In a recent article from the BBC, the Royal College of Psychiatrists claims that the current generation of students graduating from high school to university is at a greater risk of mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression, than previous generations of university students."There are now many more students from less privileged backgrounds who are less prepared for university life," (Jeffreys). Furthermore, in today's economy, university students face debt and uncertain employment prospects post-graduation. Additionally, universities may cut funds for counselling and support services to save money. All of this can lead to more frequent instances of mental instability in university students. The knowledge issues in this case are implied rather than derived directly from the article. How does one know if a student is 'mentally prepared' for university? The article presents two contradictory claims, as seen in the quote by author Branwen Jeffreys, quoted above. Students from less privileged backgrounds are more likely to face issues such as debt and job uncertainty than the 'privileged' minority of eighteen-year-old's that has been the most represented group among university attendees in the past. However Jeffreys seems to link 'underprivileged' socioeconomic status with being 'less prepared for university life'. Is this a generalization, then, that less privileged students are often not mentally prepared for university? Language and reason and logic are the ways of knowing that seem to be the most applicable to this case.. 'Mental' readiness for university is not easily definable in language. It is unclear, regarding this issue, if mental readiness is directly linked to the socioeconomic status of university students, or if psychological maturity and socioeconomic status may be independent factors that can contribute to the mental condition of university students. On the one hand it is a gross generalization to assume that individuals from less privileged backgrounds are less mentally mature than those from more privileged backgrounds. On the other hand, Jeffrey may have meant only that those students from less privileged backgrounds are simply more likely to experience money-related stress in college, and therefore are more likely to develop mental health issues. "Many (students) are having to work long hours in paid work on top of full-time academic studies. Many are less well-supported by their families than was the case in years gone by," (Callender). Now, logic and reason come into play. If a student is likely to develop mental health issues in university, what is the responsibility of the student and of the university regarding this issue? Should students reconsider attending university if they are 'mentally' ill-equipped? Or, should universities simply acknowledge this issue and be increasingly sensitive to these issues in the current economic times?
These ways of knowing are applicable to the human sciences in this case, specifically student psychology, but can be applied more generally as well. A British institution is behind this claim. However, it is possible that the claim can apply to university students, anywhere. How does one 'know' if they are prepared or properly equipped to deal with certain life changes? Can generalizations be made on this topic, as Jeffreys does in this article, or is mental health a case by case issue, always? How can an institution make a conclusion about the 'mental state' of anyone? This is such a subjective rather than objective conclusion to make. The broader issue, then, is how can an institution address an issue that is so vague and subjective? My opinion is that the 'mental readiness' of students is not something that can be assessed before students attend university. The universities have no way of knowing for certain which students from which backgrounds are more likely to suffer psychologically in university. Therefore the universities can only respond to the problems that arise for students at university rather than targeting the cause of the problem.
A similar issue that comes to mind also concerns innate personal qualities that cannot always be directly assessed before they come into play in a professional setting. For example, employers have no way of knowing for certain how competent an individual will be in a particular area of work, because their judgments are based on a sampling of personality rather than directly observing the work being done. Competence can only be judged after-the-fact; an incompetent worker cannot always be singled out before he is tested in the field. Human qualities and characteristics have to be observed to be assessed. Therefore my conclusion to this issue is that in the case of universities and other institutions, the institutions attempt to make subjective judgments based on their interpretations of 'language' and 'reason and logic'. However, the most valid judgment cannot be made until it is directly observed, as seen in this example case of the mental health of students.
I suppose another example could be offered that relates to your own example, and perhaps one that we can all relate to, which is how universities take into considerations of other “personal qualities” that an applicant can offer during the admissions process. I am no proponent of standardizing applications but the idea of quantifying personal qualities in a nutshell (in this case, a 500-word essay) is rather baffling and often frustrating. And who's to say that everyone wants to include their personal qualities within their applications? One could argue that to even include personal qualities is a lack of objectivity on a university's part, therefore how can one reconcile that with a university's egalitarian mission of considering everyone equally? Furthermore, I would argue that the act of quantifying itself diminishes the quality: how can a trait still remain innate or personal if it is to be made accessible to others? While you say that “the most valid judgment cannot be made until it is directly observed”, I would argue that the act of observing something changes the nature of that which is being observed, let alone attempting to come up with a judgment of it. In other words, how do we know that we are not changing our traits when we try to quantify them? This heuristic uncertainty does not only manifest itself within the social sciences (ecological validity, anyone?); the physical sciences, thanks to Heisenberg and Schrodinger, are not exempted from it either, as demonstrated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which states that we cannot know the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time). However, uncertainty doesn't [necessarily] equate to futility. Perception, in the end, is gamble, but not every gamble made is bad.
ReplyDelete