Can we brainstorm some on dorm partying control?

<p>Frosh dorms at my son's college had quiet hours after 11pm Sun-Thurs which the RA staff tended to support with some exceptions. </p>

<p>However I have always contended that the dorm is the worst place to study because of so many distractions which do not necessarily include partying. Our son took my advice and stayed away from the dorm from the first class(9 or 10am) to 6pm. That gave him a considerable amout of time to study, read, etc.. Evening time in the dorm usually focused on study groups and some group project work, in addition to socializing when the opportunity arose. Plus him and his friends gathers in the lounge to watch the Daily Show every weekday evening.</p>

<p>He had no problem keeping up with his work in the frosh dorm environment and was satisfied with how he did academically.</p>

<p>However his gpa went up to a 4.0 this semester living off campus in a house with 10 other students. Hmmmmmmm...</p>

<p>
[quote]
However I have always contended that the dorm is the worst place to study because of so many distractions which do not necessarily include partying.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sure this is true for some [maybe even most] kids, but it isn't true for me. I like to bring my laptop out to the lounge along with textbooks and problem sets, sit at the table there, and work through everything I have to do. I don't feel isolated because there are lots of people around, and if I get stuck and need to ask for help I have a pretty good chance of being able to find someone.</p>

<p>My suggestion:</p>

<p>Do away with freshmen dorms. House first-year students in dorms with juniors and seniors:</p>

<p>a) This reduces the odds of achieving "critical mass" required for "kids gone wild" nuclear reactions.</p>

<p>b) It provides role models for how "grown-up" college students behave and peer pressure to act like a "grown-up" college student.</p>

<p>I'm with you 100% on that, interesteddad. That was one of the great things about my college way back then. I am a bit sorry my D will be housed in an all-freshman quad. </p>

<p>Other parents have told me that the situation gets better after freshman year-that kids realize for themselves how to handle freedom once they've had some practice.</p>

<p>When undergrads get disgusted enough with the forever interruptions of sleep, peace, & studytime -- due to others' drunken behavior -- they will demand substance-free housing in increasing numbers, & campuses will be eventually obliged to surrender to the market demand. (Or risk losing students to more study-friendly campuses.) There will always be opportunities for students who somehow believe that it is extremely important to have no restrictions on alcohol whatsoever, 24/7. However, most students, and the parents of most students, are not paying $40K/yr for party opportunities as the primary focus. Thus, if a critical mass continues to seek alcohol abstaining activities as priorities, colleges will respond. It really has to come from voiced student desire, preferences -- as well as de-selecting those colleges with not enough sub-free housing to fill student body demand.</p>

<p>I think this is the way it's done at Notre Dame. Students stay in the same dorm all for years--(or at least 3). 97% of the freshman return and 94% graduate in 4 years. Maybe it's the presence of older students.</p>

<p>The dorms at MIT are all 4 year dorms. My son has had a great experience with this for a lot of reasons. There's always someone to help with homework, to ask about particular classes or profesors, to relay the 'scoop' on just about everything. His floor is definitely a non-party floor overall, although there are a few students who drink. His stories of his dorm experience have influenced his younger brother to look for colleges with the same set-up.</p>

<p>My daughter's small Christian College has dorming all four years. For freshman year she was in a freshman co-ed dorm and then got to choose the dorm she wanted for the next 3 years. She chose one of the two co-ed dorms and the rest are single sex. The co-ed dorms are single sex by wings with huge common rooms that have comfy sofas, chairs, fireplaces and a widescreen tv. While there is no curfew for either sex, boys can't go into the girls side after a certain time (think it's midnight during the week and maybe 2 am on weekends) and vice-versa. They can meet in the common area 24/7. I think it's a good compromise. And apparently it's agreeable to enough kids that the dorms are full. Drinking and drugs are not allowed.</p>

<p>Like someone said in the beginning, college is an artificial experience anyway - in the real world you're not going to live with thousands of people your own age and party every night - so why not have an artificial experience where the emphasis is on academics and socializing in a way that doesn't focus on drinking?</p>

<p>You all raise good points about living in dorms that aren't exclusively freshmen. The school my son will be attending next year has both options, that is to live in an all freshman dorm or a more mixed building. Originally, the all freshman dorm seemed to be the way to go, but looking back on my own experiences with mixed age group dorms, I realize there are lots of benefits there too. PS I was kidding about Charlotte Simmons - enjoying the book!</p>

<p>At my school, there is almost no enforcement of underage drinking / drug laws. There is little supervision -- the only people in charge at the dorms are the RAs who are undergrads. Mine even offered me alcohol! And it works just fine. </p>

<p>Sometimes the best way to handle a "problem" is to allow it.</p>

<p>One of my kids thought all-freshmen dorms should be renamed "the blind leading the blind."</p>

