There is a growing mental health crisis among graduate students, both at MIT and around the country. Thirty-nine percent of graduate students suffer from depression and 41 percent suffer from anxiety. A study on the mental health of economics PhD students at top tier research schools, including MIT and Harvard, reported that one in ten had contemplated suicide in the past two weeks. This alarming incidence of mental health issues among graduate students nationwide is equally — if not more — prevalent in the MIT community. In March 2019, the MIT administration sent a survey to current graduate students to assess their experiences at MIT. Of the nearly 2,100 graduate students who responded, nine in ten reported feeling overwhelmed, two in three felt isolated, and one in three felt so depressed it was difficult to function.
The cloud of mental health issues hangs heavy over the entire MIT community. Far too often, we hear of a community member who has tragically died by suicide. Each suicide reminds us that depression and isolation are not unusual at MIT and have become a pervasive norm. We must support one another.
Graduate students serve an indispensable role in MIT’s community. We teach and mentor undergraduates, generate new knowledge through our research, secure funding through grant writing, produce journal articles, and foster community. However, despite our passion and dedication, our work at MIT can exact a heavy toll on our physical and mental well-being. This is not how it has to be. It is within MIT’s means to create a healthier academic environment for us to grow as scholars and people. In order to build a better MIT, we need to increase access to mental health care and address the systemic causes of the mental health crisis, including dysfunctional advisor-advisee relations. As members of the MIT community, as scholars who provide immense value to the Institute, and as human beings, we deserve to be treated with dignity.
All of this considered, a group of graduate students at MIT have come together to create Graduate Students for a Healthy MIT, a student advocacy group looking to improve the graduate student experience. In conversation with various student groups, we have drafted the following recommendations: to increase coverage of our existing insurance and start to address the root causes of mental health issues, particularly around advisor-advisee relations.
Improved mental health coverage and access
We need an increase in the number of covered therapy sessions for outside referrals from 12 to 26 annually, a decrease in the current copay from $25 to $10 per session, a clear and streamlined process for obtaining an outside referral for mental health support, and improved cultural competency and sensitivity training for counselors.
The current services offered by the MIT Student Extended Insurance Plan fail to meet the needs of the graduate student population. When depression, anxiety, and trauma threaten our well-being, we must be able to readily access high-quality care. When that care is not accessible, we continue to suffer needlessly and are unable to perform the great work of discovery, understanding, and innovation that compelled us to come to MIT.
The current coverage for regular therapy sessions is inadequate compared to what should be expected for a minimum level of treatment. Currently MIT only covers 12 sessions for outside referrals. Every additional session outside of the 12 that are covered costs $25 for patients, adding at least $1,000 per year in out-of-pocket costs for a person who receives weekly mental health care. This is not affordable for many graduate students and must be brought into line with our budget and rising cost of living to increase accessibility. The recent quality of life survey found that three out of four grad students report cost of living as a source of stress and half report their health as a source of stress. We believe that making treatment affordable can begin to address the pervasive mental health crisis. We can improve this by increasing the number of covered sessions from 12 to 26 annually and decreasing the copay on the remaining sessions from $25 to $10 per session. We must be able to afford treatment for the psychological costs of contributing to MIT.
Due to a shortage of adequate support, many graduate students seeking mental health care are lost in the current referral process and never receive the care they need. The current mental healthcare system at MIT relies heavily on outside referrals for patients. The social stigma and the difficulty of grappling with mental health issues already impose major barriers to accessing care. Students often receive a referral from the mental health office only to fall through the cracks and never receive the care that they need. In order to ensure ready access to care, this process must be streamlined. Referrals could be better facilitated by dedicated, full-time staff, instead of delegating to currently over-worked counselors and students.
Additionally, students of color and international students often report that MIT counselors are ill-equipped to provide treatment to students from marginalized backgrounds. There is a desperate need to improve the services provided to these members of our community. MIT must expand the current cultural competency and sensitivity training program for counselors and create a transparent mechanism to implement ongoing feedback from existing student groups representing students of color and international students. A similar program must also be made available as a recommended training for all student advisors.
