[StanfordMatt]

If parents were aware of the opt-in mechanism, they could require their child to do so as a sort of quid pro quo for continued financial support.

[StanfordMatt]

If parents were aware of the opt-in mechanism, they could require their child to do so as a sort of quid pro quo for continued financial support.

[M T]

That proposed policy didn't specify the parents.  It could be an older sibling, a close aunt/uncle, a best friend, a high school coach, a romantic interest?
It is clear that the student could decline that assignment.

Some things I would suggest: 
1. Stop thinking about this for student-athletes.  All young adults could use such a volunteer policy.  The original quote here did not limit the policy to student-athletes.
2. The policy should require notification of the advocate when they are assigned or de-assigned.  Their acceptance of the assignment is a must.  That also assures that contact is possible.
3. I would wait 3 months into the freshman year before the assignment is made.  That allows the student to step away from always being under any so-called helicopter parent.
4. Some thought needs to be given as to who has access to knowing the assigned person?  Is it public information or private?  Is there a bureaucracy or can the medical center quietly do it?  A dorm counselor?  A coach?  A roommate?  The campus cops?  The municipality cops?
5. I would suggest that two names be given.  Imagine if the student is having problems with the individual named on the list (a romantic interest; any other that might be the source of the pressures).

I think it is a reasonable idea.  I probably would have signed up for it, naming my parents.

[M T]

That proposed policy didn't specify the parents.  It could be an older sibling, a close aunt/uncle, a best friend, a high school coach, a romantic interest?
It is clear that the student could decline that assignment.

Some things I would suggest: 
1. Stop thinking about this for student-athletes.  All young adults could use such a volunteer policy.  The original quote here did not limit the policy to student-athletes.
2. The policy should require notification of the advocate when they are assigned or de-assigned.  Their acceptance of the assignment is a must.  That also assures that contact is possible.
3. I would wait 3 months into the freshman year before the assignment is made.  That allows the student to step away from always being under any so-called helicopter parent.
4. Some thought needs to be given as to who has access to knowing the assigned person?  Is it public information or private?  Is there a bureaucracy or can the medical center quietly do it?  A dorm counselor?  A coach?  A roommate?  The campus cops?  The municipality cops?
5. I would suggest that two names be given.  Imagine if the student is having problems with the individual named on the list (a romantic interest; any other that might be the source of the pressures).

I think it is a reasonable idea.  I probably would have signed up for it, naming my parents.

[Phogge]

The OpEd in the Chronicle today concerned an immigrant couple having a child late in the marriage and basically demanding that she study five hours a day to get into Lowell, SF. She received a C in an English class and was denied admission. Was able to get into Lincoln, did well and just graduated from Vandy.

I read stuff like this and treasure that my folks never pushed, I did just enough and had a whale of a time in high school. Graduated college in four years, received an advanced degree, had an exciting life.

I was able TO BE a kid. I think getting a broken nose many times and dealing my way out of scrapes prepared me for dealing with snakes in my industry. I feel awful for children who never were able to enjoy being young because of parents hovering in a an imaginary Black Hawk.

[Phogge]

The OpEd in the Chronicle today concerned an immigrant couple having a child late in the marriage and basically demanding that she study five hours a day to get into Lowell, SF. She received a C in an English class and was denied admission. Was able to get into Lincoln, did well and just graduated from Vandy.

I read stuff like this and treasure that my folks never pushed, I did just enough and had a whale of a time in high school. Graduated college in four years, received an advanced degree, had an exciting life.

I was able TO BE a kid. I think getting a broken nose many times and dealing my way out of scrapes prepared me for dealing with snakes in my industry. I feel awful for children who never were able to enjoy being young because of parents hovering in a an imaginary Black Hawk.

[Goose]

Oddly, I would have the opposite reaction of Goose. I'm almost certain I would have told my parents about any potential pending disciplinary incidents -- by choice -- because I found them to be helpful fonts of life advice. But I would never, ever sign up for a default system to automatically notify a parent of anything. I am probably a dying breed among millennials, but I would never want my parents defaulted into knowing my grades, what classes I was talking, or what my medical or disciplinary history is. And call me really old fashioned, but in my view, in loco parentis ends when someone turns 18 and is a legal adult. (Though I realize Google et al. still treat people in their 30s like they're too incapable even to do their own laundry.)

Then again, I guess what's the harm in yet another helicopter parent policy?

