Last year, the Toronto Star and the National Post both published articles criticising our new grading scheme. They’re not alone in thinking that this scheme is imperfect; I complained about the same thing in the previous issue of uv. But what The Star and The Post took exception to was the perceived mollycoddling of law students, not the grading scheme itself (for example, one of the articles is titled, “Work is stressful. Don’t make law school easier to cope with”). With October being Mental Health Awareness Month, now is a good time to revisit exactly how problematic this mindset can be.
Some of our peers have already written letters to the editors of these newspapers pointing out that lawyers are already at a disproportionately high risk of developing mental illness and engaging in longterm substance abuse, which means that the existing system really does not work for a lot of people.
Other people disagree. Many law students say that all this talk about mental health is just “stressing them out.” Some professors and lawyers point out that they have also been through law school. Changing the experience, they opine—by, for example, offering healthy options for stress reduction or changing the letter grade system to labels such as “Pass” and “Honours” —will result in ill-prepared, lower quality lawyers.
For one thing, these assertions deny the reality of students facing challenging personal circumstances. Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold noted that the serious problems that students discuss with her every year range from the challenges of living with conditions such as depression or bipolar disorder, to the immensely difficult circumstances arising from sexual assault, serious illness, or the death of a close friend or relative. Sometimes, the lack of support for a student facing such a situation can contribute to drastic action ranging from dropping out of school to, tragically, suicide. Everybody loses when students do not realise their full potential.
Earlier this year, Queen’s University released a discussion paper on mental health in response to the spate of student suicides at the school during 2010 and 2011. This paper addresses the core problems: promoting an inclusive and supportive environment focussing on mental health awareness. This doesn’t mean that Queen’s will graduate worse students—only that the students they have will be better equipped to deal with problems in their future professional and personal problems. This is particularly important at a time where, according to the discussion paper, most post-secondary institutions are reporting an increase in the number of students with mental health concerns.
One important criticism of the types of measures that the law school is implementing—in particular the review of grade policy—is that they go
beyond the realm of support for students in need of it and force students to confront mental health issues “needlessly.” While no one is eager to face unnecessary stress or be confronted with difficult and painful questions, one of the biggest problems for people struggling with mental health problems is stigmatisation. This is unlikely to change without discussion surrounding mental health and broad changes—something about which the Queen’s discussion paper is very emphatic.
There is much discussion to be had about what works in terms of mental health strategy, and even about what kind of actions should be taken. But schools should not have to wait until a crisis before they feel justified in taking action. Mental health initiatives don’t result in students that cannot deal with real world stress; they are the best way to equip students to deal with what life (and law) throws their way.