Accountability in advisor-advisee relations
We need structural improvements for advisor-advisee relations, including required training for all faculty on mentorship, mental health, cultural competency, and sensitivity; student-run advisor evaluations; accountability mechanisms for abusive advisors; clear protection from retaliation for students who report abuse and exploitation; and transitional funding for students switching between advisors.
Although many factors contribute to the growing graduate mental health crisis, one major root cause stands out. Unsupportive and dysfunctional advisor-advisee relationships are cited as one of the strongest predictors for poor mental health outcomes. These relationships are at the heart of graduate education and, when healthy, can be fruitful for everyone involved. However, instead of elevating students’ scholarship, the recent quality of life survey found that for two out of five graduate students, their relationship with their advisor is an obstacle to their academic success.
Despite the importance of advisor-advisee relationships in the academic community, MIT does not require mentorship training for advisors. For example, advisors are given no guidance on how to identify and address issues within their group or how to best support the mental health of their students. Similarly, academic advisors often lack sufficient training to address systemic issues in their lab and department that affect students of color and international students. The resulting barriers and toxic environment lead to significantly worse mental health outcomes for students of color and international students. Poor advising is cited as the most common reason for a student to drop out of grad school. When a student leaves MIT without a degree, no one benefits. Both MIT and the student waste substantial financial and time resources. Continuing to allow students to fall through the cracks is financially and ethically irresponsible.
The vast imbalance of power in advisor-advisee relationships allows for abusive and toxic situations. Graduate students often don’t report advisors’ unreasonable expectations and inappropriate behavior for fear of retaliation. Far too often, we are overworked, sexually harassed, discriminated against, or otherwise disrespected and mistreated by our advisors without recourse. We must be able to report toxic situations safely to neutral third-party review committees that include faculty and student representation. Our departments must stop providing cover for abusive advisors. We can start to identify problematic advisors through a student-run, Right to Information-style database of advisor reviews, exit interviews for all students, objective metrics on graduation rate and time to graduation, and demographic breakdowns that could indicate bias against women or people of color. There must be consequences for abusive advisors, including restrictions on taking new students and getting raises. Finally, to allow for grad students to exit from toxic situations, we must provide guaranteed transitional funding between advisors so that leaving an abusive advising relationship doesn’t have to mean leaving grad school.
We deserve to be respected by our mentors.
This letter is cosponsored by Graduate Students for a Healthy MIT, Black Graduate Student Association, LBGT Grad, Active Minds, Chemistry REFS, Physics REFS, BCS REFS, Chemistry Alliance for Diversity and Inclusion, BioLGBTQ+, Women in Chemical Engineering, DUSP Student Council, DUSP Healthy Masculinities, DUSP Students of Color Committee, DUSP LatinX, DUSP Queers in the Built Environment, design@DUSP, DUSP Climate, Biology Diversity Council, and the Edgerton House Association.
自杀，分别是小印和小越，一位是大二，一位是研二。都是机械工程系，而且从家长群和校长发的信来看，都是学业压力造成的，RIP!!!
以前这种消息很少公布，现在已经好很多了。
工科不容易念，得孩子真正喜欢和能handle,还要有strong heart 才行。
There is a growing mental health crisis among graduate students, both at MIT and around the country. Thirty-nine percent of graduate students suffer from depression and 41 percent suffer from anxiety. A study on the mental health of economics PhD students at top tier research schools, including MIT and Harvard, reported that one in ten had contemplated suicide in the past two weeks. This alarming incidence of mental health issues among graduate students nationwide is equally — if not more — prevalent in the MIT community. In March 2019, the MIT administration sent a survey to current graduate students to assess their experiences at MIT. Of the nearly 2,100 graduate students who responded, nine in ten reported feeling overwhelmed, two in three felt isolated, and one in three felt so depressed it was difficult to function.
The cloud of mental health issues hangs heavy over the entire MIT community. Far too often, we hear of a community member who has tragically died by suicide. Each suicide reminds us that depression and isolation are not unusual at MIT and have become a pervasive norm. We must support one another.
