Should Universities Have Mental Health Facilities

[Wahoo Redux]

Based upon the derailment over here.

[mahagonny]

I answered 'no' and they should pass the cost savings on to students, which will lighten their expense burden and possibly that will even improve their mental health. Also, schools should get rid of the self-flagellating 'social justice' agenda that teaches 'white' people that they need to change and 'non-white' people that they need to beware of 'white' people. This would result in a healthier environment and more cost savings.
I did have a student this semester who had to drop out for mental health reasons. I don't know whether he used the services of the people whose job it officially is to support emotionally distressed students, but student and I bonded over our shared history of depression and anxiety. I did the best I could! Now he's back home and hopefully we'll work together again. Or maybe not! Anyway, great kid, I love him.

Not that you want to hear from me Dr. Wahoo, but perhaps someone else does.

[dismalist]

I answered "something else".

Look, any institution can do whatever the hell it pleases so long as it's legal.  Whether that's effective is for each institution to decide. How that's paid for is for voters to decide, for both public and private colleges and universities get government money.

It seems that any half-baked or more thoroughly baked idea is used to expand the scope of higher education and have it paid for by somebody else.

As I said on the other thread, incorporating mental health treatment is like incorporating sports.

[smallcleanrat]

Look, any institution can do whatever the hell it pleases so long as it's legal.  Whether that's effective is for each institution to decide. How that's paid for is for voters to decide, for both public and private colleges and universities get government money.

Pretty much my gut-level response to this question.

I think it's important to consider, but it seems to me what's feasible and what's effective depends on too many different factors for a general 'yes' or 'no' answer to make sense.

[marshwiggle]

Maybe kinda.

Campus mental health services should be to community mental health services what walk-in clinics are to hospitals. A walk-in clinic is for non-life-threatening outpatient treatment where one or two visits is sufficient. If a car accident happens in front of the clinic, and a person "walks into" the clinic bleeding profusely, they will likely have an ambulance called to take them to a hospital. Just because there is a busy intersection outside the clinic, they don't have to expand their services to handle any kind of trauma that people nearby may experience.

Similarly, campus mental health services should be limited to the kinds of issues common to students; e.g. exam anxiety, loneliness, relationship drama, etc. More serious issues, such as histories of substance abuse or self-harm should be referred to community mental health services where ongoing programs with long-term treatment can be undertaken. Just because a student has some sort of mental health condition (like PTSD for someone who experienced some sort of trauma) doesn't mean the student mental health services ought to be able to provide the intense ongoing care required.

(In a similar vein, campus police are there to deal with things like unruly behaviour, minor vandalism, etc. Any serious criminal behaviour should be referred to community law enforcement with the resources and mandate to handle it.)

TLDR; campus services should exist to deal with situations common to students, not to handle anything which may involve  a person who happens to be a student.

[Anon1787]

I said no because those supporting the idea want universities to offer treatment for a relatively broad range of mental health issues, which I think should be addressed by other institutions.

[Ruralguy]

I said "yes" because it was unclear what you meant by "facility." I don't think most schools should have their own hospital, mental or otherwise, unless there is an associated medical school.  But if you mean better mental health services than many have, then, yes. Too much stigma and a sense that mental health issues aren't "real."

[mahagonny]

And 'no' also because we part timers don't even have access to a health insurance pool. If I can teach while mentally ill, you can get through my course in the same condition. Man up, people.

[mamselle]

Yes.

Especially after having walked with two different students to facilities at two different schools.

They didn't need band-aid level help.

They were in full-blown, "I'm afraid of what I could do to myself" need for competent, complete intervention....one as a result of an on-campus assault that was being passed off as frivolous by the (literal) old-boy-and-young-men's frat network on campus (where the perpetrator lived), the other based in systemic family issues triggered by a class reference (not in my course; an English lit. class) that had been brought up carelessly, and apparently (I wasn't present), with no acknowledgement of its potential for pain, even after several students objected to the tone and tenor of the discussion.

In both cases, I was glad I wasn't passing the student off to a "mental health lite" facility.

Money isn't everything....

M.

[Hibush]

The answer depends a great deal on whether there is mental-health treatment capacity in the community. For many residental four-year schools, that is not the case. For any large (>10,000 student) school, it would be unlikely even in a rather large city.

Commuter schools could depend more on community services.

The cost to a school of inadequate treatment is very high. I think the administrators are taking that into account. Besides the individual unnecessary suffering, costs are reputational. For instance, if there are a lot of dropouts who subsequently got care and now tell horror stories about your school. Or if the a common questions from prospect's parents is the suicide rate. That kind of thing depresses student quality, yield and increases the discount rate.

[mahagonny]

Since money isn't everything, I vote in favor of comped health care for all currently non-benefitted employees.

The answer depends a great deal on whether there is mental-health treatment capacity in the community. For many residental four-year schools, that is not the case. For any large (>10,000 student) school, it would be unlikely even in a rather large city.

