<p>mimi Does the type of dorm-living arrangements make a difference in alcohol and drug use on campuses? Are residential houses w/ professors living among the students any better at controlling underage drinking?</p>
<p>Personally from observation I think things have improved educationwise on colleges around the country. In my day we would never consider having anyone stay sober during a party to ensure others safety. We wouldn't give another thought to driving after having waay to much to drink. </p>
<p>I think there is far more alcohol education done these day than ever in the past and I do think it is making a difference. I think the focus on college students sometimes is a bit unwarranted when we look at the big picture. I understand the probable reason for binge drinking in college by the definition used to determine it. Most college students spend 5 days and nights each week in studies. Letting their hair down over a Friday Saturday night. This is binge drinking but only because they are working on studies the other days/nights. I don't know if that is a true sign of addictive behavor over prioritizing what's important each day. </p>
<p>A person living away from home at that age 18-20 I think drinks more often as just going to work is usually not enough to deter consumption. I think it is just a segment that doesn't get polled regarding consumption. They aren't usually in jobs that a career or high income is expected. </p>
<p>While I understand ANY addictive behavor is a bad thing, underage drinking does not make a bad person if they partake. It's part of the learning process most people go through growing up. Some learn some don't.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting tidbit from the Penn State Daily Collegian article about research presented by Susan Foster, VP of research and analysis at CASA (National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse). "The alcohol industry depends on underage and pathological drinking for 38 to 49% of consumption."</p>
<p>I am impressed with the amount of information and attempts to get it across to the students by Penn State. I am just not sure the students care.</p>
<p>I'd echo my fellow alum nceph - I was at Williams at the same time, and I remember drinking being pretty much a Friday/Saturday night thing. Some Thursday nights we would head to The Log at 11 p.m. after putting in an evening at the library. Big party weekends meant parties with bars serving more than beer. I don't remember people drinking otherwise during the week, and I don't remember pre-gaming. There were certainly heavy drinkers, but I can not remember any one being transported to the hospital.</p>
<p>Ditto Jrpar. Things at old alma mater have definitely changed, and not for the better.</p>
<p>
Binge drinking is defined either as 5+ drinks in one episode or, alternatively, 5+ drinks in two hours
</p>
<p>Sorry, but where does that statistic come from (I've only skimmed the thread)?</p>
<p>I think it's pretty suspect whether it's an "episode", or 2 hours. Most people I know could drink that much easily without being even close to drunk.</p>
<p>That definition also brings up some difficulties with the statistics - one assumes that that is a number arrived at by somehow averaging what a large sample of students would have to drink to be drunk. However, that method isn't valid, since the majority of heavy drinkers would have a much higher tolerance. Thus you have a significant number of heavy drinkers being classified as binging frequently when they're actually not (I define binging as drinking enough in a short period to get yourself significantly impaired, i.e. not being able to pass a standard line test or w/e).</p>
<p>I think that for these statistics to be valid, there needs to be much more rigorous treatment of the data.</p>
<p>On a more qualitative/holistic note, I don't believe drinking is significantly worse now. While I don't have direct experience to compare to (I am a senior in HS), I've heard these things:</p>
<p>My father attended a prestigious, highly competitive/academic university and graduated in '83. While he was there:</p>
<p>Drinking was common from riday (sometimes Thursday) through Sunday evenings, and this would mostly be classified as "binging" by the above definition. The university operated a bar, at which people always drank regularly.</p>
<p>He took part in a drinking game called blow pong, which is sort of complex to describe, but the salient facts are that games involved drinking up to 21 beers, and training sessions generally involved seeing what your tolerance was. Tryout weeks would involves 4-5 days straight of drinking beer until either you threw up, or were the last one not to - and smiultaneously testing motor skills. Then multiple games between competing teams.</p>
<hr>
<p>I could be wrong, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say stuff isn't a great deal worse now, at least not from the evidence I've seen. While admittedly I have no firsthand experience to refer to, and thus am not necessarily completely credible, most of the reasoning as to why it's worse now has been similar - either secondhand, anectdotal evidence, statistics that are not necessarily truly reflective, or media stories that have only become more sensationalist over time. It's a natural feeling to say that it's "worse" now, partly because media exposure of drinking is significantly higher, and also because of cultural differences now. That doesn't necessarily make it fact.</p>
<p>1of42 - The quote came from Mini, it's not mine.</p>
<p>JHS- 1) My point is that there is a world of difference between drinking 5+ drinks in 2 hours and drinking 5+ drinks in five hours. I understand that Mini says there is no "statistical" difference between the two, but that relates to the percentages being the same either way the question is framed. 2) I also understand that Mini claims that students "underreport" the amount of drinks they have. My point is that I see no reason to believe any self-reporting by students. They are as likely to underreport as they are to excessively report just to screw up the survey.</p>
<p>Sax - And outfits like CASA would not exist and be funded unless they can put out claims such as this. There is a lot of $$ to be made in alcohol "education".</p>
<p>Do I think there is a problem with drinking on campus today. Yes. But I don't believe that the majority of students have a problem. And that is because if a student occasionally gets drunk, I don't consider him to be an alcoholic. But a lot of people will say that he is a "binge drinker" and something must be done to stop him from drinking. This is nothing but Nannyism.</p>
<p>I do see some of the "drinking games" being played on campus as a serious issue and the source of most of the alcohol problems that we read about in the paper. Having a drink will talking or dancing is being replaced by games.