Interestingly enough, in the mid-60s at Stanford the in loco parentis argument was played out big time. At the time, women had to sign in and out of their dorms. In theory, people under 21 who drank on campus got expelled. The University pretty much could control student's behavior, or so they believed. It didn't matter if you were 18 or 22. Things didn't actually work that way, and the student body basically set out to overturn in loco parentis. We basically did that. Undergraduates drank with impunity, hours were abolished, and students were pretty much responsible for their own welfare. There was no Provost of Drug and Alcohol Policy. There were no id badges required and the doors of the dorms were not locked. In the spring like now, they were usually propped open. However, if an RA though somebody was a danger to themselves or others, said RA would do what he though was necessary, including informing the parents. We looked out for each other. It was not a perfect system, but it mostly worked. IMHO it was a lot more effective and humane than the current system at Stanford, where the rules are so byzantine nobody can understand them.

I realize today is a different world. The legalities and liability of the University for what went on when I was at Stanford would never work today. I also wouldn't want my parents "snooping" on my activities. However, I think most people would sign up for a "reasonable" program by the University. You parents don't need to know your grades or what classes you are taking, but is you are about to get kicked out of school I expect you would be well served if they knew that. Ditto if my RA thinks I am suicidal. That is why I think most people would grant permission to allow the University to share that kind of information, because nobody expects that will happen to them when they sign the paper. If the University doesn't have a history of abusing the program, why not?

[Goose]

Oddly, I would have the opposite reaction of Goose. I'm almost certain I would have told my parents about any potential pending disciplinary incidents -- by choice -- because I found them to be helpful fonts of life advice. But I would never, ever sign up for a default system to automatically notify a parent of anything. I am probably a dying breed among millennials, but I would never want my parents defaulted into knowing my grades, what classes I was talking, or what my medical or disciplinary history is. And call me really old fashioned, but in my view, in loco parentis ends when someone turns 18 and is a legal adult. (Though I realize Google et al. still treat people in their 30s like they're too incapable even to do their own laundry.)

Then again, I guess what's the harm in yet another helicopter parent policy?

Interestingly enough, in the mid-60s at Stanford the in loco parentis argument was played out big time. At the time, women had to sign in and out of their dorms. In theory, people under 21 who drank on campus got expelled. The University pretty much could control student's behavior, or so they believed. It didn't matter if you were 18 or 22. Things didn't actually work that way, and the student body basically set out to overturn in loco parentis. We basically did that. Undergraduates drank with impunity, hours were abolished, and students were pretty much responsible for their own welfare. There was no Provost of Drug and Alcohol Policy. There were no id badges required and the doors of the dorms were not locked. In the spring like now, they were usually propped open. However, if an RA though somebody was a danger to themselves or others, said RA would do what he though was necessary, including informing the parents. We looked out for each other. It was not a perfect system, but it mostly worked. IMHO it was a lot more effective and humane than the current system at Stanford, where the rules are so byzantine nobody can understand them.

I realize today is a different world. The legalities and liability of the University for what went on when I was at Stanford would never work today. I also wouldn't want my parents "snooping" on my activities. However, I think most people would sign up for a "reasonable" program by the University. You parents don't need to know your grades or what classes you are taking, but is you are about to get kicked out of school I expect you would be well served if they knew that. Ditto if my RA thinks I am suicidal. That is why I think most people would grant permission to allow the University to share that kind of information, because nobody expects that will happen to them when they sign the paper. If the University doesn't have a history of abusing the program, why not?

[BostonCard]

Interesting paper, maybe somewhat related here.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0268583

Participation in team sport compared to non-sport participation was associated with 10% lower anxious/depressed scores, 19% lower withdrawn/depressed scores, 17% lower social problems scores, 17% lower thought problems scores, and 12% lower attention problems scores. Participation in team sport compared to non-sport participation was also associated with 20% lower rule-breaking behavior scores for females (compared to males).

Not that it is of any solace to Katie Meter’s parents.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting paper, maybe somewhat related here.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0268583

Participation in team sport compared to non-sport participation was associated with 10% lower anxious/depressed scores, 19% lower withdrawn/depressed scores, 17% lower social problems scores, 17% lower thought problems scores, and 12% lower attention problems scores. Participation in team sport compared to non-sport participation was also associated with 20% lower rule-breaking behavior scores for females (compared to males).

Not that it is of any solace to Katie Meter’s parents.

BC

[newguy]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

[newguy]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

[Goose]

The issue of what the University "owes" to the student because they are attending Stanford is a complex one. There is also the issue of what Stanford "ought" to do vs. what Stanford must do to meet their legal obligations vs what Stanford can't do because of legal strictures/civil liability. I am not sure there is an "answer".