<p>
[quote]
elizabeth22 said:
Not in the ways you suggest. I say this with the utmost respect, but I think that the controls you suggest are better suited to young teenagers than young adults. I'm all for having a support system in place, but I would be shocked and offended if I were required to be in my room at a certain hour or if I were required to meet regularly with staff. It's great to organize activities for kids who would like to attend them, but many (most?) college students would prefer to make their own plans- and certainly would be unwilling to confine their fun to the hours of 10-12.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but college students (even freshmen) are legal adults, and ought to be learning to handle themselves in the real world. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink- and you can provide alternate activities for college kids, but you can't make them participate. I understand that you don't want college to be sink or swim, but I also think it's inappropriate to strap 18 year olds into figurative lifejackets when they're a mere 4 years from being entirely independent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i agree. you can't control them forever. college isn't a summer camp or somwhere you keep your kids. legaly, they are adults. at some point, students need to learn to make their own decisions, and you (threadstarter, or really parents in general) need to stop watching over them.</p>

<p>You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.</p>

<p>William J. H. Boetcker</p>

<p>I don't think that having 4 year dorms would reduce partying - older students buy a lot of the booze younger students drink. Nor would I say that older students party less than younger ones. I would say that older students tend to be better able to successfully implement the "work hard, party hard" concept because of experience.</p>

<p>In my mind, the best way to prevent a kid from screwing up in college (which, incidentiallly, can be caused as much by slacking off and playing videogames with fellow dormers as it can by alcohol or drugs) is to give him/her more freedom in HS. If a kid has had to be home by X time for his whole life, and has never been exposed to drinking/drugs/partying, then they are in my mind significantly more likely to abuse them when first exposed, at least temporarily. Contrarily, if a kid is used to drinking/partying and doesn't consider it novel, then they will probably know how to fit alcohol into a successful lifestyle.</p>

<p>lucifer, I've heard this point made many times, and lots of parents find some logic in it. However, exactly what is meant by "giving him/her more freedom in HS" and a kid being "used to drinking/partying"? Are you saying that parents should look the other way when their kids come home intoxicated, not ask questions about where their kids are going and when they'll be back, not communicate that they don't want their kids to drink in HS? Should parents not impose negative consequences when their kids do drink? In other words, are parents supposed to enable this behavior?</p>

<p>What about when there are younger children at home? It seems to me that by saying, "we will tolerate this degree of illegal behavior because we realize that teen drinking is inevitable and we want you to be experienced with partying when you go to college" sets up a situation in which kids will ask, "well, what else can I get away with?" I mean, if parents decide that drinking is okay at 16, why isn't it okay at 14? Or 12?</p>

<p>I don't mean any hostility by asking - I'd really like to know what the thought process behind "getting used to partying" is. Personally, I'd rather have an 18 y/o making decisions about whether and how much to drink than a 15 y/o.</p>

<p>I'll agree that many sheltered freshman experiment and get carried away by the partying scene first semester. But isn't it rare for kids not to have experience with drinking in HS nowadays? Surely plenty of freshmen who can't handle partying have been at it for many years.</p>

<p>My son is a first-year at the University of Chicago (not known as a party school, admittedly). Their emphasis is more on the positive aspects of forming a community. In addition to including all four years of students - my son's residence hall also includes resident masters (younger faculty members), their two dogs, a budgie, resident heads (and their pre-school daughter), and RA's. The trick is for the RM's to be viewed as valuable members of the community - not policemen.</p>

<p>Lucifer, I get your point but don't agree with it, plus my personal experiences don't follow that pattern. In high school, I knew where my kids were at all times. They were not at unsupervised parties. They did not drink. They were not out unreasonably late. </p>

<p>Both are now at college. I have no problem with knowing that they have had drinks at college, as it is part of college life. NEITHER has gone off the deep end with it and I know for a fact that drinking is not a big deal or their lives on campus do NOT revolve around drinking. Both have incredibly intense schedules. Both have active and enjoyable social lives as well. Both are exceling academically in tough programs. They didn't go overboard because of new freedoms in college. They stay up later and enjoy being able to come and go as they please and they do go to gatherings or parties and I am sure they have had drinks but I feel pretty sure neither drink to get drunk....they are not into that and have said so and also don't have the time to be hung over or anything given what they do seven days per week. So, the fact that they had tight reins in high school did not make them go to extremes once they hit college. Their college life does not revolve around partying but they have indulged in having drinks socially. Partying is not their main activity. </p>