Most of these games seem to be directed at getting drunk in the shortest time possible. That was rarely the reason why I drank in college (although the concept of "catching up" when arriving late to a party was familiar). I don't know if this is related to having to drink quickly to avoid be caught drinking or if the popularity of these games via the internet is the reason (or something else).</p>
<p>I can understand that some parents do not want their kids to drink when they are in college. They might not. But I don't think it is the role of the colleges to enforce behavior of students. If that's what you want I would suggest you look at enrolling your children at Bob Jones University. They will be less likely to drink, do drugs, smoke, dance or fornicate.</p>
<p>1of42</p>
<p>The "5+ drinks per episode" is the standard definition from the Harvard School of Public Health survey on college alcohol consumption conducted by Weschler et al. And it is problematic in that an "episode" is poorly operationalized. Weschler and his ilk have implied that the duration of those five drinks is not important and the 5+ definition is meant only to differentiated between those who had 5 drinks over the course of a week vs those who are drinking with an intent towards excess.</p>
<p>Drinking games are played because they're fun and an easy way to meet people. There is of course the added result of them getting participants intoxicated.</p>
<p>As a recent graduate, my message to parents is this: Your kids are likely to drink when they go to college, don't be naive about it. Let them know that you understand that it's bound to happen, and don't get angry about it. Instead focus on them making good decisions when they do decide to drink - arriving AND LEAVING with friends, eating beforehand or during, having a designated driver or some other safe ride home, looking out for friends who are making poor choices or drank too much, etc. Drinking is a risky behavior, yes, but there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce that risk...the goal should be risk management, not risk prevention b/c that's not possible.</p>
<p>"I think there is a huge difference between 5 drinks in 2 hours and 5 drinks in one episode if an episode is defined as a party for instance. When I was in school it was not unusual for a party to start a 6 o'clock and not be over until 2:00 a.m. That's eight hours. If that's what you are using for statistics no wonder they seem so "alarming".</p>
<p>Secondly, if these are self-reported surveys, they should be seriously suspect. I know that my son gets these kinds of surveys in high school and all his friends think they are a big joke. Do they suddenly become serious when they take the same type of survey in college?</p>
<p>As to point one, I would have thought it would have made a big difference, too. But as it turns out, it doesn't. </p>
<p>As to the surveys, for 25 years, the surveys have been backed up by experimental data. That is, firsthand observation. That is precisely how they discovered that students underestimate the extent of their drinking. </p>
<p>And outfits like CASA would not exist and be funded unless they can put out claims such as this. There is a lot of $$ to be made in alcohol "education".</p>
<p>I have never cited CASA in anything I've posted. The current definition of binge drinking comes from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health. As I've written elsewhere, I personally am much less concerned about binge drinking, much more concerned about heavy drinking (2+ drinks a day, nearly every day.) I hope I didn't give the impression that folks are bingeing every day (there are those who do, but that's not what the data show one way or the other); "heavy drinking" is, for roughly half those who do it, a surrogate for incipient alcoholism (if they aren't alcoholics already.)</p>
<p>"My point is that I see no reason to believe any self-reporting by students. They are as likely to underreport as they are to excessively report just to screw up the survey."</p>
<p>Without going into a long dissertation, there are a large number of testing strategies and statistical methodologies that have been proven, through experimental data, to deal quite effectively with misreporting. (The very simplest one, and not the one which is mainly relied upon, is to monitor changes in data quality over a period of years, or even decades, to spot statistical anomalies.)</p>
<p>"the goal should be risk management, not risk prevention b/c that's not possible"</p>
<p>If all individuals could control their own behavior and could always act in a rational manner that presented no harm to other people then we would not need any laws to begin with. Are you saying that we should expect a younger less mature individual - who knows that drinking is illegal to begin with - to be able to step back after they are already under the influence of alcohol? This ignores all the data and research that suggests that young drinkers often have a higher tolerance level than older drinkers and do not begin to feel the effects of the alcohol until they have reached a toxic (binge drinking) level. Wouldn't the best choice for that individual have been to not drink at all to start out with, especially in the current heavy-drinking climate that many young people find themselves in?</p>
<p>Of course we want to teach our young people how to make good choices to begin with; if they are underage that should include respecting our laws and not starting until they are of age (what is the point of the laws otherwise?) and if they are of age, that should include how to drink more carefully (even though most college-age binge drinkers are underage) but WE cannot control their behavior or actions at the moment they choose to drink, especially after they turn 18, so as a society the one thing WE can and should do is focus on risk prevention - for our protection as well as theirs - by controlling the availability of alcohol to underage drinkers to begin with, through laws and enforcement of those laws, education, parental supervision of teens, controlling advertising/marketing, etc.</p>
<p>Scansmom - The only reason the drinking age is 21 is because MADD and others of their ilk got Congress to withhold federal highway funds unless the states raised their drinking age to 21. Simple as that. It's the same reason drunk driving limits have been lowered. There used to be plenty of states where the drinking age was 18 and/or 3.2 beer was available to those under 21. If 18-21 year olds are not smart enough to drink sensibly, then they are not smart enough to vote. Illegality (in this case) is not a sufficient reason to support draconian enforcement of the law, especially by the colleges.</p>
<p>Mini - I'm glad to hear that your concern is not binge drinking, but rather heavy drinking. I can't think of a single student that I knew in college who drank 2 or more drinks a day. What is now fashionably called binge drinking was prevalent. I am not close enough to the current college experience to know if heavy drinking is a problem.</p>
<p>Education - that's what kids go to college for. But that education should not be interminable seminars on drinking, smoking, sex relations, racial equality, gender bias, etc. It seems like today's colleges want to spend the first semester teaching students how to be good little boys and girls. I don't think that that is the role of college. They may well learn those things in college, but I doubt they will in the structured role of a class or seminar. </p>
<p>I have no use for "nannys" and I absolutely do not want my d/s college to act as a nanny for them.</p>
<p>Another sad story... :( The article doesn't mention alcohol, but the markers "lacrosse player", "fraternity pledge" and "falling off a balcony" lead me to suspect that he was drunk. My heart goes out to his poor parents, and I added it to the list of thing my DS is not to do in college.... :(
<a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/18/18fall.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/18/18fall.html</a></p>
<p>ah, but according to some people, if they are not smart enough to drink sensibly - well, don't they really deserve whatever happens to them???</p>
<p>scansmom</p>
<p>first I should have been clearer and said "total risk prevention"</p>
<p>what I'm aiming at is that, given the person has already made the decision to start drinking, that they hopefully make good decisions even if they've already made a risk-filled decision. </p>
<p>Let's face it, there are plenty of situations in every day life which are risky. Getting in your car to go to work is a risky decision. But as you drive defensively you are "managing" your risk. </p>
<p>Once a student has made the decision to drink, there's no reason why they can't manage that risk as well. Yes, of course, alcohol impairs decision making ability, and the choices made by intoxicated individuals are not as well-thought out as those made by sober individuals. But, not every drunk person falls off a balcony, or dies, or gets pregnant, or contracts an STD, or gets in an auto accident, or any of the other thousands of possibilities that in theory become more likely b/c one is intoxicated. Making appropriate decisions before, during, and after drinking can make a decision that carries a lot of risk much less dangerous.</p>
<p>While preventative measures like the ones you mentioned are indeed important, they are not the end all and be all of the discussion, simply for the fact that they are not fool proof, not 100% effective, and do nothing for individuals who are legally able to drink. You must have prevention and intervention to successfully manage problems like this. </p>