I knew fairly well two people at Stanford who attempted suicide. One succeeded, the other did not. I had no idea at all they were having such problems. The "administration" had even less of an idea. I am not sure Stanford is doing any better in this area now than it was 50 years ago, although there is much more ink being spilled regarding the issues. One problem is that there are many fewer social norms that used to restrain behavior "back in the day". Today, you are expected to mind your own business even when you see somebody behaving in a manner you think very ill advised. There is also nobody you can report the issue to that is actually going to do anything, as University policy forbids most unilateral, immediate actions. There is a "process". The University is also constrained in what they can do (or believe they can do). If somebody has an obvious drug problem and refuses medical help, the University can do little about it, apparently.

Even if there were a designated contact that would be contacted for certain defined situations, the University couldn't report obvious problems that didn't "clearly" fit the definitions. Further, we all know of people whose parents and peers knew had "issues". Knowing those issues didn't mean they could actually help. Sometimes the parents and peers were big contributing factors to the problems. The issue of protecting people from themselves has always been a tough one. It isn't getting easier.

[Goose]

The issue of what the University "owes" to the student because they are attending Stanford is a complex one. There is also the issue of what Stanford "ought" to do vs. what Stanford must do to meet their legal obligations vs what Stanford can't do because of legal strictures/civil liability. I am not sure there is an "answer".

I knew fairly well two people at Stanford who attempted suicide. One succeeded, the other did not. I had no idea at all they were having such problems. The "administration" had even less of an idea. I am not sure Stanford is doing any better in this area now than it was 50 years ago, although there is much more ink being spilled regarding the issues. One problem is that there are many fewer social norms that used to restrain behavior "back in the day". Today, you are expected to mind your own business even when you see somebody behaving in a manner you think very ill advised. There is also nobody you can report the issue to that is actually going to do anything, as University policy forbids most unilateral, immediate actions. There is a "process". The University is also constrained in what they can do (or believe they can do). If somebody has an obvious drug problem and refuses medical help, the University can do little about it, apparently.

Even if there were a designated contact that would be contacted for certain defined situations, the University couldn't report obvious problems that didn't "clearly" fit the definitions. Further, we all know of people whose parents and peers knew had "issues". Knowing those issues didn't mean they could actually help. Sometimes the parents and peers were big contributing factors to the problems. The issue of protecting people from themselves has always been a tough one. It isn't getting easier.

[jonnyss]

i agree that a student who doesn't want to talk w their parents might well revoke the consent to inform. also that sometimes parents are a big part of the problem.

that said, in stressful situations such as academic probation or disciplinary hearings, imo staff should be trained to ask, at minimum, "who can support you in this difficult period? please reach out to family, friends, caps. please know that your cardinal care insurance covers confidential psychotherapy." imo, the university, can and should ask, would you like us to reach out to your parents? if so please sign this waiver..." what's the point of having this complex system of deans, assistant deans, residential advisors and fellows if they don't at least try to connect troubled students with support?

regarding drugs and alcohol, i have known stanford to suspend for a quarter or more students with obvious alcohol or drug problems, then require the student to present evidence of successful engagement in therapy or substance treatment plus successful completion of community college classes.

[jonnyss]

i agree that a student who doesn't want to talk w their parents might well revoke the consent to inform. also that sometimes parents are a big part of the problem.

that said, in stressful situations such as academic probation or disciplinary hearings, imo staff should be trained to ask, at minimum, "who can support you in this difficult period? please reach out to family, friends, caps. please know that your cardinal care insurance covers confidential psychotherapy." imo, the university, can and should ask, would you like us to reach out to your parents? if so please sign this waiver..." what's the point of having this complex system of deans, assistant deans, residential advisors and fellows if they don't at least try to connect troubled students with support?

regarding drugs and alcohol, i have known stanford to suspend for a quarter or more students with obvious alcohol or drug problems, then require the student to present evidence of successful engagement in therapy or substance treatment plus successful completion of community college classes.

[2006alum]

Not sure I agree with this description. As an RA for a frosh dorm, I was trained to look for signs and when to call the RDs to consider a 5150 - which was part of almost 3 weeks of RA training. Fortunately I never confronted that situation, but several friends who were RAs did, and several of their residents were temporarily involuntarily committed. If you don't know about it, that's for a reason - the entire thing is kept exceedingly on a need to know basis.

Obviously, Stanford is not perfect, but in my time at the university, I though it took these issues seriously, and it trained RAs to be friendly and authoritative, but not officious, and it kept us from having to play the role of the bad cop, precisely so our residents would keep their doors open and confide in us as much as possible. I'm not sure how things have changed since then, but as someone who saw the lengths the university went to, I did feel like the entire residential education system precisely as a failsafe to prevent worse case scenarios.

