No substitute for mental health professionals

As a college counselor, I was drawn to the article “Keeping it Sane” (February 2005, cover story). It supported the few tired voices on college campuses who are still trying to make a case that counseling is a profession and that it is necessary. Some of the suggestions in the box called “What Can Colleges Do?” concerned me, though. Rather than provide solutions, they reflect the problem.

College counseling has been gradually eroded in recent years. The role of counseling has been increasingly melded with other student services. Counselors have been seen as replaceable by students’ peers, administrators or one-shot programming. The suggestions provided for colleges reflect this trend.

The presentation of Band-Aid solutions legitimizes the continuance of an unacceptable situation. Administrators and students’ peers are not counselors. Information provided on the Web does not substitute for interaction with a professional who has the expertise to determine what intervention is needed. People who truly recognize the importance of mental health recognize the importance of mental health professionals.

The decline in numbers of counselors is not a direct result of less money; it is the result of the priorities of those who determine where money should be spent. Unfortunately, too much of the time, the people who make those decisions do not understand the value of professional counseling. One reason for this is that it is hard to demonstrate the impact of preventive interventions. If one function is to avert crises and few crises occur, it is easy, on superficial observation, to overlook the importance of the function. The increased neediness of students that the article describes is not coincidental with the decrease in counselors—it is, at least in part, caused by it. Many of these students’ needs would be met if professional counseling were more available. A depressed student with intervention may not become a suicidal student. In time, as problems with students continue to escalate, the value of professional counseling will be recognized again. Until that time, students will experience unnecessary pain and failures that impact on the rest of their lives.

—Judith Brilliant
Brooklyn, N.Y.

Gov. says no faculty role in accountability

The special report, “Tracking State Accountability Measures: States Move to Assess College Performance” (February 2005) is well presented. An error, however, warrants correction.

You write that in 2004, California enacted the California Postsecondary Education Accountability Act. This did not happen. Both the State Assembly and Senate passed the bill, authored by former state Sen. Dede Alpert, which was well-conceived and recognized the appropriate role of faculty in developing and implementing accountability standards, including student learning outcomes, required by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accrediting agency.

To the dismay of many faculty, administrators and legislators, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. Among other explanations, the governor indicated that the accountability reporting mechanism did not fit into the framework for a reorganized state government structure he has proposed but has been unable to implement. Moreover, the governor expressed his concern that the bill lacked teeth. 

The academic community now faces the governor’s proposed fiscal year 2005-06 budget, which would impose merit pay more widely in the public higher education institutions. So, the governor shows his preference for merit pay toadyism to a more creative approach for clarification of standards that would have drawn on community college and university faculty professionalism.

—Jonathan McLeod
San Diego