<p>I have a niece also in college. Partying is HUGE for her and a major topic of conversation, including talking of drinking a LOT. I have heard her talk of it plus visited her on campus where that was the central topic of conversation with her friends (planning the drinking and partying on a weeknight in fact). She also was hospitalized at college last year and had pancreatitus (I think I spelled that wrong but it is a disease of the pancreas) caused by drinking. She had a lot of freedom in HS and drank in high school and was out late and often at unsupervised houses. She started then, whereas my kids never did in HS. During senior year of high school, she was sent home form a class trip to Disney World, due to being caught drinking. Even with her illness, from which she recovered, she still parties hardy. I just spent a vacation week with her and having a drink was important to her. Parties are a big part of her college experience. She does get good grades so in that respect is not floundering at college. (she goes to a good college but not as selective as the ones my own kids attend) However, your theory worked in the opposite way from my personal family experiences. </p>

<p>Susan</p>

<p>Lucifer-I think you are approaching the point but you have the cart before the horse. You can't give h.s. kids more freedom until they can demonstrate they deserve it by being accountable. My daughter doesn't have a curfew and can socialize on weeknights (she's a jr. in HS) because she's able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that she can manage her freedom AND produce a 4.0 GPA taking the most intense classes her high school offers AND take care of her family responsibilities (household chores, transporting younger sib, etc.). The result? Sometimes she stays home on a weekend night because she has work to do.</p>

<p>To firsttimemom: the way to do what you want to do for your child is to make them live at home and attend a local college. That way they live under your rules and supervision. It is sad that many kids go away to school and blow it by partying and not going to class or doing their work, but it has always been the case. In any group of 18 year olds there is going to be a normal range of maturity levels, and it is inevitable that not all 18 year olds are mature enough to deal with the relative lack of structure of college life. If your child falls on that end of the bell curve, then it is your responsibility as a parent to insist that they take a gap year, live at home or other alternative if you don't want to risk shelling out thousands of dollars on a wasted first semester.</p>

<p>Note I am not talking about all kids who don't make it--there are many who just find that their college is a horrible fit, some hit a wall of depression, some fail because they are not prepared academically. I am talking about the subset of kids who could do the work but are to immature to make themselves do it. </p>

<p>If you are still reminding your senior to do homework, return library books, turn in homework, go to bed on time or you are waking them up in the morning, fixing their breakfasts or doing their laundry those are a few clues that they might not be ready to go off to college. Throttle back and let them sleep through the alarm clock a few times senior year--the stakes are a lot lower.</p>

<p>As others have said, when I went to college we had a "dorm mother" although I think her official name was residence director. She lived on the first floor - she was about 28, and studying for her Ph.D. When I moved to another dorm later, we had a young couple living on the first floor in a two room apartment - again - one of them was a graduate student. They were not substitute parents but resources, or, more importantly, modifying presences. To put newly minted high school graduates in a anything goes environment, which does not just rely on your own child's good judgment, but the judgment and experience of other l7-l8 year olds, is just crazy when you think about it. If you started a new job, you would have some guidance. If you joined the army, you would have lots of guidance. There are many issues presenting college students arriving on campus. Having a resource or a "presence" that suggests some level of accountability (not only to self but to other students, as well) would make the transitional year much better. Our RDs did not enforce anything, they didn't hold meetings, they were just there and available for questions, emergencies, management of chaos, if needed. We had keg parties in the dorm (I think the drinking age was l8, then though) so the RD did not prevent partying. I think a sophmore is too young to create an atmosphere that suggests to the student that he is not operating in a vacuum and anything goes. The presence of an adult (let me say over 21 in reference to the drinking laws), even if it is just a presence - suggets accountability, a link to the "outside" world. I don't know if I am explaining this adequately but I think we have created a world of college students - they are dissassociated from most adult responsibilities and accountability. </p>

<p>I have also been surprised by the casual acceptance of drinking. I drank in college (and in hs) but drinking in college today is significantly out of control and there is a lot of peer pressure to participate. If you search on webshots.com you will find oodles of pictures of kids doing kegstands, etc. Drinking is a competitive game in college. Naturally, we each hope and believe that our students have learned moderation from our excellent upbringing <g>. But, drinking remains illegal and some schools are cracking down on it due to complaints from parents, and in some towns, neighbors. Many kids are creating disciplinary records for drinking at the school and many, at state schools, are being arrested and creating criminal records. An atmosphere of moderation isn't going to be created from new students - it should be created from admniistration via careful placement and interaction of some adults within the system. I don't think there are many other situations where highly inexperienced individuals are left on their own to figure things out - certainly it is an experiment for each student as well as each group of students. If nothing else, it is really inefficient! Why spent $40k for two years to let your child figure it out??? Better transitioning for freshmen via more adult contact/presence for at least the first year is, I guess, what I am suggesting.</g></p>

<p>Lucifer's preparation for "work hard, party hard" at a young age theory is not supported by the data.</p>

<p>The survey data shows that students who begin their heavy drinking in high school are more likely to be frequent heavy drinkers in college.</p>

<p>Frequent heavy drinkers in college are more likely to have academic trouble. More likely to receive disciplinary action. More likely to get in fights. More likely to be injured. And more likely to be raped.</p>