<p>2 yrs ago I remember doing a college tour at MIT and someone in the group asked our guide about MIT's suicide rate. She refused to give an answer. it would make sense if MIT did have the highest rate of suicide because of all that stress and pressure competing in a nerd filled arena.</p>
<p>I think that's a terrible policy. I always answered that question when I was a tour guide.</p>
<p>Well, it wouldn't make sense for 98% of freshmen to come back their sophomore year if they really hate it. It's just a myth.</p>
<p>It's not "just a myth," or a myth at any level. Sure, most people don't commit suicide, but that doesn't change that MIT's suicide rate is highest among colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On a scale of deaths per 100,000 since 1990, MIT had a rate of 10.2, compared to Harvard's rate of 7.4, and Johns Hopkins, the third place school, with 6.9, according to the study.</p>
<p>Compared to the national average for 17- to 22-year-olds in the United States, MIT's suicide rate is also higher at 20.6 per 100,000 since 1990. The national average during the period was 13.5, according to the study, and at all colleges, an estimated 7 per 100,000 commit suicide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just throwing this out there, but that's .0102%. That's statistically insignificant. Comparatively, perhaps not--but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Given a massive sample size, and the fact that MIT's rate is approximately 38% higher than Harvard's, I'd say it's pretty statistically significant. Whole number difference in ppm (or, in this case, parts per hundred thousand) are not meaningless.</p>
<p>"Comparatively, perhaps not--but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter."</p>
<p>I would argue that it does: it means MIT has the highest suicide rate among top colleges, which matters to a lot of people.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, MIT is working very hard to improve their reputation in this area. I don't believe they do anymore (although they used to).</p>
<p>i believe MIT is right on the Charles River. I suppose it would be easier to drown in ones own sorrows there.</p>
<p>Hopkins is number 3? I would have ranked it at #1. Just being in Baltimore is enough to make some people contemplate suicide . . .</p>
<p>^ lol @ the baltimore joke....it's not that bad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Comparatively, perhaps not--but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter."</p>
<p>I would argue that it does: it means MIT has the highest suicide rate among top colleges, which matters to a lot of people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I said, comparatively, it's significant ("perhaps not" was qualifying "insignificant"--double negative, meaning it's significant).</p>
<p>However, on an absolute scale, it doesn't matter. And it really shouldn't matter to people, especially applicants. Why? Because this higher rate of suicide (though tiny on an absolute scale) does not mean that you have a much higher rate of being suicidal, since suicides are not random events. You could try to argue that the environment in which MIT puts its students is more conducive to suicidal thoughts, thus making it significant, but given the very tiny portion of suicides, such a claim would only seem specious and inconsequential. You'd be relying solely on a proportional statistic, when even the base number (MIT's, at number 1) is infinitesimal.</p>
<p>I wasn't trying to imply that MIT catalyzes suicides, but the statistic in and of itself isn't an unimportant one. It has no bearing on future events, but is still of interest.</p>
<p>Any Southern schools with high suicide rates?</p>
<p>Doubt it.</p>
<p>Why is it still of interest?</p>
<p>"Why is it still of interest?"</p>
<p>Because I like statistics. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hopkins is number 3? I would have ranked it at #1. Just being in Baltimore is enough to make some people contemplate suicide . . .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You've never been to Baltimore have you?</p>
<p>MIT</a> Suicides Reflect National Trends - The Tech</p>
<p>Hopkins</a> suicide rate in line with national college trend - News</p>
<p>I never found a definitive source for this. One that doesn't also count accidental deaths as suicides, and separates grad students from undergrads, one that does not solely encompass the 90s, which was I think an abnormally turbulent decade for MIT students for some reason, in terms of suicides at least. So if anyone has that, that'd be good information. And perhaps a comparison between similar science/tech focused schools would be more revealing since we're now looking within a particular demographic, or more heavily sampling among people of certain temperaments and ambitions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Given a massive sample size, and the fact that MIT's rate is approximately 38% higher than Harvard's, I'd say it's pretty statistically significant. Whole number difference in ppm (or, in this case, parts per hundred thousand) are not meaningless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And arnoc, I'm not too sure what kyledavid's point is so I won't comment on his post, but that's just plain the wrong way to do statistics. If we took the total suicide count in many consecutive decades and found the statistical spread, it'd probably be huge. Because this per 100,000 number is found by taking the # of suicides (single digits, 1, 2...) and dividing by the number of graduates and undergraduates, and multiplying by 100,000, and not necessarily by sampling 100,000 students and graduates. So if we had 1 suicide one year per 1000 students, for that year the rate would be 100 suicides per 100,000 students. And 0 the next, the rate would be calculated to be 0 suicides per 100,000 students. Yeah, so the standard dev on this rate value is huge. We obviously need error bars here. Depending on exactly the quality of the data, which I don't deem to be that great, considering far fewer than 100,000 students have passed through MIT since the 90s, a difference between 10.2 per 100,000 and 7.4 per 100,000 could be entirely statistically negligible. If that's kyle's point, I agree with him. </p>
<p>Besides, this whole discussion is pointless. Because it's not an institution that causes someone to commit suicide. And except for very rare instances, I don't believe it's the environment in the least. obviously very difficult study to do but I'd love to see someone try to tackle separating the environmental variable from the personality variable in the case of mood disorders, depression, and suicide. I'd wager to say the nature of the person far outweighs any normal environmental influence (we're not talking about being chucked in a concentration camp here, you're going to school), and I'd be impressed if someone saw the significance of that, stopped this top schools comparison garbage and did a study along personality lines.</p>
<p>User molliebatmit wrote a good blog entry talking about this (look at the later part of the entry) some time ago.</p>
<p>MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"</p>
<p>Also see this article in the Tech, and note that in the late 80s and 90s MIT's suicide rate was below the national average for the relevant age group: MIT</a> Suicides Reflect National Trends - The Tech</p>
<p>"My school has more students kill themselves!"</p>
<p>"No it doesn't! Mine does. That makes us more prestigious!" </p>
<p>good lord...</p>
<p>I was always under the impression that Cornell had the highest rate?</p>