Let’s not assume facts not in evidence. Such a letter was sent.
Again, the rumor is that she rented it online and the owners had no idea she was in high school. Yes, I agree her parents were probably at graduation. I had a grad party which went smoothly (no alcohol) but the kids had a list of addresses and friends who were hosting parties. I went to 1 with my child and met the parents for the first time. Many of the parents hosting we didn’t know…that was the tricky part. We all did get emailed a warning from the school prior to the party. I can’t speak for her parents whether or not they received the email, whether they knew about the party or not. Many of these kids are international so it wasn’t unusual for the ones who wanted to host parties to rent s place/space. I don’t know the girl or her parents but there also may be a clash of opinions/culture that she or her parents didn’t take seriously. The drinking age in Hong Kong (where they live) is 18. Again, I am not condoning the situation only pointing out various other factors. In 4 years, I have heard nothing re: drinking/smoking which I can’t say about my one child’s public school or my other child’s private day school. This isn’t an unusual event across our nation, just unusually high numbers at a renowned school.
That’s the last I have to say on the subject. It’s very sad that their celebrations were tarnished and I’m hoping good life lessons result.
Maybe in future they should consider driving a bit farther north and holding the party in Quebec, where the drinking age is 18.
Some BS grad parties do happen across the Canadian border. Another benefit is if its in an urban area like Montreal or Quebec City, it minimizes the potential for drinking and driving.
I think pretty much every boarding school sends out those letters/emails prior to graduation and even some long weekend breaks. Parties still happen and parents obviously are ok with it.
@SoapyMango - Perhaps your child and his/her friends are some of the kids who choose not to party at BS but I can assure you it goes on at Andover as it does elsewhere.
The former president of Middlebury (now at Sewanee) initiated lowering the drinking age a few years ago and was lambasted by MADD which has a strong lobby group in DC. What’s interesting is how many of the chapter mother’s of madd all resign once their own kid turns about 16 or 17. I’ve met many madd mom’s and seems their oldest is always about 12 or 13 and they’re on a mission to eradicate D&A. I’ve spoken to judges and lawyers who admit it is real money maker in the college towns. Again unfortunate because when your 18 and get busted for drinking in addition to the monetary hit, you get a record because you’re an adult. Bottom line, lawyer up when your kid gets in trouble off campus.
• Lower the drinking age:
Argument: “If I’m old enough to go to war, I should be old enough to drink”
Actually the argument is much stronger than the NIAAA acknowledges. The fact is that citizens are legally adults at the age of 18. They can marry, vote, adopt children, own and drive automobiles, have abortions, enter into legally binding contracts, operate businesses, purchase or even perform in pornography, give legal consent for sexual intercourse, fly airplanes, hold public office, serve on juries that convict others of murder, hunt wildlife with deadly weapons, be imprisoned, be executed, be an employer, sue and be sued in court, and otherwise conduct themselves as the adults they are. And, of course, they can serve in the United States armed services and give their lives defending their country. One of the very few things they can’t legally do is consume an alcohol beverage. They can’t even have a celebratory sip of champagne at their own weddings.
• Argument: Lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19-to 20-year-olds aren’t related to the age 21 policy, but rather they’re related to increased drinking-driver educational efforts, tougher enforcement, and tougher drunk-driving penalties.”
• Counter-Argument: The agency wants us to argue that “Careful research has shown the decline was not due to DUI enforcement and tougher penalties, but is a direct result of the legal drinking age” and that “Achieving long-term reductions in youth drinking problems requires an environmental change so that alcohol is less accessible to teens.”
However, there are a number of weaknesses in what the bureaucrats want us to say. It’s true that lower rates of alcohol-related traffic accidents now occur among drivers under the age of 21. But they’ve also been declining among those age 21 and older, with one notable exception.
Raising the minimum legal drinking age has resulted in an apparent displacement of large numbers of alcohol-related traffic fatalities from those under the age of 21 to those age 21 to 24. In short, raising the drinking age simply changed the ages of those killed.
• The argument that we need to make alcohol less accessible to adults under the age of 21 fails to recognize the fact, well established by governmental surveys, that it’s easier for young people to obtain marijuana than alcohol.
It’s also foolish to think that effective prohibition can be imposed on young adults. The U.S. already tried that with the entire population during National Prohibition (1920-1933). The result was less frequent drinking but more heavy, episodic drinking. The effort to impose prohibition on young adults has driven drinking underground and promoted so-called binge drinking. This is a natural and totally predictable consequence of prohibition
I could be a good lesson that might prevent a college party tragedy.
^^^Thank you for your service, @jwalche. 
It’s a travesty that 18 year olds in the US are legally adults, can die for their county, and can’t have a beer. That said, S1 did his celebration in Europe with his friends, where the drinking age is reasonable.
DS was at the party, with our permission. DS was house hoping for the week and this was the one stop that had us concerned since DS was very clear that there were no parents at the house. One of the Dads agreed to rent a room in the same hotel were DS was staying and chaperone 6 grads. DS has earned a lot of trust. I knew he would call “ChaperDad” if appropriate and he did just that at midnight. I expected he would have something to drink, but I knew had good sense as well. I don’t regret the decision to allow him to go. The call at midnight just helped build more trust. Good thing since he is in Amsterdam today.
I forgot to mention that even S2 (age 16) had an occasional beer-- legal and no big deal…
I wish our country approached drinking like the Europeans, stiff fines DUI and other drinking related offenses but lower legal drinking ages.
@GMTplus7 - I grew up in UK and went to college there. We had a student union bar, which was the place to hang out and meet with your friends to get ready and go wherever (movies, party, event etc). It was the place where the rugby club would celebrate a victory etc. we’d have a drink, then go out. Or even stay there and talk. There wasn’t really any need to get hammerered, because it wasn’t furtive and driven underground. No one needed to hoard alcohol, and binge, with the added thrill of ‘doing something illegal’. It was really a sort of social center on campus. On Saturday nights there’d usually be a band playing (punk - it was the late 70s
To his credit, John Palfrey addresses this issue head-on in the recent State of the Academy address. Starts at 11:15. As a sidebar, he also briefly talks about helicopter parents at 42:15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgsO2JfWZCE
I think that the fact that 50+ kids basically didn’t drink or drank a very small amount (less than DUI limits) speaks to some level of responsibility. There will be way more opportunities for irresponsible and potentially dangerous behavior for every one of these kids in a few months.
The event does not reflect poorly on PA in my opinion. These are good kids who meant no harm and, for the most part, behaved responsibly - no drunk driving, no drugs (aside from alcohol), no hazing, no date rapes, no bonfires, et c. I don’t even think that there was a major neighborhood disturbance and the call was more for some concern because a kid was drunk. If this was 3 months later at an off-campus house, it wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow.