[gailtate]

Here's the article:  https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/artic...494881.php.  
I was able to access it for free, but maybe folks get only a limited number of free articles.
The article appropriately treats this problem as a society wide issue that also happens to affect Stanford students.

On the issue of altering the Stanford admissions process to address mental health issues:
Do we have reason to think that people who watch a lot of TV aren't also suffering from mental health disorders?
Do we have reason to think that putting a small number of laid back kids into a pressure cooker environment is going to be good for them?
Do we have reason to think that society will experience fewer instances of suicide if Stanford rejects more people with mental health issues?

IMHO, this is a problem that requires contributions from students, parents, and universities.  Parents should be providing a supportive environment at home.  Students should try to gain sufficient self-awareness to determine whether or not they will thrive in a high-pressure environment.  Those choices will continue throughout life.  Will they run the rat race of trying to earn tenure as a prof, of trying to get promoted to MD at an investment bank, of trying to make partner at a top law firm?  And, of course, Stanford has a role to play too in supporting students who seek out help.  Hiring a few more therapists would be great (and I think it will happen).  Nevertheless, as was the case with Meyer, a key problem is getting students to reach out for help in the first place.

:
 
Might more "laid back" (less frenetic) students and staff have a healthy mitigating effect on the pressure cooker? In that connection, a study at Paly High School in the wake of epidemic suicides a decade+ ago revealed a "shame" factor: that the more susceptible to self-harm a student was, the less inclined they were to reach out for help. Draw your own conclusions about mom/dad expectations at home...

[gailtate]

Here's the article:  https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/artic...494881.php.  
I was able to access it for free, but maybe folks get only a limited number of free articles.
The article appropriately treats this problem as a society wide issue that also happens to affect Stanford students.

On the issue of altering the Stanford admissions process to address mental health issues:
Do we have reason to think that people who watch a lot of TV aren't also suffering from mental health disorders?
Do we have reason to think that putting a small number of laid back kids into a pressure cooker environment is going to be good for them?
Do we have reason to think that society will experience fewer instances of suicide if Stanford rejects more people with mental health issues?

IMHO, this is a problem that requires contributions from students, parents, and universities.  Parents should be providing a supportive environment at home.  Students should try to gain sufficient self-awareness to determine whether or not they will thrive in a high-pressure environment.  Those choices will continue throughout life.  Will they run the rat race of trying to earn tenure as a prof, of trying to get promoted to MD at an investment bank, of trying to make partner at a top law firm?  And, of course, Stanford has a role to play too in supporting students who seek out help.  Hiring a few more therapists would be great (and I think it will happen).  Nevertheless, as was the case with Meyer, a key problem is getting students to reach out for help in the first place.

:
 
Might more "laid back" (less frenetic) students and staff have a healthy mitigating effect on the pressure cooker? In that connection, a study at Paly High School in the wake of epidemic suicides a decade+ ago revealed a "shame" factor: that the more susceptible to self-harm a student was, the less inclined they were to reach out for help. Draw your own conclusions about mom/dad expectations at home...