<p>That was a great post.</p>
<p>Is your username a play on mome rath (as in, "the mome raths outgrabe")?</p>
<p>^ Actually I think it's fairly well documented that per capita alcohol consumption (in the general population and among youth), binge drinking, and alcohol-related injuries and mortality are on average significantly higher in rural areas than in urban areas in both the US and Canada. Whether that extends to colleges in rural settings, however, I just don't know; those colleges presumably draw most of their students from urban areas, just like urban and suburban schools.</p>
<p>^^^ momrath,
Interesting post, but I had always understood that "five or more drinks on one occasion" is the definition of "binge drinking." Also, 10 or more drinks in a week necessarily involves either "near daily" drinking or "binge drinking" per the above definition. I have no brief against Williams but I find the statistics you cite quite troubling. To me, this sounds like a college with a drinking problem. Whether it's any worse than other schools, I'm not in a position to say.</p>
<p>Yup, bclintonk, you got it exactly right. According to Williams own data, close to a majority of students binge drank in the past two weeks - stretch it out to a month, and there will be a clear majority. The PRESIDENT of Middlebury, for heavens sake, used the occasion of a college graduation to tell the parents of the graduates that almost a third of its first-year students had suffered an alcohol blackout in just a two week period! (and may have suffered some longer-term cognitive impacts as a result.) This as part of his baccalaureate address! Let's let President Leibowitz speak for himself:</p>
<p>"The expression work hard, play hard itself is not a problem, of course. Who would argue with something that celebrates balance in one’s life? Or fun? How the meaning and understanding of the term has changed, however, especially when it comes to life in college, is the problem. Today, the “play hard” component of work hard, play hard includes a significant amount of what Princeton University President Shirley Tilghman has called “high-risk drinking,” a polite term for binge drinking, usually involving hard alcohol. Binge drinking, for the less familiar, is defined as a male consuming five drinks at one sitting and a female four, usually within a four hour period. In the olden days, according to several accounts from 50-something and 60-something alumni from some highly regarded party schools, the play hard component seemed far more benign, as it largely had to do with pranks, usually done outdoors, accompanied by hearty drinking that involved almost exclusively beer. There was little recollection, or mention, of the widespread “collateral damage” from the playing hard that has become the norm today.</p>
<p>The so-called collateral damage from irresponsible drinking is all too familiar to students, staff, and administrators who must regularly, literally and figuratively, clean up the mess. Dorm and property damage, disrespect of staff and fellow students, fighting, and sexual assaults are just some of the all-too-common incidents associated with alcohol abuse on campus. Our public safety office reports that more than half the calls they receive—more than half of all their calls—are related to alcohol or substance abuse.</p>
<p>Most frightening is the long-term impact binge drinking has on one’s brain and its development. Researchers have found that alcohol can do serious and irreparable harm to a teen’s and young adult’s brain. In a study completed by a team of neuroscientists, individuals aged 21-24, who drank enough to attain blood alcohol levels just below the legal limit (just below .08), recorded greater incidences of brain impairment—that is, a decrease in the ability to learn new information, form memories, and perform cognitive functions—than individuals who drank the same amount and were only four years older. This research supports the long-held view that alcohol has a significant destructive impact on the development of the brain before one reaches one’s mid-20s.</p>
<p>One has to wonder why, if the implications of irresponsible drinking are so clear, bright and aspiring individuals resort to binge drinking and using hard alcohol to the extent they do? The impact of such drinking, as self-reported by our own first-years, is quite evident and not buried only in scientific journals. Almost a third of our first-years who took part in a survey on alcohol use said that within two weeks of completing the survey they had experienced a blackout—a period of amnesia that can last for seconds, minutes, hours, and/or days that prohibits the natural development of memory and recollection of recent events."</p>
<p>Does this lead you to believe that this a man, an academic, and a college president who doubts the data?</p>
<p>The President of Williams was very serious when he spent tens of thousands of dollars to call a special 3-day meeting of the Board of Trustees to deal solely with the issue of dangerous drinking on campus. He was very serious when he spent more than five million dollars that had not been budgeted to revamp the entire Williams social system (over the objections of the vast majority of the student body) to try to dilute the impacts of high-risk drinking. Does this lead you to believe he doubts the data?</p>
<p>You don't have to believe the colleges' own data. You can simply ask the two college presidents - their actions speak loud and clear. (And I'm glad for them too).</p>
<p>(On a professional level, I can say with some certainty, from the experimental data now at our disposal, that the reported levels of binge and heavy drinking are underestimates. We know that because 1) researchers have actually followed students to see how much they actually drink, and then asked how much they thought they drank, and 2) researchers have actually had students pour what they think are "standard" drinks.)</p>
<p>We have very sensible data; standard definitions promulgated by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health; standard methodologies for administering surveys; standard methodologies for checking both the reliability and accuracy of the data; and standardized protocols for aggregating the data that go back to 1975, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and coordinated by researchers at the University of Michigan. The presidents of the respective colleges, being very fine academics, know that, which is why they continue to use this data to drive planning and decisionmaking. </p>