Graduate students serve an indispensable role in MIT’s community. We teach and mentor undergraduates, generate new knowledge through our research, secure funding through grant writing, produce journal articles, and foster community. However, despite our passion and dedication, our work at MIT can exact a heavy toll on our physical and mental well-being. This is not how it has to be. It is within MIT’s means to create a healthier academic environment for us to grow as scholars and people. In order to build a better MIT, we need to increase access to mental health care and address the systemic causes of the mental health crisis, including dysfunctional advisor-advisee relations. As members of the MIT community, as scholars who provide immense value to the Institute, and as human beings, we deserve to be treated with dignity.
All of this considered, a group of graduate students at MIT have come together to create Graduate Students for a Healthy MIT, a student advocacy group looking to improve the graduate student experience. In conversation with various student groups, we have drafted the following recommendations: to increase coverage of our existing insurance and start to address the root causes of mental health issues, particularly around advisor-advisee relations.
Improved mental health coverage and access
We need an increase in the number of covered therapy sessions for outside referrals from 12 to 26 annually, a decrease in the current copay from $25 to $10 per session, a clear and streamlined process for obtaining an outside referral for mental health support, and improved cultural competency and sensitivity training for counselors.
The current services offered by the MIT Student Extended Insurance Plan fail to meet the needs of the graduate student population. When depression, anxiety, and trauma threaten our well-being, we must be able to readily access high-quality care. When that care is not accessible, we continue to suffer needlessly and are unable to perform the great work of discovery, understanding, and innovation that compelled us to come to MIT.
The current coverage for regular therapy sessions is inadequate compared to what should be expected for a minimum level of treatment. Currently MIT only covers 12 sessions for outside referrals. Every additional session outside of the 12 that are covered costs $25 for patients, adding at least $1,000 per year in out-of-pocket costs for a person who receives weekly mental health care. This is not affordable for many graduate students and must be brought into line with our budget and rising cost of living to increase accessibility. The recent quality of life survey found that three out of four grad students report cost of living as a source of stress and half report their health as a source of stress. We believe that making treatment affordable can begin to address the pervasive mental health crisis. We can improve this by increasing the number of covered sessions from 12 to 26 annually and decreasing the copay on the remaining sessions from $25 to $10 per session. We must be able to afford treatment for the psychological costs of contributing to MIT.
Due to a shortage of adequate support, many graduate students seeking mental health care are lost in the current referral process and never receive the care they need. The current mental healthcare system at MIT relies heavily on outside referrals for patients. The social stigma and the difficulty of grappling with mental health issues already impose major barriers to accessing care. Students often receive a referral from the mental health office only to fall through the cracks and never receive the care that they need. In order to ensure ready access to care, this process must be streamlined. Referrals could be better facilitated by dedicated, full-time staff, instead of delegating to currently over-worked counselors and students.
Additionally, students of color and international students often report that MIT counselors are ill-equipped to provide treatment to students from marginalized backgrounds. There is a desperate need to improve the services provided to these members of our community. MIT must expand the current cultural competency and sensitivity training program for counselors and create a transparent mechanism to implement ongoing feedback from existing student groups representing students of color and international students. A similar program must also be made available as a recommended training for all student advisors.
Accountability in advisor-advisee relations
We need structural improvements for advisor-advisee relations, including required training for all faculty on mentorship, mental health, cultural competency, and sensitivity; student-run advisor evaluations; accountability mechanisms for abusive advisors; clear protection from retaliation for students who report abuse and exploitation; and transitional funding for students switching between advisors.
Although many factors contribute to the growing graduate mental health crisis, one major root cause stands out. Unsupportive and dysfunctional advisor-advisee relationships are cited as one of the strongest predictors for poor mental health outcomes. These relationships are at the heart of graduate education and, when healthy, can be fruitful for everyone involved. However, instead of elevating students’ scholarship, the recent quality of life survey found that for two out of five graduate students, their relationship with their advisor is an obstacle to their academic success.
