<p>It seems that many (most? all?) schools are doing this now. DS had it at Tulane, post-Katrina. And at JHU where he just transferred.</p>
<p>My nephew is a freshman at William Paterson in NJ and he had it, too. The article in the Stanford Daily about this said 350 colleges and universities use this program.</p>
<p>It's mandatory at Cal, too.</p>
<p>And UCLA also.</p>
<p>it's one of those things that the lawyers make them buy --</p>
<p>Don't know how seriously the kids take it, though. From my observation, they think they know it all already and that it's lame. However, you never know what little tidbit will actually enter their consciousness.</p>
<p>Anyway, I imagine the purpose is as much to reduce colleges' liability for tragedies like Lucifer's as to educate the kids. It's all good.</p>
<p>UMiami also uses this.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that any program could convince Lucifer and others like him not to drink or even to drink in moderation.</p>
<p>But if a program like this can teach kids who might end up being friends of a Lucifer about how to recognize and deal with a serious situation, it's worth the trouble.</p>
<p>Stanford has a policy which prohibits alcohol on campus. That is a lot more effective than providing "education" and then permitting alcohol and ignoring abuse and underaged consumption.</p>
<p>Great point, Marian.</p>
<p>It's mandatory at Barnard/Columbia too.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, our kids who are going through this program are simply guinea pigs for a for-profit company that is charging high fees to the colleges that implement it and using survey data from participants to form the research base that they don't yet have to prove efficacy of their program. The data includes detailed personal questions concerning your child's attitudes and behaviors related to alcohol use and abuse -- while the company claims this is "confidential"...... I don't see any particular reason to trust that claim, given the fact that there is no legal privilege that I can think of that would attach to the data if and when some lawyer thinks of a good enough reason to subpena it. </p>
<p>An interesting link:
<a href="http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1340310074171.html%5B/url%5D">http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1340310074171.html</a></p>
<p>Relevant quote:
[quote]
Dr. Wall, now a researcher at Eastern Illinois University, said the study has yet to be published in a scholarly journal but is under review. He said that while his study showed some positive outcomes, he has been surprised by the rapid adoption rate, given the lack of hard evidence on the program's effectiveness. Still, Dr. Wall said his study showed AlcoholEdu may cause modest changes in drinking behavior
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford has a policy which prohibits alcohol on campus. That is a lot more effective than providing "education" and then permitting alcohol and ignoring abuse and underaged consumption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a great idea for Stanford, but it may not be as workable at some other universities.</p>
<p>Life at Stanford centers around the campus. Practically all of the undergraduates live there, and since there is little of interest to students in the immediate neighborhood, most of them spent a great deal of their free time on campus.</p>
<p>I'm not so sure that this policy would be as useful at colleges where much of the action takes place off campus or where many of the students live off campus.</p>
<p>Cornell, for example, strictly forbids alcohol in the dorms, and practically all freshmen live in the dorms. But most upperclassmen live off campus, and a lot of the social activities center around a neighborhood immediately adjacent to the campus or take place at Greek houses scattered around the campus periphery. Freshmen have no trouble finding alcohol; some get drunk (and some get busted for alcohol) even during orientation. </p>
<p>Prohibiting alcohol on campus at Columbia or Penn would be even less effective, I think. The kids at these schools are in the middle of major cities.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that college shouldn't prohibit alcohol on campus. It's probably a good idea to do so, even if it infringes somewhat on the freedoms of those who are 21 or older. I'm just saying that it may not work as well at some other colleges as it could at Stanford.</p>
<p>Also, I think that colleges also have to be extremely careful to convey the correct message about what it means when they say that alcohol is "prohibited." To save kids' lives, colleges need to institute policies that protect students from serious disciplinary consequences if they call for medical help for someone who is dangerously intoxicated -- even if the person who makes the call is underage and under the influence of alcohol. </p>
<p>Lucifer might be alive today if those kids at UVA had 1) been educated on how to spot the signs of dangerous intoxication and 2) been confident that they could seek help for someone in Lucifer's situation without risking serious consequences such as arrest or explusion. (In Lucifer's case, I think that problem #1 was the key factor; from the news stories I read about the incident, it sounds as though the kids thought he could safely "sleep it off" and had no idea that his life was in danger. But in other such tragedies, problem #2 has played a role.)</p>
<p>I work in college student affairs and we use it at our campus too. It's not intended to make students abstain from alcohol, but to make more informed choices about it. I get mixed responses from students, but though most don't enjoy it, they acknowledge that it's worthwhile. It sends a message that the college thinks it's an important topic, and provides a great deal of useful (aggregate, not individual) data to the school about their students' attitudes and behaviors. We've been very impressed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lucifer might be alive today
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lucifer also might be alive today if colleges had made it very clear to him, his parents, and his affluent high school that they would NOT accept students with a record of high school binge drinking and alcohol infractions. The entire system (parents, high schools, and colleges) are enabling this behavior by sending the clear message that it is acceptable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lucifer also might be alive today if colleges had made it very clear to him, his parents, and his affluent high school that they would NOT accept students with a record of high school binge drinking and alcohol infractions. The entire system (parents, high schools, and colleges) are enabling this behavior by sending the clear message that it is acceptable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you completely, and perhaps someday attitudes will change in the way you would like to see. They've already changed somewhat.</p>
<p>Thirtysomething years ago, when I was in high school, I decided to earn money by babysitting. But after the first few times, I stopped babysitting because I found that I was always being driven home by intoxicated parents, and that scared me. When I told my parents why I had stopped babysitting, they told me that I needed to grow up and get used to that sort of thing. I don't think parents would say that to their kids today. We are making progress in terms of taking alcohol seriously. Just not quickly.</p>
<p>Every school where my child was accepted mentioned this as a mandatory program during the Accepted Students program.</p>
<p>"Stanford has a policy which prohibits alcohol on campus. That is a lot more effective than providing "education" and then permitting alcohol and ignoring abuse and underaged consumption."</p>
<p>University of Oklahoma, Northern Illinois, and UGeorgia have gone that route, too (and UMass plans to). There is no assumption that folks won't go off campus to drink, but rather that they will HAVE to choose to do so. Folks are much less likely to get together informally for purposes of getting plastered. And then town police are able to treat underage drinking and destructive drinking as they would for anyone else, without the university running interference for their students.</p>
<p>At Western Washington U., they have the "green bus". During the first three weeks of school, the town police are actively invited onto campus to make underage drinking arrests. Students are put on "the green bus", taken to the police station, and booked. (They are then let off with a warning.) That, plus a consistent alcohol message, alcohol education, and social marketing (showing that the actual number of heavy and binge drinkers is actually much lower than what students think it is) has resulted in 25-30% lower heavy drinking rates.</p>
<p>It's required at USC too.</p>
<p>Alcohol.edu is required at USoCal as well. It would be hard to implement a no alcohol policy at USoCal, since it's in the middle of an urban center, but I'd love it, especially in the freshmen dorms--shouldn't be many there 21+ years old. So far, my S hasn't said anything about alcohol on campus.</p>
<p>I was only driven once by a very intoxicated person. After that, I vowed never to allow myself to be driven anywhere at night, so I'd always have a car to get myself home (I rarely drink anything & absolutely nothing if I'm going to drive). My folks also always promised to pick me up anywhere, any time, no Qs asked after that night I told them I had been driven home by a drunk.</p>