<p>Drinking is not the only issue where this applies either. I'm in medical school, and have had preventative medicine pounded in to my head this year...but just because we utilize preventative medicine doesn't mean we lack drugs, treatments, procedures, and surgeries to help those who, despite our best intentions, still contract the condition we tried to prevent. It's the same reason why abstinence only sex education is a bad idea. You must work to prevent the problem, but also need ways to address it once it's started.</p>
<p>I have never understood why people link the voting age to the legal drinking age. One is to have a voice in you representative govt. that represents you; therefore you can vote. The other is to pretect inexperienced people (who frequently have less good judgement at 18 than they will at 21) from risky behavior. Any age would be arbitrary for voting or drinking. I don't feel that they have to or should be the same. One could also argue that if I can drive at 16 why can't I vote/drink/execute contracts, etc. at age 16. Setting an age is arbitrary and any decision is open to discussion as to what age people should be allowed to drink, but it should be irrespective of what age people can vote and more based on society's protection. Keep in mind that many in society are hurt by foolish actions by drunk people, not just the drinker. It is for the benefit of all to decrease the number of families whose lives are shattered by injuries/deaths of their relatives. (Again, not just the drinker, but the people who were killed in the other car and such.) It is a trade-off between our freedom vs. protectionf of society</p>
<p>I was just telling H about this thread. He didn't know that 21 was the age country-wide, thinking it was just in a couple of states. Both of us can't imagine not drinking at all in college, but wonder if binge drinking is more prevalent at colleges where there's nothing else to do? He went to Harvard where there was alot to do besides that, and Williams seems to come up alot on this thread. Williamstown isn't exactly a hotbed of activity. Maybe its isolation has something to do with it.?</p>
<p>On the positive side.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Williams seems to come up alot on this thread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>DKE, Williams does get more than its share of negativity. In a classic damned if you do scenario, the colleges own information published transparently just gives the bashers a better club to beat it with. Other colleges with similar social ambiences are less forthcoming and those with pervasive drug cultures just keep their heads down and hope it will go away.</p>
<p>I have never seen Williams generated statistics that specifically refer to binge drinking. This is an emotionally weighted term that skews the perception from normal kids having a normal college experience toward an insidious and dangerous interpretation. </p>
<p>The only statistics that Im aware of that were actually Williams specific are from a survey on diversity that polled different ethnic groups and compared behavior in several areas, alcohol consumption being just one of many. Of the 1000 students who responded 27% of all African Americans, 53% of all Latinos, 39% of all Asian, and 58% of all Whites "Had five or more drinks on one or more occasions in [the] last two weeks." </p>
<p>No question but that "five drinks in a row" meaning 5 shots lined up on the bar and chugged one after another is unacceptable and dangerous behavior; however, the Williams College Diversity Initiatives Self Study does NOT imply that scenario. </p>
<p>Whats happened is that this data based on the nebulous one occasion has morphed into statements like the following: </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you send your kid to my alma [Williams]. . . chances are better than 50/50 that YOUR kid has binged in the past two weeks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And then by extension the conflating Williams own statistics with the Wechsler data and terminology:
[quote]
And the chances are roughly one in six or seven that s/he will be an alcoholic at some time in the next 20 years (if not so already.) The odds rise if your kid is white and/or male. If your kid isn't one of those, and isn't a total abstainer, it is going to be somewhat difficult to find moderate drinkers as friends. Doable, happens all the time, but it is going to be more difficult.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When applied to Williams, these are highly misleading comments.</p>
<p>DKE, your observation
[quote]
but it still doesn't make sense to me that at a place like Williams the kids could afford (time-wise) to party like that. The academic demands are so intense.
