<p>LOL. To that question, at least, my answer would be a definite "no". :p</p>
<p>Is there anyone in Washington State/Oregon that HASN'T done drugs ?</p>
<p>Oh yeah add NorCal to that. It's like the hippy coast</p>
<p>"Since releasing a 250-page study on the societal effects of modern drinking laws, Middlebury College President emeritus John McCardell has campaigned across the country calling for states to lower the legal drinking age to 18 because he observed fewer alcohol-related problems 30 years ago, when 18-year-olds could legally drink.</p>
<p>"Before the law changed, it wasn't perfect," McCardell said. "But what you had then was out-in-the-open, intergenerational [drinking]."</p>
<p>Since then, McCardell, who is launching the nonprofit group Choose Responsibility this spring to support his cause, said the law has forced minors to drink excessively in uncontrolled settings.</p>
<p>"That simply transplants the problem to some darker corner where it can't be managed," he said. "Underage drinking is worse than it's ever been, and binge drinking is worse than it's ever been."</p>
<p>Already earning interviews with the Chronicle of Higher Education, U.S. News and World Report, Fox News, syndicated columnist George Will and many college newspapers, McCardell said his proposal has gained support.</p>
<p>"Considering how new we are, I'm very heartened by it," he said. "I think it's timing - people are ready for a debate."</p>
<p>McCardell said several college presidents and deans of students are responding favorably to the idea, but he said the high-profile positions in some institutions prevents them from openly supporting him. Now that he no longer heads Middlebury, McCardell said he is in a unique position to voice the concerns he says many administrators share.</p>
<p>Despite the attention his proposal is gaining, youth drinking experts have attacked it as irresponsible. Boston University School of Public Health professor William DeJong, who specializes in youth drinking habits, slammed McCardell's report as inaccurate.</p>
<p>"It's one of the most badly done reports that I've seen in a long time," DeJong said. "We can have a debate about the law, but he's not entitled to his own facts."</p>
<p>DeJong said he found the report's assertions irresponsible because it has not been peer-reviewed and relies on the work of two Middlebury undergraduate students who did not specialize in either epidemiology -- the study of factors affecting a population's health -- or public health.</p>
<p>Though McCardell said his study collected no original data but compiled secondary sources that were all peer-edited, and he challenged critics to point out specific corrections to the report, DeJong said the study relies on opinion rather than science.</p>
<p>"He will observe an increase in extreme drinking, and he'll talk to students who say, 'You should lower the drinking age' and takes that at face value, but that's talking - not research," DeJong said.</p>
<p>The decline in drunk-driving incidents since the drinking age was raised to 21 shows the law's effectiveness in saving lives, DeJong said."</p>
<p>"The age-21 law is the most defensible public policy that we have in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities," he said. "Virtually every single study shows the positive effect of the law."</p>
<p>Choose Responsibility faces an uphill battle in persuading states to change their laws as long as the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 forces them to maintain a minimum drinking age of 21 or lose federal highway funding. President Ronald Reagan signed the act in 1984 after groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving pushed for the law..."</p>
<p>If anyone on this thread has mentioned this, I missed it:</p>
<p>The recent book "Binge: Campus Life in an Age of Disconnection and Excess" by Barrett Seaman studies
drinking habits and problems on twelve elite universities in the US and Canada. He concludes that McGill with the lowest drinking age at 18 has the least problem with excessive drinking that leads to health issues. (I know because my d. goes to McGill that there is a great deal of drinking at the start of the first year, as students get their first taste of freedom, in a legal environment. That settles down by October--those that dont "get it" are soon gone from U.)</p>
<p>JHS: Your comment in #12 about Frosh is right on--my d. got the same offer- it took me by surprise.</p>
<p>^ Average age of students at McGill appears to be 26.2 years. That could have something to do with the low binge rates.</p>
<p>We have marketed X-treme to this generation. Everywhere they look its all about speed and intensity. Dating, communication, movies, sports ...the list in endless. If it's not fast and over the top they have been taught it is too safe or boring. Why would drinking alcohol be any different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Average age of students at McGill appears to be 26.2 years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I'm not mistaken, it is also urban and largely non-residential -- two factors that correlate with low binge drinking rates.</p>
<p>I believe it also has only a very small number of fraternities and doesn't have big spectator sports. I can find plenty of universities in the U.S. with similar characteristics where the binge drinking rate is LOWER than McGill's, probably because the drinking age is 21.</p>
<p>The average age of undergrads at U.S. colleges and universities is 24.5. The Middlebars of the world are clearly the outlyers.</p>
<p>"The average age of undergrads at U.S. colleges and universities is 24.5. The Middlebars of the world are clearly the outlyers."</p>
<p>Yes, but that profile does not fit 99% of the colleges frequently discussed here and the focal point of most better students and their parents who frequent this board.</p>
<p>Agreed! That's why pointing to McGill as an example of how the lower drinking age is associated with lower binge drinking is a total non-starter.</p>
<p>I don't think the arithmetic average age is a good statistic to use anyway- I would think median age might be better. Problem is, the distribution of ages for college students is uneven- there are going to be a lot more people in their 30's, 40's, even 50+ going to undergraduate school than people under the age of 18. So all it takes is relatively few older folks attending a school to bring the average up. But the "face" of that school is still going to be 18-22 year olds.</p>
<p>Excuse me, I did mean to say "median". (But it wouldn't matter in the case of the schools for the 17-22 year olds.)</p>
<p>Large number of the mid-20s folks are post-military, or college dropout or community college grads coming back for four-year degrees.</p>