I’ve skimmed but admit I haven’t really absorbed all of the above –
We live in Indiana and know many kids, including first gen and very low income, who go to Bloomington. IU has a program, GROUPS (I don’t know what it stands for), that is very competitive admission, but I understand is full scholarship open to first gen/low income kids. It seems to provide a thoughtful, robust program to integrate these kids into the academic life of the university and prepare them for success. It requires kids to attend a 6 week program the summer before freshman year, where they take a college course and participate in a lot of programming to help them prepare – study skills, communication etc… There are programs throughout freshman year to provide support and the kids become a very tight unit. Interestingly, students in GROUPS cannot participate in greek life freshman year, though they can after that first year. Presumably, the goal of the program is to provide intensive support to a group of highly motivated kids to make sure they are well-launched and can be successful.
It would be interesting to know more about grad rates for GROUPS kids vs. other first gen/low income kids at Bloomington.
@jhs Raising the drinking age to 21 had the effect of making drinking more individual and less group/social. When it was 18, college kids poured into bars and drank freely. But they had bartenders who could cut them off and bouncers who helped keep them in check. Increasing the age to 21 didn’t suddenly result in kids 18-20 not wanting to drink. In some instances I think it encouraged some kids to want to drink because it was now forbidden. And the kids who aren’t satisfied with drinking soft drinks before the policy were breaking the law to drink alcohol. The idea that they won’t break a university policy to do so seems naïve to me. In terms of expense, I doubt the full pay kids will be impacted much (certainly not the almost 1 in 5 kids coming from 1% families). If the IU study is to be believed with respect to the importance of socializing, making it easier for the rich kids to do so won’t help with income inequality.
@hanna Lets assume the percentage is 40% greek. That still leaves about 20,000 undergrads who are not in greek life. If there are 20,000 kids at IU with no social lives because they are not participating in greek life, you would think some of them would get together and create a social life. Oh wait, there are 750 clubs on campus. Looks like they already did that.
@Midwestmomofboys Sounds like IU offers programs for minorities/first gen kids similar to what I know other state schools have.
@Midwestmomofboys I think that GROUPS was mentioned in the book. There was a barrier to it for the women in the study - GPA not high enough? Not enough room in the program? Something like that. (I can’t look it up, i read the book from the library several years ago - don’t own a copy). Maybe @alh remembers.
I would expect that state schools would have good info on which schools are more likely to bring kids who could use extra help at the beginning and would do everything they could to identify and help those kids rather than waiting for teachers to recommend them. They typically are getting applications from just about every district in the state and show know which districts have teachers who never recommend any of their kids. They could also do outreach programs to principals and guidance counselors to help with awareness.
Regarding the drinking age, I don’t know how much difference it makes raising the drinking age from 18-21 when many kids get a fake ID by the time they attend college. Unfortunately fake birth certificates are everywhere…let’s not kid ourselves.
@OHMomof2 True, about the recommendations from high school – I’m sure it does depend by district and school. Our urban district is over 50% free and reduced lunch and our school’s guidance office is very proactive about reaching out to kids who might be good fits for this program. Our school used to send about 20 kids a year to GROUPS, but now other schools have started recommending more kids so our numbers have dropped closer to 10 a year.
@saillakeerie I agree with you on almost everything you said. Yes, any kind of prohibition drives the targeted activity underground, makes it more individual and less social (and less subject to informal social control), and turns people into criminals merely for doing what most people have done for thousands of years, as well as effectively subsidizing criminal enterprises. I know from my own experience growing up that people who came from states where the drinking age was 21 tended to use marijuana a lot more than people like me, who came from a place with an 18 drinking age and an active bar culture with lax ID checking. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that Penn’s policy was going to end underage drinking. But let’s not kid ourselves. Policies like Penn’s won’t end underage drinking, much less of-age binge drinking, but it is likely to reduce the volume of both, perhaps considerably. At great cost, sure, both the out-of-pocket costs of enforcement and the collateral damage noted above.
Also, note that Penn is not focusing on penalizing freshmen for drinking – no fines or kicking people out of dorms, no room-searches to confiscate forbidden bottles of vodka. It’s focusing on reducing social drinking, drinking at parties. Which is a lot of drinking, and the source of lots of problems. I don’t agree with what they are doing, but I don’t think the people behind this are stupid people – one of them is an old friend, albeit someone with whom I haven’t spoken in about a decade – and I am interested in seeing what happens.
From 2006-2013:
The 4 year grad rate (for everyone, not just low income) went from 54.9 to 66.8
The 6 year grad rate (for everyone, not just low income) went from 75.3 to 77.3
I see an upward trend so perhaps things were worse in 2004ish which was when the original study was happening?