Despite the importance of advisor-advisee relationships in the academic community, MIT does not require mentorship training for advisors. For example, advisors are given no guidance on how to identify and address issues within their group or how to best support the mental health of their students. Similarly, academic advisors often lack sufficient training to address systemic issues in their lab and department that affect students of color and international students. The resulting barriers and toxic environment lead to significantly worse mental health outcomes for students of color and international students. Poor advising is cited as the most common reason for a student to drop out of grad school. When a student leaves MIT without a degree, no one benefits. Both MIT and the student waste substantial financial and time resources. Continuing to allow students to fall through the cracks is financially and ethically irresponsible.
The vast imbalance of power in advisor-advisee relationships allows for abusive and toxic situations. Graduate students often don’t report advisors’ unreasonable expectations and inappropriate behavior for fear of retaliation. Far too often, we are overworked, sexually harassed, discriminated against, or otherwise disrespected and mistreated by our advisors without recourse. We must be able to report toxic situations safely to neutral third-party review committees that include faculty and student representation. Our departments must stop providing cover for abusive advisors. We can start to identify problematic advisors through a student-run, Right to Information-style database of advisor reviews, exit interviews for all students, objective metrics on graduation rate and time to graduation, and demographic breakdowns that could indicate bias against women or people of color. There must be consequences for abusive advisors, including restrictions on taking new students and getting raises. Finally, to allow for grad students to exit from toxic situations, we must provide guaranteed transitional funding between advisors so that leaving an abusive advising relationship doesn’t have to mean leaving grad school.
We deserve to be respected by our mentors.
This letter is cosponsored by Graduate Students for a Healthy MIT, Black Graduate Student Association, LBGT Grad, Active Minds, Chemistry REFS, Physics REFS, BCS REFS, Chemistry Alliance for Diversity and Inclusion, BioLGBTQ+, Women in Chemical Engineering, DUSP Student Council, DUSP Healthy Masculinities, DUSP Students of Color Committee, DUSP LatinX, DUSP Queers in the Built Environment, design@DUSP, DUSP Climate, Biology Diversity Council, and the Edgerton House Association.
有些时候也不是学校功课太难，而是peer pressure 太大
当然，不少老中家长觉得大学主要是把知识和技能学扎实，非技校都花拳绣腿
其实所有不靠merit进去的学生，如果学校要维持质量不降低课程难度的话，这些学生都会倍感压力。所以需要学校降低要求迎合这些低学术质量学生。AAminority进名校要求safe space就是延伸的恶果
选拔多样化人才是王道，当然具体操作每个学校会有不同尺度。
咱们老中也不要总是斤斤计较什么录取不公了。条条大路通罗马，为何偏挤独木桥！
机械化工不是自找压力？学最多的也就两年而已。
变态教授们，平均1．9的课程不少.
高压锅啊
我儿子现在训练和小白car pool, 小白天天在车上给他读各种各样的joke，或者一起唱歌啥的. 我儿子不知道是真的老师要求的reading 任务没完成呢？还是自己读小说上瘾，搞的有时候听Joke还走神，小白只好不时提醒，“XX,stop reading”.
要是和小中一起car pool, 基本都是闷葫芦，我都经常觉得尴尬.
都没压力，活的滋滋润润。intern 挣钱不亦乐乎。
唱歌跳舞打球的进去就迷惘了，
不过说到STEM，确实觉得美国高中的数理教育跟大学的要求之间有很大的差距。这可能也是造成工科学生压力山大的原因。朋友的孩子从纽约三大高中之一毕业去了藤校念CS居然还觉得数学课很吃力，可以想象普通高中的孩子会怎样。
作为父母真应该适当给他们减减压。日子不需要过得太急。
前几年有一阵子亚裔女孩自杀的比较多.
我们一朋友女儿出乎意料被MIT招了，这女孩就属于那种轻松学习不攀比型的，我怀疑这是MIT看中她的主要原因.女孩子在MIT如果想在学业上和男生比高下，肯定郁闷.