[2006alum]

Not sure I agree with this description. As an RA for a frosh dorm, I was trained to look for signs and when to call the RDs to consider a 5150 - which was part of almost 3 weeks of RA training. Fortunately I never confronted that situation, but several friends who were RAs did, and several of their residents were temporarily involuntarily committed. If you don't know about it, that's for a reason - the entire thing is kept exceedingly on a need to know basis.

Obviously, Stanford is not perfect, but in my time at the university, I though it took these issues seriously, and it trained RAs to be friendly and authoritative, but not officious, and it kept us from having to play the role of the bad cop, precisely so our residents would keep their doors open and confide in us as much as possible. I'm not sure how things have changed since then, but as someone who saw the lengths the university went to, I did feel like the entire residential education system precisely as a failsafe to prevent worse case scenarios.

[82lsju]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

So I enroll and decide to have my roommate or maybe a friend from high school be this contact.  They get an email outlining some problem/issue I have, what are they supposed to actually do?  I’d guess most would call the parents unless they thought they were part of the problem, if the feel they cannot call the parents then what do they do?  I doubt 18 or 19 year old me would have had a good answer….

[82lsju]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

So I enroll and decide to have my roommate or maybe a friend from high school be this contact.  They get an email outlining some problem/issue I have, what are they supposed to actually do?  I’d guess most would call the parents unless they thought they were part of the problem, if the feel they cannot call the parents then what do they do?  I doubt 18 or 19 year old me would have had a good answer….

[jonnyss]

Not sure I agree with this description. As an RA for a frosh dorm, I was trained to look for signs and when to call the RDs to consider a 5150 - which was part of almost 3 weeks of RA training. Fortunately I never confronted that situation, but several friends who were RAs did, and several of their residents were temporarily involuntarily committed. If you don't know about it, that's for a reason - the entire thing is kept exceedingly on a need to know basis.

Obviously, Stanford is not perfect, but in my time at the university, I though it took these issues seriously, and it trained RAs to be friendly and authoritative, but not officious, and it kept us from having to play the role of the bad cop, precisely so our residents would keep their doors open and confide in us as much as possible. I'm not sure how things have changed since then, but as someone who saw the lengths the university went to, I did feel like the entire residential education system precisely as a failsafe to prevent worse case scenarios.

indeed, and thanks for offering this and confirming that the r a's are attentive and caring.

i believe the recent question on the thread, raised by katie's family,  is if, when, and how to contact parents. can you perhaps also comment on whether you were trained to suggest support between the kind attention of the r a and involuntary commitment - such as contacting parents, suggesting psychotherapy, etc?

(for example, eitan weiner's family is alleging that the r.a. called the residence dean and 911 when weiner overdosed a week before his death, but made no follow-up, such as contacting the parents, before the fatal o.d. 911 is not a vehicle of support, treatment, or followup)

[jonnyss]

Not sure I agree with this description. As an RA for a frosh dorm, I was trained to look for signs and when to call the RDs to consider a 5150 - which was part of almost 3 weeks of RA training. Fortunately I never confronted that situation, but several friends who were RAs did, and several of their residents were temporarily involuntarily committed. If you don't know about it, that's for a reason - the entire thing is kept exceedingly on a need to know basis.

Obviously, Stanford is not perfect, but in my time at the university, I though it took these issues seriously, and it trained RAs to be friendly and authoritative, but not officious, and it kept us from having to play the role of the bad cop, precisely so our residents would keep their doors open and confide in us as much as possible. I'm not sure how things have changed since then, but as someone who saw the lengths the university went to, I did feel like the entire residential education system precisely as a failsafe to prevent worse case scenarios.

indeed, and thanks for offering this and confirming that the r a's are attentive and caring.

i believe the recent question on the thread, raised by katie's family,  is if, when, and how to contact parents. can you perhaps also comment on whether you were trained to suggest support between the kind attention of the r a and involuntary commitment - such as contacting parents, suggesting psychotherapy, etc?

(for example, eitan weiner's family is alleging that the r.a. called the residence dean and 911 when weiner overdosed a week before his death, but made no follow-up, such as contacting the parents, before the fatal o.d. 911 is not a vehicle of support, treatment, or followup)

[Softball Fan]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

So I enroll and decide to have my roommate or maybe a friend from high school be this contact.  They get an email outlining some problem/issue I have, what are they supposed to actually do?  I’d guess most would call the parents unless they thought they were part of the problem, if the feel they cannot call the parents then what do they do?  I doubt 18 or 19 year old me would have had a good answer….

