<p>
</p>
<p>Regarding the subsidized activities, perhaps the school subsidizes them in order to give students something non-alcoholic to do?</p>
<p>Plenty of schools subsidize activities where it’s assumed most students will show up very drunk. Remember, it’s usually the students who both organize the activities and fund them from the general budget. </p>
<p>I think that it’s easier to have no spending money at a rural school where there are fewer opportunities to go out than at an urban/ suburban one (this was my experience when I saw the expenditures of students at Oxford College of Emory versus the Main campus).</p>
<p>I think it’s more of giving students something to do in a limited environment , i.e., rural vs urban, than giving students something to do that doesn’t involve alcohol. Substance abuse – both alcohol and drugs – is a problem in colleges that are located in cities and suburbs too. In my opinion this is more culture than location driven.</p>
<p>My observation is rural campuses – at least at the college my son attended – there were plenty of choices in activities. Some that might have been too expensive for those on budget – for examples concerts, performances, parties with live bands, winter sports tickets, weekend excursions – were subsidized by the college so that they were for the most part affordable for all. </p>
<p>Whether activities include alcohol or no is a separate issue.</p>