你是说让多找滥竽，大家感觉就好点？恶性竞争是逃不过的，人才太多，资源太丰富，只能take it。中学打好基础，学术上心理上的。人家四年拿二米，我们四年拿一米也欣然接受。你们都啥逻辑，大学还显摆自己会唱歌跳舞？哈哈哈，难怪孩子心理有问题。大学生只显摆intern多少钱，offer的package有多少！get it？喜不喜欢都得swallow。教会孩子接受自己mediocre最重要，别当傻白甜大学还显摆中学那点玩意儿。除非你是IMO的。LOL
生活是要苟且的。
而且单靠Merit录取也不能保证不会get lost。落实到个人进了大学是如鱼得水，还是痛苦挣扎，就看自己的了。
生活需要多样化，跟吃饭一样，萝卜青菜，荤素搭配才是营养均衡的饮食。
Black Graduate Student Association,
LBGT Grad,
Chemistry Alliance for Diversity and Inclusion,
BioLGBTQ+,
DUSP Students of Color Committee,
DUSP LatinX,
Biology Diversity Council
我们家老大也很喜欢和“nerd”交往，特别是数学竞赛中交的一些朋友。说那些人是真正有意思的人。他们会玩很有意思的游戏，说话也特别幽默。
但是大学选人确实还是多样化好些。
所以作为父母，完全没必要费太大劲推孩子。顺其自然，要充分相信是金子总会发光，不是金子发了光也没用：）
只不过是生活不丰富多彩，但理工科就是这样，不喜欢不学就是
让家长给学生减压。
GT难读的不是CS， 航空， 机械更难。自杀的越南裔研究生是GT ME本科毕业继续读研的。
GT的Nerd比较多，很多学生不善社交，Social也只是在宿舍打游戏。
但这几年应该好些了，学校在diversity上下了工夫，商学院发展也快了，女生招的比例也提高了。老师打分也比过去仁慈了。新上任的校长夫妻都是GT毕业的，儿子也是GT CS的，希望能有改观。
我个人认为美国的教育体制是不鼓励恶性竞争，而且效果应该还算可以。美国是个相对开放的社会，美国人也比较务实，如果一个人真有能耐，总能找到机会。
其实很多时候是做父母的比较钻牛角尖，总认为一定要爬藤，上T5才能有光彩夺目的远大前程。于是在美国这样一个开放的国度硬生生自己营造出一种千军万马过独木桥的氛围，然后就是各种high和anxiety。
再次强调我不反对“nerd”，事实上我们家孩子对学业特别是数理非常感兴趣。但是如果只拿学业作唯一标准，那必然是喜欢学的和不喜欢学的全都在拼学习，其实也很让人倒胃口。
物以类聚，人以群分，有相同爱好的人在一起是自然的亲近。喜欢打球的一起打会很愉快，喜欢唱歌的一起表演会很享受。喜欢做一件事的和根本不喜欢做的人混在一起，不会有什么愉快的结果。让每个人都能找到一些真正志同道合的朋友，这应该是diversify的目的。
真正有能力的孩子不会因为没去成某个学校就被毁掉的。
GT 其中的一个，高中的时候其实已经有症状了，真的是很可怜，
不能否认理工科人的思维和学的东西就是boring。越说和主题越远。
心情会愉快些。这些对以后事业未必会有直接帮助（也可能会有），但是也是人生宝贵的经历。往远里说，也许对培养下一代还有很大的好处呢！You never know! 做事不能太急功近利
可现实就是现实。同在M读CS，有人两米四年，这就是压力，你意思多弄些唱歌跳舞的学生都挣不了钱，大家就没压力了？打球的人才和愉快不愉快没关，运动员自杀的不少，S就好几起
没明白您在急什么？至于是否能四年两米，如果学校里招的都是IMO，怕是这种好机会更剩不下多少了。
不明白为啥别人唱歌跳舞打球会影响您挣钱？
为什么一定要计较早几年晚几年呢？名校面子问题？感觉都是自己给自己脖子上套枷锁呀！
我一直都觉得即使T5也并不是所有学生都那么厉害。不需要神话。
自己选自己要吃的那盘菜最重要。
是别去和那些先天条件好的在他们有特长的方面叫板。