That's exactly my sentiments.  If it is a campus classmate, what do they do?  If it's a non-parental relative living far from campus, what do they do?  From a practical standpoint, I would guess 90% plus of the notifications would be for a student with a problem who has no thoughts of suicide.

If this system of notification has a workable procedure that can lead to a solution for troubled students, I'm all for it.  I just don't see this being all that helpful.  To me the university should notify services that provide counseling and professional help.

[Softball Fan]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

So I enroll and decide to have my roommate or maybe a friend from high school be this contact.  They get an email outlining some problem/issue I have, what are they supposed to actually do?  I’d guess most would call the parents unless they thought they were part of the problem, if the feel they cannot call the parents then what do they do?  I doubt 18 or 19 year old me would have had a good answer….

That's exactly my sentiments.  If it is a campus classmate, what do they do?  If it's a non-parental relative living far from campus, what do they do?  From a practical standpoint, I would guess 90% plus of the notifications would be for a student with a problem who has no thoughts of suicide.

If this system of notification has a workable procedure that can lead to a solution for troubled students, I'm all for it.  I just don't see this being all that helpful.  To me the university should notify services that provide counseling and professional help.

[2006alum]

Not sure I agree with this description. As an RA for a frosh dorm, I was trained to look for signs and when to call the RDs to consider a 5150 - which was part of almost 3 weeks of RA training. Fortunately I never confronted that situation, but several friends who were RAs did, and several of their residents were temporarily involuntarily committed. If you don't know about it, that's for a reason - the entire thing is kept exceedingly on a need to know basis.

Obviously, Stanford is not perfect, but in my time at the university, I though it took these issues seriously, and it trained RAs to be friendly and authoritative, but not officious, and it kept us from having to play the role of the bad cop, precisely so our residents would keep their doors open and confide in us as much as possible. I'm not sure how things have changed since then, but as someone who saw the lengths the university went to, I did feel like the entire residential education system precisely as a failsafe to prevent worse case scenarios.

indeed, and thanks for offering this and confirming that the r a's are attentive and caring.

i believe the recent question on the thread, raised by katie's family,  is if, when, and how to contact parents. can you perhaps also comment on whether you were trained to suggest support between the kind attention of the r a and involuntary commitment - such as contacting parents, suggesting psychotherapy, etc?

Once the 5150 took place, it was out of our hands and into the RD's (Residence Dean), so I can't say precisely what the protocol was. But my impression was that the parents were notified any time someone was admitted to the hospital, or at least whoever is the next of kin on the emergency contact forms students fill out. IIRC, we also had access to emergency contacts info, but my view was any time that was possibly necessary, it was better to reach out to the RD first, and the few times I did that, the RD took over from there. On a handful of occasions, I would have the parents reach out to me on the back end to facilitate resumption of normalcy. (I can think of two times in particular where Frosh broke limbs and had mobility issues, etc., that I had to help sort out.)

In terms of mental health more generally, our PHE (peer health educator) facilitated a session at the start of the year during a house meeting where folks from the Bridge would come and discuss student peer resources. I'm almost certain a similar schpiel was provided with folks from Vaden. That said, I think we had much better training for dealing with mental health crises at an 8 or 9 out of 10, and less so with everything at the 3-7 range. Generally speaking, "mental health" was not a commonly used parlance when I was there, which probably reflects the generally more stigmatized nature of seeking mental health assistance then than now.

To me the larger question with all of this, however, is more about the cult-ure of perfection than the need to give automatic access to parents. I never felt uncomfortable giving my family a warts and all account of my life, so I can't imagine being in Meyer's shoes and not getting my parent's advice about it. Then again, I also never had to save penalty kicks to win a national championship, so no one was ever deluded enough to think I was perfect in the first place...

[2006alum]

Not sure I agree with this description. As an RA for a frosh dorm, I was trained to look for signs and when to call the RDs to consider a 5150 - which was part of almost 3 weeks of RA training. Fortunately I never confronted that situation, but several friends who were RAs did, and several of their residents were temporarily involuntarily committed. If you don't know about it, that's for a reason - the entire thing is kept exceedingly on a need to know basis.

