New Quadcast: A Conversation on the Mental Health Effects of COVID-19 on Emerging Adults
A new paper by Dr. Jeffrey Arnett, released last week by the Ruderman Family Foundation, suggests that the mental health of people between 18 and 29 has, and continues to be, disproportionately affected by the global pandemic. Arnett, a psychologist and scholar who coined the term “emerging adults” in his previous research, shows that the age group that was least at-risk physically from the virus was most vulnerable to it from a mental health perspective. MCI Executive Director Marjorie Malpiede discusses the findings with Dr. Arnett and Sharon Shapiro, Trustee at the Ruderman Family Foundation.
Mental and Behavioral Health
Main Stories
In an Inside Higher Ed Student Voice survey conducted in April and May, college students placed mental health services above other wellness services such as fitness, physical health and dining when asked which mattered most to their decision to enroll at a college or university. Also in the survey, 42% of students said that professors have a responsibility to help ease their stress, putting faculty ahead of campus counselors, advisors, peers, administrators, and others. Half of students also reported that their physical health and wellness adversely impacts their academic success; stress reduction was shown to be the top health and wellness goal for this group, followed by eating a healthier diet, getting more sleep, and increased exercise.
Other Stories
Where We Are, a visual New York Times column about young people coming of age and the spaces where they create community, features the Texas Wesley Foundation, a Methodist campus ministry group at the University of Texas Austin with three core principles: inclusive love, exploring faith and real friendship. The Wesley offers what many students consider to be a safe haven from the chaos of campus life for students, regardless of their religious leaning (or lack thereof). While services are one part of Wesley, the center also offers free dinners, activities like karaoke and trivia nights, a wide range of small discussion groups on topics including abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and religion’s relationship to politics.
Lawmakers in Illinois passed a resolution encouraging colleges and universities to better accommodate the needs of neurodiverse students, which includes those with autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The legislation calls on institutions in the state to adopt an inclusion statement that “embraces the fact that every student is different and should be encouraged to reach their full potential.”
Inside Higher Ed highlights the Resilience Informed Skills Education (RISE) program at Pepperdine University, which integrates resilience education into academics, residential life and social programming at the school. The curriculum is designed to equip students with tools to overcome challenges and create a campus culture that values well-being. The program consists of a required for-credit discussion group for first-year students, optional RISE living-learning communities, and coaching available to any interested students. The program is also working to engage faculty in the curriculum.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
As the Supreme Court is poised to decide the fate of affirmative action in higher education, a pair of New York Times op-eds suggest alternatives to using race-conscious admissions practices. Sophia Lam, a high school junior at Longmeadow High School in Massachusetts, argues that colleges should switch to a “focus on socioeconomic status instead of race” and “reduce or do away with consideration of legacy and athletics.” David Brooks, an opinion columnist for the Times, suggests, “Maybe this could be a moment when we finally step back and acknowledge that the elite meritocracy has spiraled out of control.” The current system, he writes, is an “academic pressure cooker that further disadvantages people from the wrong kind of families and leaves even the straight-A winners stressed, depressed and burned out.”
In an op-ed in the Hechinger Report, Jim Larimore, a consultant, strategic adviser and co-founder and chair of EdSAFE AI Alliance who previously worked in student affairs at Stanford University, argues that regardless of the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, colleges and universities should provide first-generation, lower-income and historically underrepresented students “the advice and support already available to so many of their wealthier classmates and athletically gifted peers.” Larimore writes that “many colleges have never sufficiently addressed their role in preparing students for a successful transition to life in college or gone beyond a laissez-faire approach to providing supports once they get in.”
According to a new poll from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 63% of respondents said The Supreme Court should not ban colleges from considering race and ethnicity during the admissions process. However, 68% also said that race and ethnicity should have little to no importance when colleges make admissions decisions.
BUR’s Kirk Carrapezza explores who really benefits from affirmative action in college admissions, noting that the process often favors white and upper-income students. In his segment, Steven Burd, a researcher at New America, a nonprofit focused on public policy, said that a potential Supreme Court ruling banning consideration of race in college admissions would be “affirmative action for the rich,” resulting in even fewer opportunities for students of color. “A lot of people believe that college admission and financial aid is rigged to benefit low-income students and minority students. In fact, the opposite is true,” Burd said. “The advantaged have almost all of the advantages in college admissions, and increasingly in college financial aid.”
The Washington Post and Higher Ed Dive cover conservative efforts to curtail the influence of liberal ideology in higher education through state-level legislation, ranging from banning DEI programs to limiting teaching about certain topics, to ending faculty tenure. Bills in Ohio, Texas and Florida have already been successful, while in other states, they have lacked support or been changed due to pushback from higher ed leaders and faculty. The Chronicle’s DEI Tracker is following the progress of 37 bills in 21 states that target DEI.
A new bill introduced in the US senate by Senator Marco Rubio (Fl, R) would ban higher education accreditors from considering a college’s policies on affirmative action or diversity, equity, and inclusion during the accreditation process.
A new law in Alabama prohibits public colleges from allowing transgender students to play on sports teams matching their gender identities. The bill expands legislation passed last year that introduced similar regulations for the K-12 set. Alabama governor Kay Ivey said, “Look, if you are a biological male, you are not going to be competing in women’s and girls’ sports in Alabama. It’s about fairness, plain and simple.” Critics say the legislation is unnecessary, harmful to trans youth, and rooted in bigotry.
Student Success
Texas is expected to adopt a new funding model for community colleges that would change the way funding is allocated. Under the current system, most funding is awarded based on the number of credit hours students have taken, which is highly dependent on a schools’ enrollment. The new structure would award funding based on outcomes such as “credentials earned in high-demand fields, transfer rates to universities and the number of high school students who earn at least 15 credits in dual-enrollment programs.” Additionally, more funding will also be directed to colleges that enroll higher numbers of certain student groups, including adult learners and “economically disadvantaged” and “academically disadvantaged” students.
College Affordability
Last week, the Senate approved a resolution to strike down President Biden’s plan to forgive more than $400 billion in student loans. The measure, which passed with two Democrats and an Independent siding with the Republicans, had already passed the house. While Biden has promised to veto the bill, the Supreme Court is also reviewing the legality of his relief plan.
The deal to suspend the federal debt ceiling includes an official end to the pause on federal student loan payments initially implemented by the Trump administration in March 2020. The policy meant that borrowers with loans held by the Education Department have had their payments suspended without penalty or accrual of interest. According to the Washington Post, “Economists and higher education experts worry that many borrowers are ill-prepared for the resumption of student loan payments and could fall behind.”