[/quote]
is right on the mark. No, it doesnt make sense and, in fact, it isnt happening. After three and a half years at Williams my son who was a light drinker before he started college, is still a light drinker. His friends are either light drinkers or non-drinkers. They have not been coerced, ostracized, viewed as outcasts, bullied or in any way pressured to drink more. Nor has their college experience been negatively colored by a pervasive and boorish abuse of alcohol. </p>
<p>Many of those that conceivably could have answered yes to the Diversity Initiatives question should not be classified as binge drinkers in everyday parlance, no matter how Wechsler defines it. They do not drink to the point of passing out, throwing up, getting in fights or in any way acting like Neanderthals. They are college kids having a few drinks (yes even 5!) over the course of a party night.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the Williams-as-a-one-way-ticket-to-AA stance is seldom heard from current or recent students or their parents. We know our kids and we cant all be in denial. To us, the whole alcohol abuse thing is much overblown and exaggerated. Of course it exists. Bad things happen at good colleges -- ALL of them -- and Williams is no exception. </p>
<p>Trying to convince outsiders who want to believe otherwise for their own agendas is about as effective as going over to the Café and trying to get the Bushies to denounce the war or the Dems to admit that the President might just have a point. </p>
<p>So, I sigh, and hope that open-minded kids and parents will take the time to find out for themselves. As Ive said again and again on this board: There are many reasons not to choose Williams too small, too rural, too sporty, too extroverted, too rigorous, too cold, too White, too mainstream, no shopping, no nightclubs, no city lights, no Gap, no Starbucks but concerns about a culture that glorifies excessive drinking just shouldnt be one of them. </p>
<p>I went to a Big Ten school in the 60's when substance abuse -- both alcohol and drugs -- was rampant. I know how dangerous substance abuse is. I acted irresponsibly as did many of my friends. There were disastrous consequences. I don't remember that period fondly and I don't glamorize it. I certainly wouldn't want my son in a similar, dangerous environment. I am convinced that Williams is NOT a similar, dangerous environment.</p>
<p>Statistics are just numbers and can be interpreted or misinterpreted in many ways. The Weschler Report and the Williams Survey (reinforced by hearsay and third hand accounts) have led the Williams administration to conclude that more alcohol education is a good idea. We all think it is a good idea. This is very different from stating as fact that more than half of all Williams students are binge drinkers and then defining binge drinking as tossing down 5 drinks one after another. This is a distortion.</p>
<p>I stand by my assertion gathered from intimately knowing current and recent Williams kids that abusive and dangerous drinking is NOT common on campus, NOT socially tolerated by the majority of the student body and that the quality of life is NOT adversely affected by the small majority who do indulge in substance abuse.</p>
<p>I'm don't understand why binge drinking is not considered a particular danger. Yes, heavy drinking is a problem. Heavy constant drinking points to a specific problem, namely alcohol, and it does not necessarily have to be heavy. But binge drinking is particularly a problem because anyone can do it at any time. You don't need to have a history of drinking or not drinking. It is a spontaneous thing that kids often do on a lark without thinking. It can be so dangerous because drinking large amounts so quickly does not allow the body to to take care of the alcohol or get rid of it. You can be in dire straits medically before you can vomit or feel very drunk. And it's becoming the in thing to do--just chug it down. </p>
<p>I dont doubt that this always was around. But the numbers coming back of kids dying from alcohol poisoning or hospitalized for it alarm me. There was no dearth of drinking at my college, but the only drunks I knew who got hospitalized slipped off the side of a cliff when they pulled over to take a leak. I guess a higher power removed them from drunk driving!</p>
<p>"The article doesn't mention alcohol, but the markers "lacrosse player", "fraternity pledge" and "falling off a balcony" lead me to suspect that he was drunk.</p>
<p>You forgot to mention he enjoyed milk on occasion. Please don't attempt to villify the kid's sport or his decision to join an organization. It really isn't necessary. I'm sure you don't continue to apply racial sterotypes do you? </p>
<p>What if the kid sleepwalks? I would hold judgement about his death until a toxicology test has been completed. </p>
<p>I mean, at my S college a few weeks ago a girl died in a single car accident at 3am. Kinda shook my kid up as he was talking to her at 11 at a party. The thing was she doesn't drink and didn't drink. She went off to visit her boyfriend at the local christain college 15 miles away. She died on her way home, hit a telephone pole. </p>
<p>So we could assume at 3 am she was up no good and visited a frat and had a boyfriend. Maybe she just fell asleep at the wheel?</p>