<p>About the rural: it is one of eight characteristics (and not the most important one) identified by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health as characterizing high bingeing schools. By itself, the rural characteristic is not predictive; in combination with the other seven, it is.</p>
<p>I think the rural/urban thing is a red herring. Consider Penn, BC on the urban side; no shortage of heavy drinking there. Consider Grinnell, Mt. Holyoke on the rural side; not known for heavy drinking.</p>
<p>The problem with these statistics is that Williams is constantly "hoist[ed] by [its] own petard," meaning that in effort to be transparent and self-critical it supplies ammunition for the Gotchas. </p>
<p>There simply isn't a universally agreed definition of "bingeing" which is in itself a highly emotionally charged word. College kids drink. Some drink more than is good for them. Some literally drink themselves to death. Same with drugs. Bad things happen at good colleges, all of them. Conversely, millions of college students drink socially and graduate to become responsible adults. </p>
<p>My last word here is personal: My son had a great four years at Williams which he'd repeat in a heartbeat. Neither he nor his friends are heavy drinkers (though they are not abstainers either). Had he passed up Williams because of a fear of negative alcohol cuture he would have missed a phenomenal educational opportunity.</p>
<p>Yes, MD, the Momrath also outgrabes.</p>
<p>^ Although I can't quote any particular source, I do have Grinnell noted for drinking issues. Mt. Holyoke is a women's college, which tends to be a stronger predictor than rural/urban.</p>
<p>I think Williams is a great school and I'm glad that your son succeeded there; but I also think that "they are not abstainers either" is a crucial part of that. Unlike him, I don't plan to drink socially in college, and drinking a little at a party or dance is different from not drinking. For one, abstainers don't get to drop their inhibitions by imbibing.</p>
<p>More and more, and for other reasons besides alcohol, Williams appears not to be a good fit for me. But I don't want to necessarily discourage anyone else; the culture is perfect for an extroverted social drinker and/or outdoorsy athletic.</p>
<p>Anyway, you asked about drinking, and I think you've been provided with more than enough information to make a good decision on the basis of it. Specifically, you asked whether there would be a lot of drunks, and the evidence is overwhelming that at certain schools that there will be (there will also be many who aren't, but that's not what you asked.) At Middlebury, you will have the equivalent, according to the college president, of about one-third of the first-year student body having a concussion in a two-week period.</p>
<p>Plenty of other ways to make decisions, and things to weigh. These are all great colleges, with fantastic resources. I hope you get to visit each of them on a Thursday night, to get a better picture, and to make a decision with which you are comfortable.</p>
<p>^ Yes, I think ultimately it will come down to an overnight visit. Thank you, CC, for all of the information and different perspectives!</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Middlebury, you will have the equivalent, according to the college president, of about one-third of the first-year student body having a concussion in a two-week period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I expect more from you mini, considering your near obsessive reliance on data and statistics. Think about what you just said, then go back and read the quote that you posted above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Almost a third of our first-years who took part in a survey on alcohol use said that within two weeks of completing the survey they had experienced a blackout—a period of amnesia that can last for seconds, minutes, hours, and/or days that prohibits the natural development of memory and recollection of recent events.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So answer me this: how many students took part in the first-year alcohol survey? Ten? Fifty? One hundred fifty? The truth is that you have no idea. Let's say 100 of the 640 first years took the survey (which wouldn't be a bad response rate considering the topic and the population being surveyed). That would be 33 students who drank to the point where they couldn't remember details about the experience after the fact. And perhaps drinkers were more prone to respond to the survey than those who don't drink. We don't know. Hardly representative of the student body as a whole.</p>
<p>Considering all that, it's reckless and irresponsible for you to extrapolate that 1/3 of Middlebury freshmen will experience a blackout in any two-week period. You don't have enough data to know if this was a representative sample.</p>
<p>Admittedly these are gross generalizations, but in my experience the following is more or less accurate for colleges and universities in northern New England and upstate New York:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Alcohol abuse is an issue at practically all schools in this region. It seems to go with the territory, as do long, cold, dark, snowy winters. Male undergraduates are typically the worst abusers.</p></li>
<li><p>The most excessive abuse occurs at schools where the social system is oriented around fraternities. Frats often represent lightly regulated social environments where male undergraduates are permitted, and even encouraged, to drink freely. Most selective LACs have banned frats, and have less hard drinking than schools with active Greek systems. </p></li>
<li><p>Female undergraduates tend to be more sensible. If you want the most mature and responsible social environments, as far as alcohol is concerned, then you should consider a women's college. Alternatively, consider coed schools that were formerly women's colleges; such schools still tend to have a predominantly female enrollment, and the men who enroll at such schools seem generally better behaved. </p></li>