Obviously, Stanford is not perfect, but in my time at the university, I though it took these issues seriously, and it trained RAs to be friendly and authoritative, but not officious, and it kept us from having to play the role of the bad cop, precisely so our residents would keep their doors open and confide in us as much as possible. I'm not sure how things have changed since then, but as someone who saw the lengths the university went to, I did feel like the entire residential education system precisely as a failsafe to prevent worse case scenarios.

indeed, and thanks for offering this and confirming that the r a's are attentive and caring.

i believe the recent question on the thread, raised by katie's family,  is if, when, and how to contact parents. can you perhaps also comment on whether you were trained to suggest support between the kind attention of the r a and involuntary commitment - such as contacting parents, suggesting psychotherapy, etc?

Once the 5150 took place, it was out of our hands and into the RD's (Residence Dean), so I can't say precisely what the protocol was. But my impression was that the parents were notified any time someone was admitted to the hospital, or at least whoever is the next of kin on the emergency contact forms students fill out. IIRC, we also had access to emergency contacts info, but my view was any time that was possibly necessary, it was better to reach out to the RD first, and the few times I did that, the RD took over from there. On a handful of occasions, I would have the parents reach out to me on the back end to facilitate resumption of normalcy. (I can think of two times in particular where Frosh broke limbs and had mobility issues, etc., that I had to help sort out.)

In terms of mental health more generally, our PHE (peer health educator) facilitated a session at the start of the year during a house meeting where folks from the Bridge would come and discuss student peer resources. I'm almost certain a similar schpiel was provided with folks from Vaden. That said, I think we had much better training for dealing with mental health crises at an 8 or 9 out of 10, and less so with everything at the 3-7 range. Generally speaking, "mental health" was not a commonly used parlance when I was there, which probably reflects the generally more stigmatized nature of seeking mental health assistance then than now.

To me the larger question with all of this, however, is more about the cult-ure of perfection than the need to give automatic access to parents. I never felt uncomfortable giving my family a warts and all account of my life, so I can't imagine being in Meyer's shoes and not getting my parent's advice about it. Then again, I also never had to save penalty kicks to win a national championship, so no one was ever deluded enough to think I was perfect in the first place...

[jonnyss]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

So I enroll and decide to have my roommate or maybe a friend from high school be this contact.  They get an email outlining some problem/issue I have, what are they supposed to actually do?  I’d guess most would call the parents unless they thought they were part of the problem, if the feel they cannot call the parents then what do they do?  I doubt 18 or 19 year old me would have had a good answer….

That's exactly my sentiments.  If it is a campus classmate, what do they do?  If it's a non-parental relative living far from campus, what do they do?  From a practical standpoint, I would guess 90% plus of the notifications would be for a student with a problem who has no thoughts of suicide.

If this system of notification has a workable procedure that can lead to a solution for troubled students, I'm all for it.  I just don't see this being all that helpful.  To me the university should notify services that provide counseling and professional help.

both facets are important: the burden on the individual and the response of others.

as a psychiatrist, i have seen patients with suicidal thoughts. a big part of the assessment is, "who can watch you til you're feeling better - family, friends, spouse? if no one, you should be in the hospital." or, more informally, "you need extra support in this period; ok if we call your parents?"

psych wards are usually annoying at best. it's generally better if family (immediate or family of origin) takes responsibility. sometimes friends or roommates are willing and capable. they are usually more concerned and collegial than a hospital. then there is follow-up. family and friends are almost always way more persistent than an emt or an e.r. 

there is an increasing tendency to say, "go to your nearest emergency room." i find that inadequate, even irresponsible - a passing the buck.

yes notify, but then someone needs to ensure there is follow-up. in the great majority of cases (i'd guess 95% with stanford students), parents are quite willing to ensure follow-up. imo if the residence staff does not have time or energy for follow-up (as apparently was the case w eitan weiner), they really should consider urging the student to give permission to contact the parents.

imo you don't need a paper on file with permission to contact the parents. you need a strong readiness to ask the student for a waiver ad hoc allowing permission to contact the parents, an easily accessible form online, and formal guidelines from the university that staff can ask for such a waiver in exigent circumstances.

[jonnyss]

here's an idea.  
maybe incoming freshmen could name a trusted person who could be informed, instead of a parent.
a friend, perhaps?

So I enroll and decide to have my roommate or maybe a friend from high school be this contact.  They get an email outlining some problem/issue I have, what are they supposed to actually do?  I’d guess most would call the parents unless they thought they were part of the problem, if the feel they cannot call the parents then what do they do?  I doubt 18 or 19 year old me would have had a good answer….

That's exactly my sentiments.  If it is a campus classmate, what do they do?  If it's a non-parental relative living far from campus, what do they do?  From a practical standpoint, I would guess 90% plus of the notifications would be for a student with a problem who has no thoughts of suicide.