No doubt a lot of kids have fake IDs. Very easy to order online. From what I understand they are very good too (in terms of passability). But I think raising the drinking age would make a significant difference. Still has a forbidden quality to it which makes it more appealing (particularly the first time they get away from mom/dad’s watchful eyes with a group of kids who also can’t legally drink who are away from mom/dad’s watchful eyes for the first time). From what I hear, fake IDs are more readily accepted at stores closer to campus. Bars are less likely to accept but those near campus will often accept. What that means is kids with fake IDs best option is often drinking in their rooms/apartments which is away from bouncers/bartenders who can better monitor what they are doing, cut them off, call an uber/cab, etc. And fake IDs are illegal and create a host of issues if caught (beyond simply drinking underage).
@jhs – As they say, a law/rule without a penalty is just advice. What happens if Penn freshmen are at a party (either in their dorm or off campus) that was not registered and someone calls to complain about noise/partying (and whoever is in charge of enforcing the policy checks to see no permit was obtained for that location for that day)? If the kids disperse, maybe nothing. What if they don’t? What if they refuse to answer the door but the party continues? My guess is at some point there will be some type of formal escalation/intervention. And non-social drinking comes with its own risks and has certain downsides that do not exist with social drinking.
Penn qualified for the NCAA basketball tournament over the weekend. So what happens if a group of more than 5 kids who do not share an apartment want to get together to watch the game (with or without alcohol)? Can’t get a permit because the game is less than 10 days out. Or how about if we are in a class and the professor dumps a ton of new material on us tomorrow for a test next Monday? Can a group of 7-8 of us get together to study for that exam (less than 10 days out so no permit possible)? What if we plan to get pizza and watch a movie afterwards (again with or without alcohol)?
@saillakeerie Penn is being super-coy about how to define a party that needs to be registered. Here are some FAQs:
There’s a lot of classic police thinking in this design. (I suspect it originated with campus security.) Having some vague rules – like loitering ordinances – gives enforcement personnel “reasonable suspicion” to investigate, aggressively, any situation that calls their attention, and lots of discretion as to what to do about a wide range of conduct.
The full FAQ is similarly coy about penalties that might apply to individuals (as opposed to groups that sponsor parties). Reading carefully, there may not be any penalties for individuals who fail to register parties, but individual may be penalized for other behaviors that occur in connection with an incident – not treating enforcement personnel with appropriate respect, noise, lease violations, etc. In other words, they can’t arrest you for having a party, but they can arrest you for resisting arrest. Nothing will happen if the incident isn’t deemed serious enough to refer to the Office of Student Conduct. (There’s that discretion again.)
" I don’t know how much difference it makes raising the drinking age from 18-21 when many kids get a fake ID by the time they attend college"
We have data about this. Raising the cost of acquiring alcohol reduces consumption by underage people – it is a matter of supply and demand. But from what I’ve read, the biggest impact of rasing the drinking age is on high schoolers rather than college students. It is much easier and cheaper for 16-year-olds to get alcohol when the 18-year-olds can buy it retail.
@jhs That policy seems like an enforcement nightmare with subjectively at every turn. Big risk it seems to me is claims of bias/discrimination in how its enforced.
In terms of fighting for their right to party, what other options do students have? Seems to me if you are looking to reduce activity that you view as harmful, you need to have a replacement. What will students who are looking to party going to do instead? The desire to party isn’t going away. And what the policy does is encourage kids to go off the grid with it and it makes it more forbidden. May work out. My guess is the university will claim victory no matter what. They will be able to find stats to give the appearance of success (will ignore data that doesn’t support that and other negative data may be difficult to find).
I’m certain there are lots of fake IDs out there, but I am also certain that the rate of identifying fake IDs as fake varies greatly depending on whether they are read by someone who wants to provide you with alcohol (for profit, for sex, or just for hosting a good party) or by someone who has an incentive to catch fake IDs.
If I were the holder of a fake ID, and I were at a party that was being questioned by enforcement personnel, I would much rather slip away quietly than show my fake ID to a campus cop.
Many fake IDs are sourced in China. Claims are made by those selling them that they sell the printers, paper, laminators, holograms, bar codes, etc. to US state DMVs. So their IDs look just like the ones issues by DMVs and are thus very difficult to catch. There are also concerns in terms of terrorists using these types of IDs for things much worse than underage drinking.
I’ve seen new fake IDs and they are a world away from the laminated one I bought in the back of an arcade in Times Square in the 80s. Not surprising, since very high quality printing technology has become widely available.