Getting proactive on stress

In the spring, The Daily Princetonian ran a series of three articles on stress at the University. The consensus was exactly what was to be expected: Just like at any other university, most students suffer from some degree of stress; yet through exercise, counseling, meditation or just sucking it up, they cope.

This revelation is not groundbreaking in the slightest. It is generally taken for granted that college is meant to be a turbocharged introduction to the real world of responsibility. College is stress, and stress is normal.

Stress is clearly part of the competitive, achievement-oriented atmosphere of higher education, and Princeton is chock-full of some of the most capable and ambitious scholars in the nation. Beside the clear implications of the grade deflation policy on a group of motivated overachievers’ psyches, even more striking is that many, if not most, students actively welcome as much stress as they can handle. Call it Type A personality, call it the American way, call it a practical work ethic — whatever the viewpoint, one would be fain to find a single soul at Princeton who chose to matriculate with no concept of the prevailing competitive attitude on this campus. Undoubtedly, the students make the school, and our competitive natures make for a competitive school.

Although our countless programs, superior academics and admirable collegiate atmosphere make us one of the most highly ranked schools in the world, it simply cannot be overlooked that Princeton has a culture of stress. Our high rankings also extend into the category of "most stressed," and the judgments continue to pour in year after year. Across the board, students are stressed out, and big time. “Coping” might help us ignore stress enough that we can still feel happy about our experience, but coping is clearly a Band-Aid solution to a much more deeply rooted issue. Happiness cannot be the measuring stick by which we claim success; the resiliency of the student body in the face of constant stress cannot be the benchmark of ideal University policy. The University must be proactive in preventing high stress from taking hold in the first place.

Chronic stress is increasingly cited in scientific studies as a leading health problem: Its direct link to increased risk of disease means that concern is not only absolutely warranted, but that it should be a major University priority. The key link to our lives here in Princeton is that old habits of stressful living die hard and will stick for years to come. Working until exhaustion, inconsistency in sleep habits and procrastination may not bring a student's life to a standstill, but these patterns repeated over many years will have a significant effect on health

It would be negligent to imply that the University has not been pursuing a path to reduce student stress levels and increase overall morale on campus — the range of University resources speak for themselves, as well as the numerous contributions of the directors of student life. However, these institutions are inherently limited in how much they can affect stress levels on campus. Resources and study breaks already abound, so the marginal benefit of adding more of the same will be very low due to student time constraints with studying, socializing and activities. Current University stress-reduction policy is reactionary: Its strength is derived from the extent to which students voluntarily participate, and even with participation, the underlying stress often does not go away due to the combinations of habit, inertia and malaise that create the stress in the first place.

To come to grips with this issue, the University must take the riskier and more contentious route of striking at the root of the problem. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins, Brown and Reed College have experimented with progressive ideas such as having a policy of pass/fail grades only for the first semester or longer with hopes of reducing stress and encouraging exploration, but there is little evidence that this has had the intended effect. Due to opportunities for abuse of the system or from the result of simply having deferred academic stress to later semesters, it seems clear that major policy changes should be treated with caution to avoid unnecessary floundering on the part of the University.

It is clear that the student body must be committed to tackling the problem head on for any route to succeed, but this seems to be a case where the patient will in all likelihood reject the medicine that it needs. The only way for the University to get students to stop stressing out is to make it in their interest to do so — specifically by incentivizing stress-avoidance education early on in the Princeton experience. If attendance at an ongoing series of lectures on the health effects of stress and avoidance strategies were to be linked with a tangible reward, such as the opportunity to take five classes pass/D/fail instead of the usual four, maybe some would take the education to heart. Whatever route is chosen, it is clear that the University must go beyond just offering services. By making education early, proactive and rewarding, students can be given the tools to live a healthy lifestyle on their own prerogative.