Commuter schools could depend more on community services.

The cost to a school of inadequate treatment is very high. I think the administrators are taking that into account. Besides the individual unnecessary suffering, costs are reputational. For instance, if there are a lot of dropouts who subsequently got care and now tell horror stories about your school. Or if the a common questions from prospect's parents is the suicide rate. That kind of thing depresses student quality, yield and increases the discount rate.

Sure, taking care of people who can give you bad press is just good business.

You can blame people (low paid teaching faculty) for sleeping in their car and all that goes along with that, so that problem takes care of itself. (ETA: I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let's just say that was my idea)

If colleges offered to continue mental health service for students and fund it by cutting tenured faculty salaries, and put the choice up to faculty senate vote, the mental health facilities would be gone by this coming Wednesday.

ETA: If there had been no mental health faculty on campus, Mamselle would have escorted the student to an emergency room. I think just about any of us would.

[marshwiggle]

One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet is something like conflict-of-interest. A restaurant chain may offer health counselling to its employees, but when the issue of nutrition arises, things get complicated because the company will not be likely to give any advice suggesting avoiding their own food. In a similar way, a university counselling students on mental health is unlikely to counsel students to drop out of school (even for a term or two) or to transfer to another institution which may be mores suited to the student (cheaper, closer to home, with a more appropriate program, etc.).

With many serious life crises, reducing the pressure on the person is an obvious thing to consider. If a person has to work to pay the rent, or has dependants who need care, then those responsibilities cannot be avoided. However, in many (most?) cases,  school is something that can be suspended to reduce stress, although the campus that relies on the student's tuition is unlikely to seriously consider, let alone suggest, it.

[Puget]

One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet is something like conflict-of-interest. A restaurant chain may offer health counselling to its employees, but when the issue of nutrition arises, things get complicated because the company will not be likely to give any advice suggesting avoiding their own food. In a similar way, a university counselling students on mental health is unlikely to counsel students to drop out of school (even for a term or two) or to transfer to another institution which may be mores suited to the student (cheaper, closer to home, with a more appropriate program, etc.).

With many serious life crises, reducing the pressure on the person is an obvious thing to consider. If a person has to work to pay the rent, or has dependants who need care, then those responsibilities cannot be avoided. However, in many (most?) cases,  school is something that can be suspended to reduce stress, although the campus that relies on the student's tuition is unlikely to seriously consider, let alone suggest, it.

Most of your comments on this topic show a profound lack of understanding about both mental health and the services provided on college campuses.

Psychologists and clinical social workers have professional codes of ethics they follow, just like MDs. They don't make decisions based the the financial interests of the university or anything other than the student's health. Medical leaves of absence are very much one of the things they discuss with students when appropriate, along with medical under-loads and other ways to reduce academic pressure.

[mahagonny]

One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet is something like conflict-of-interest. A restaurant chain may offer health counselling to its employees, but when the issue of nutrition arises, things get complicated because the company will not be likely to give any advice suggesting avoiding their own food. In a similar way, a university counselling students on mental health is unlikely to counsel students to drop out of school (even for a term or two) or to transfer to another institution which may be mores suited to the student (cheaper, closer to home, with a more appropriate program, etc.).

With many serious life crises, reducing the pressure on the person is an obvious thing to consider. If a person has to work to pay the rent, or has dependants who need care, then those responsibilities cannot be avoided. However, in many (most?) cases,  school is something that can be suspended to reduce stress, although the campus that relies on the student's tuition is unlikely to seriously consider, let alone suggest, it.

Most of your comments on this topic show a profound lack of understanding about both mental health and the services provided on college campuses.

Psychologists and clinical social workers have professional codes of ethics they follow, just like MDs. They don't make decisions based the the financial interests of the university or anything other than the student's health. Medical leaves of absence are very much one of the things they discuss with students when appropriate, along with medical under-loads and other ways to reduce academic pressure.

Sure, but these days they could be social justice psychologists. I would hope my kid would avoid them.

ETA: One example

https://www.potsdam.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Counseling%20Center%20brochure.pdf

Interesting that while they mention the interest in treating students who are suffering from the psychological effects of micro aggressions and xenophobia, they don't mention treating student who are experiencing the psychological effects of having been accused of these things.
And I have a hunch the racial bias that they're claiming to be concerned about won't include for example the anti-white bias of my school's diversity team presence and communications, or similar from theirs.

[Ruralguy]

I don't know about other schools, but when a student is in true crisis, whether it be seriously psychological or "just" academic crisis due to laziness or inability to cope, I and others have indeed suggested withdrawing for the semester, and in more serious cases, suggesting not ever coming back. I realize that part of my job is to look out for the interests of the institution, but the most important part is to do right by each student, which sometimes means letting them know that going is the best option.
So, COI's of this sort might be a bigger problem in some schools, but I haven't seen it, and believe me, we could use the student's tuition money!