Close
Articles today i learned (til)

GaTech Taking Steps to Improve Mental Health!

April 18, 2024

As of this semester, Georgia Tech has become a JED Campus! This is a designation given to universities that put systems and programs in place with the goal of protecting student mental health. “JED Campus” is the signature program of The JED Foundation designed to develop customized support for student mental health, substance use, and suicide prevention efforts.  Currently, JED programs have impacted 1078 colleges and high schools across the US.

 

Being a student at Tech can be quite challenging with many stressors such as assignments, midterms, and job search. Research shows that first year students especially suffer from emotional problems, some associated with adjustment issues as they transition from high school to college. This difficulty in adjustment can result in poor academic performance and increased dropout rates. In one study, it was shown that more than 86% of students who sought counseling services decided to continue their enrollment for at least another semester. In another study, it was found that counseling centers have started to receive more severe concerns, some of which included suicide, substance abuse, depression, and sexual abuse (Kitzrow, 2003). For these reasons, the demand and need for counseling services in universities has grown substantially.

 

Some consequences of poor mental health are low energy, difficulty sleeping, and eating problems, and interest in normal activities. These physical health implications can cause a decline in academic performance which in turn causes a continuous cycle of mental and physical burnout. Counseling serves as a way to minimize these impacts. Fortunately, Tech offers a range of services to help students manage their life in college. I asked fellow Tech students about their favorite resource and how it has helped them manage their stress.

“I think it’s a really nice break from my normal schedule to stop by and meet the dogs. Even for a few minutes, they’re so friendly and cute it makes my day better. I wish there was also a version with cats, but I’m glad we have these events.” (Sheila)

Check out this clip of pups on Tech Green from the @gatechlife instagram page!

“I really enjoy the mental health workshops hosted by the Center of Mental Heath and Services. My favorite one was probably yoga! It was a great way to relax and meet new people”  (Christy)

“I love to relax on the hammocks especially now that the weather is getting better. After a long day, it helps me destress to just lay there and look up at the sky. Sometimes I read a book or listen to music.” (Tim)

Take It Outside | News Center

The Center for Mental Health Care & Resources offers a number of programs for students.

 

Some of which include individual/group counseling, couple counseling, and mental health workshops. Short-term individual counseling involves ongoing individual meetings with a counselor, often on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. There is also an option for short-term group counseling which supports students in making positive changes in their lives, as well as group sessions based on specific issues or student identities Couples counseling sessions are geared towards resolving tension and miscommunication between partners. Mental health workshops are hosted monthly to deliver useful tips for coping, stress management, and relationships.

 

These services are aimed at helping students reach their academic and personal goals. They have benefited many students on campus and the wellness center is continually striving to better serve the Tech population. And the best part of all is that these services are confidential and completely free!

 

Sources

Kitzrow, M. (2003). The mental health needs of today’s college students. https://ccvillage.buffalo.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/74/2017/06/NASPA-Mental-Health-Needs-of-College-Students.pdf

Roggers, V. (n.d.). Take it outside. News Center. https://news.gatech.edu/features/2022/05/take-it-outside

Services. Center for Mental Health Care & Resources.

https://mentalhealth.gatech.edu/clinical-services/services

The story of jed. The Jed Foundation. (2024, February 13).

https://jedfoundation.org/the-story-of-jed/

 

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Are All-Nighters in College Actually Beneficial?
today i learned (til)
Battle of the Hands: Mittens vs. Gloves
today i learned (til)
Science, Jazz, and Boba, OH MY!!
collage of radio elements, birds on telephone line, vinyl in top left, play buttons, sound wave vectors
today i learned (til)
“College Radio : It’s Not Dead”

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.