If this system of notification has a workable procedure that can lead to a solution for troubled students, I'm all for it.  I just don't see this being all that helpful.  To me the university should notify services that provide counseling and professional help.

both facets are important: the burden on the individual and the response of others.

as a psychiatrist, i have seen patients with suicidal thoughts. a big part of the assessment is, "who can watch you til you're feeling better - family, friends, spouse? if no one, you should be in the hospital." or, more informally, "you need extra support in this period; ok if we call your parents?"

psych wards are usually annoying at best. it's generally better if family (immediate or family of origin) takes responsibility. sometimes friends or roommates are willing and capable. they are usually more concerned and collegial than a hospital. then there is follow-up. family and friends are almost always way more persistent than an emt or an e.r. 

there is an increasing tendency to say, "go to your nearest emergency room." i find that inadequate, even irresponsible - a passing the buck.

yes notify, but then someone needs to ensure there is follow-up. in the great majority of cases (i'd guess 95% with stanford students), parents are quite willing to ensure follow-up. imo if the residence staff does not have time or energy for follow-up (as apparently was the case w eitan weiner), they really should consider urging the student to give permission to contact the parents.

imo you don't need a paper on file with permission to contact the parents. you need a strong readiness to ask the student for a waiver ad hoc allowing permission to contact the parents, an easily accessible form online, and formal guidelines from the university that staff can ask for such a waiver in exigent circumstances.

[82lsju]

A group of Stanford alumni released documents alleging that administrators have consistently failed to protect students during University disciplinary proceedings.

The alumni, led by lawyer Bob Ottilie ’77 and affiliated with the Student Justice Project, further alleged that, had the University implemented reforms to the campus disciplinary procedures the group had proposed, Katie Meyer ’22, who died by suicide in a campus residence in March, would “in all likelihood” be alive.

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/08/05/alu...-102229835

[82lsju]

A group of Stanford alumni released documents alleging that administrators have consistently failed to protect students during University disciplinary proceedings.

The alumni, led by lawyer Bob Ottilie ’77 and affiliated with the Student Justice Project, further alleged that, had the University implemented reforms to the campus disciplinary procedures the group had proposed, Katie Meyer ’22, who died by suicide in a campus residence in March, would “in all likelihood” be alive.

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/08/05/alu...-102229835

[GK3]

Oddly, I would have the opposite reaction of Goose. I'm almost certain I would have told my parents about any potential pending disciplinary incidents -- by choice -- because I found them to be helpful fonts of life advice. But I would never, ever sign up for a default system to automatically notify a parent of anything. I am probably a dying breed among millennials, but I would never want my parents defaulted into knowing my grades, what classes I was talking, or what my medical or disciplinary history is. And call me really old fashioned, but in my view, in loco parentis ends when someone turns 18 and is a legal adult. (Though I realize Google et al. still treat people in their 30s like they're too incapable even to do their own laundry.)

Then again, I guess what's the harm in yet another helicopter parent policy?

Interestingly enough, in the mid-60s at Stanford the in loco parentis argument was played out big time. At the time, women had to sign in and out of their dorms. In theory, people under 21 who drank on campus got expelled. The University pretty much could control student's behavior, or so they believed. It didn't matter if you were 18 or 22. Things didn't actually work that way, and the student body basically set out to overturn in loco parentis. We basically did that. Undergraduates drank with impunity, hours were abolished, and students were pretty much responsible for their own welfare. There was no Provost of Drug and Alcohol Policy. There were no id badges required and the doors of the dorms were not locked. In the spring like now, they were usually propped open. However, if an RA though somebody was a danger to themselves or others, said RA would do what he though was necessary, including informing the parents. We looked out for each other. It was not a perfect system, but it mostly worked. IMHO it was a lot more effective and humane than the current system at Stanford, where the rules are so byzantine nobody can understand them.

I realize today is a different world. The legalities and liability of the University for what went on when I was at Stanford would never work today. I also wouldn't want my parents "snooping" on my activities. However, I think most people would sign up for a "reasonable" program by the University. You parents don't need to know your grades or what classes you are taking, but is you are about to get kicked out of school I expect you would be well served if they knew that. Ditto if my RA thinks I am suicidal. That is why I think most people would grant permission to allow the University to share that kind of information, because nobody expects that will happen to them when they sign the paper. If the University doesn't have a history of abusing the program, why not?

I was apparently a bit before you, late 50's early 60's but the booze rule was indeed theory but not practice.  Guys down the hall in Stern brewed their own beer in the room all year and no one seemed to care.  The RA was usually missing in action and rarely seen and never opened his door.  We all managed to graduate, and many of us received commissions into the armed forces.  I had a lot of fun during those years and learned a lot too.  We were pretty much allowed to finish growing up on our own.

