is unique to Ivies or even top schools. Yes, maybe most CC and JC students don’t have the chip on their shoulder, but otherwise, four year college students feel superior to most random folks walking down the street.
I do feel sad for the author, he should quit if he is so upset about being there. The thing about “friends to smoke with” made me think that he is trying to make himself appear “normal” and his “friends” to appear abnormal. But he is the one complaining and miserable, pot or not.
This kid has really had a bitter experience, but life is hard when you’re trying to find yourself.
I went to a very competitive SLAC. At first, it was a terrible struggle and for most of the time, I was lonely. But I discovered so many things, truly an inspiration - no kidding. You just have to keep trying.
My d is now at one of the top global universities (Cambridge) and, while she is stressed and at times struggling, she loves her subject and has found many amazing friends for life. The school is wonderfully supportive, with intimate contact with profs and advisers, providing unique career opportunities that she is taking full advantage of, and she is continuing to pursue her passion for singing. It really is what you make of it.
Whether academic pressure and competition is good/bad, unavoidable or not these days, in terms of the Ivies, I wonder if there is a substantial difference in the way students feel today on campus compared to 40-50 years ago.
Absolutely there is a difference. I don’t see how anyone could question that. The ivy league of 1965-1975 is a completely different environment than it is today. In an old boys club, racist work force these institutions were literally boys’ clubs full of white people. The mentality that one must get into an ivy to be a successful doctor, lawyer, business man etc isn’t a totally manufactured concept. There was a period of time (like 40-50 years ago) when that was true. The students were all wealthy and had a nice safety net of nearly guaranteed gainful employment - how could that not instill a different ethos than the current day?