½¿É«µ¼º½

In science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) higher education, academic excellence is often equated with relentless performance. These high-pressure environments leave little room – or institutional language – to address psychological distress. The imperative to succeed while concealing vulnerability has become a defining norm.

Mental health and wellbeing have increasingly become priorities in higher education policy. At a global level, evidence shows that approximately one in three university students report symptoms of depression (33.6 per cent) and nearly 4 in 10 experience anxiety (39.0 per cent) (Li et al., 2022). Yet in STEM programmes, where performance, endurance and technical excellence are overemphasised, these concerns are often addressed too late – or not at all. Studies have highlighted alarming levels of anxiety, depression and psychological maladjustment among STEM students (Evans et al., 2018). But these are not isolated cases; they reflect structural features of the educational experience.

Why is mental health so compromised in STEM?

Psychological distress in STEM has structural roots. Dominant pedagogical models are rigid, technocratic and competitive, fostering heavy workloads, narrow definitions of success and the suppression of emotional expression (Baik et al., 2019). Mental health continues to be treated as an individual concern, often disconnected from institutional practices. Gender inequalities further exacerbate this distress: women face underrepresentation, microaggressions and constant scrutiny, factors associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression, and lower academic self-efficacy (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016).

The crisis of student mental health is global, yet it manifests unevenly across local contexts. In Latin America, and particularly in Chile, institutional stratification and elitism sustain cultures of individualism and exclusion, placing STEM students who do not conform to dominant norms at heightened risk of non-belonging (Beroíza-Valenzuela, 2025). While universities promote innovation and excellence, they frequently fail to acknowledge the emotional costs imposed by such environments. Without cultural transformation, wellbeing initiatives are unlikely to be effective.

‘Without cultural transformation, wellbeing initiatives are unlikely to be effective.’

So, what can be done?

First, institutions must acknowledge that mental health is not a peripheral concern; it is central to academic engagement and equity. Mental wellbeing should be considered in the design of curricula, assessment practices and teaching methods. For instance, universities could reduce reliance on high-stakes assessments and create spaces within courses for emotional reflection, peer support and feedback.

Second, teaching should rely less on individual competition. Learning works best when students collaborate instead of being pitted against each other. Many STEM students say they feel alone and under pressure. Building communities of support, encouraging peer mentoring, and recognising effort as much as results can reduce this sense of isolation.

Third, support services must be tailored to the needs of underrepresented groups. Women experience distinct challenges that generic interventions may overlook. A one-size-fits-all approach to wellbeing fails to account for the intersecting forms of inequality that shape student experiences.

Finally, wellbeing must be reframed as a right, not a privilege. It is a precondition for inclusive participation in higher education. As UNESCO (2024) reminds us, promoting emotional health is essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. If STEM disciplines are to generate socially relevant innovation, they must first ensure that their learning environments do not harm those expected to lead the change.

Mental health in STEM cannot remain a hidden crisis. Institutions must prioritise psychological wellbeing not only through services and resources but by transforming the academic culture that silences distress. This means moving away from a culture that values only performance, towards one that also prioritises care and wellbeing; from exclusionary practices to genuine belonging; and from simply enduring higher education to being able to participate in it fully and sustainably.

This blog post is based on the article by Francisca Beroíza-Valenzuela, published in the British Educational Research Journal.

References

Baik, C., Larcombe, W., & Brooker, A. (2019). How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: The student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 674–687.

Beroíza-Valenzuela, F. (2025). Implicit gender stereotypes in STEM: Measuring cognitive bias and group differences through reaction times. International Journal of STEM Education, 12(1), Article 1.

Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Gastelum, J. B., Weiss, L. T., & Vanderford, N. L. (2018). Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282–284.

Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84.

Li, W., Zhao, Z., Chen, D., Peng, Y., & Lu, Z. (2022). Prevalence and associated factors of depression and anxiety symptoms among college students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 63(11), 1222–1230.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2024). Changing the equation: Securing STEM futures for women.