[GK3]

Oddly, I would have the opposite reaction of Goose. I'm almost certain I would have told my parents about any potential pending disciplinary incidents -- by choice -- because I found them to be helpful fonts of life advice. But I would never, ever sign up for a default system to automatically notify a parent of anything. I am probably a dying breed among millennials, but I would never want my parents defaulted into knowing my grades, what classes I was talking, or what my medical or disciplinary history is. And call me really old fashioned, but in my view, in loco parentis ends when someone turns 18 and is a legal adult. (Though I realize Google et al. still treat people in their 30s like they're too incapable even to do their own laundry.)

Then again, I guess what's the harm in yet another helicopter parent policy?

Interestingly enough, in the mid-60s at Stanford the in loco parentis argument was played out big time. At the time, women had to sign in and out of their dorms. In theory, people under 21 who drank on campus got expelled. The University pretty much could control student's behavior, or so they believed. It didn't matter if you were 18 or 22. Things didn't actually work that way, and the student body basically set out to overturn in loco parentis. We basically did that. Undergraduates drank with impunity, hours were abolished, and students were pretty much responsible for their own welfare. There was no Provost of Drug and Alcohol Policy. There were no id badges required and the doors of the dorms were not locked. In the spring like now, they were usually propped open. However, if an RA though somebody was a danger to themselves or others, said RA would do what he though was necessary, including informing the parents. We looked out for each other. It was not a perfect system, but it mostly worked. IMHO it was a lot more effective and humane than the current system at Stanford, where the rules are so byzantine nobody can understand them.

I realize today is a different world. The legalities and liability of the University for what went on when I was at Stanford would never work today. I also wouldn't want my parents "snooping" on my activities. However, I think most people would sign up for a "reasonable" program by the University. You parents don't need to know your grades or what classes you are taking, but is you are about to get kicked out of school I expect you would be well served if they knew that. Ditto if my RA thinks I am suicidal. That is why I think most people would grant permission to allow the University to share that kind of information, because nobody expects that will happen to them when they sign the paper. If the University doesn't have a history of abusing the program, why not?

I was apparently a bit before you, late 50's early 60's but the booze rule was indeed theory but not practice.  Guys down the hall in Stern brewed their own beer in the room all year and no one seemed to care.  The RA was usually missing in action and rarely seen and never opened his door.  We all managed to graduate, and many of us received commissions into the armed forces.  I had a lot of fun during those years and learned a lot too.  We were pretty much allowed to finish growing up on our own.

[Mick]

Anne Killion hits it out of the park again in Friday’s Chron. Maybe Eric can link since I even flunked Luddite 1.

That was a great article, thanks for the link.

[Mick]

Anne Killion hits it out of the park again in Friday’s Chron. Maybe Eric can link since I even flunked Luddite 1.

That was a great article, thanks for the link.

[Spiny_Norman]

An interview with Katie's parents. They are starting a program to help students who might be in Katie's position.

Stanford and the Meyers remain at odds over the factors that led to Katie's suicide.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/WeNeedToTalk/status/1561075261151535104[/twitter]

[Spiny_Norman]

An interview with Katie's parents. They are starting a program to help students who might be in Katie's position.

Stanford and the Meyers remain at odds over the factors that led to Katie's suicide.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/WeNeedToTalk/status/1561075261151535104[/twitter]

[TrumpCard]

It’s not just Stanford. Other schools are having problems with student mental health as well. Here’s Yale struggling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/..._p001_f006

[TrumpCard]

It’s not just Stanford. Other schools are having problems with student mental health as well. Here’s Yale struggling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/..._p001_f006

[winflop]

It’s not just Stanford. Other schools are having problems with student mental health as well. Here’s Yale struggling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/..._p001_f006

It's everywhere. One of my boys is at Santa Clara. They had 3 students commit suicide last year in fall quarter and took some major steps to improve things - the kinds of things Stanford SHOULD have done like more than doubling the counseling staff. They seem to be working. Stanford seems to have an increasing frequency of doing things the wrong way.

[winflop]

It’s not just Stanford. Other schools are having problems with student mental health as well. Here’s Yale struggling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/..._p001_f006

It's everywhere. One of my boys is at Santa Clara. They had 3 students commit suicide last year in fall quarter and took some major steps to improve things - the kinds of things Stanford SHOULD have done like more than doubling the counseling staff. They seem to be working. Stanford seems to have an increasing frequency of doing things the wrong way.