<li><p>The schools with artsy, funky, or "alternative" reputations have less alcohol abuse than their more "mainstream" counterparts. However, this in part reflects the increased use of other recreational drugs, which may not be the solution you are looking for.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not necessarily. If the "one occasion" were a Friday night which could start at 5:00 p.m. and go on to the wee hours, then five beers isn't going to put you in the "binge" category, if you define it sensibly. If you define it as 5 drinks on any given calendar day, then 99% of my dinner guests would be bingers -- which they are *not<a href="and%20don't%20worry%20they%20don't%20drive%20home">/I</a>.</p>
<p>Same for 10 drinks in a week -- think 3 beers 3 to 4 times a week -- again, hardly an indication of the road to AA. Two or three glasses of wine with dinner 3 to 4times a week makes you a problem drinker? I think not.</p>
<p>To go from “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." to “According to Williams own data, close to a majority of students binge drank in the past two weeks - stretch it out to a month, and there will be a clear majority” is sheer irresponsible conflation.</p>
<p>Personally I prefer the studies that don't try to quantify or at least introduce a specific time period for consumption. I think incidences of blacking out and vomiting in public places are valid indicators of problem drinking. These do occur at Williams, they do occur at Amherst, they even occur at Swarthmore. At Big U's they are rampant. (I know, I went to one.)</p>
<p>Corbett, I think your comments are interesting but I'm not sure that I agree with #1 and #3. Kids do drink a lot in the Siberian north, but they also seem to drink a lot in the South, in Texas, in sunny California. Actually the whole point of the Williams survey that yielded the information that “58% of all whites had five or more drinks on one or more occasions” revealed that some non-whites drank considerably less. I think this may be the factor at work in New England and conversely in California.</p>
<p>As for women being more sensible, my son said the most serious issues were with the 98 pound female who had never drunk before and decided to let rip. I accept that women at all women’s schools drink less that kids at coed schools. So if drinking really offends, then an all women’s schools is a good solution.</p>
<p>momrath, I would be concerned if a majority of students were drinking 2-3 beers with dinner 3-4 times a week. It may not make some students problem drinkers, but the data definition also includes students who DO binge drink dangerously. The issue of binge drinking is paramount, of course, but a small minority of total abstainers also says--to me--that alcohol is an essential part of that college's culture. I would be interested in comparing that kind of data, as well--percentage of abstainers, vs. percentage of drinkers to various extents.</p>
<p>And I realize that schools fitting me academically and otherwise socially will have alcohol as part of their culture. It comes down to how much of a trade-off I want to make--the extent/pervasiveness.</p>
<p>"To go from “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." to “According to Williams own data, close to a majority of students binge drank in the past two weeks - stretch it out to a month, and there will be a clear majority” is sheer irresponsible conflation.</p>
<p>-- So you can do the data, yourself. You can look up the number of white, AA, and Hispanic students multiply by the percentage, add 'em together, and take it as a percentage of the student body, and guess what - you do the math, and then come back and tell me what you find. (I think you'll see that not only was what I said accurate, but that to suggest otherwise is a clear attempt to deceive. Williams clearly believes that the statistics are reliable. And comparable - they used exactly the same question - the question quoted by Momrath herself - in both the Harvard School of Public Health Survey, and in the Southern Illinois University Survey, used by hundreds of colleges and universities across the country.)</p>
<p>"Personally I prefer the studies that don't try to quantify or at least introduce a specific time period for consumption. I think incidences of blacking out and vomiting in public places are valid indicators of problem drinking. These do occur at Williams, they do occur at Amherst, they even occur at Swarthmore. At Big U's they are rampant. (I know, I went to one.)"</p>
<p>Blackouts do occur everywhere. When a college president states that nearly one-third of his first-year student body blacked out in a two-week period (which I find a shocking number, far more than the Duke Medical Center study at Duke), it is like saying that you sent your kid to college where one-third of the first-year students had a concussion in a two-week period. That there is problem drinking everywhere is not at issue. That there are more drunks at Williams and Middlebury than at Swarthmore is only to repeat what the college presidents themselves know, and are attempting (with good reason) to act upon. You really didn't ask whether there was a lot of drinking, but whether there were a lot of drunks, and I think you've got your answer.</p>
<p>Keilexandra - I think you will be disappointed by the abstainer data when you obtain it. At the kinds of schools you are discussing, abstention rates are going to range from 15% at the low end to 23-25% at the high end. But you will find a very substantially different culture where moderate drinking is a distinct minority, as it is at Williams and Middlebury, than where it is a majority.</p>
<p>On the five drinks and time question: this question was extensively studied by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Advisory Council when they undertook a revision of the binge definition, which was completed in February 2004. </p>
<p>“The task force was charged with
developing a recommended definition of
binge drinking for use in
the field’s future research efforts,” said
Dr. Lorraine Gunzerath, acting chief,
Strategic Research Planning Branch in
NIAAA’s Office of Scientific Affairs, who
spearheaded the task force report. Task
force members included Drs. Raul Caetano,
Sandra Brown, Kenneth Hoffman, George
Koob, Sean O’Connor, and Kenneth
Sher. The group held a workshop
November 4–5, 2003, to determine the
factors that define heavy episodic drinking
or distinguish it from other patterns of
alcohol use and abuse, including cut<em>off
points, amounts, or timeframes; predictive
factors; trajectories; and outcomes. Over
the 2</em>day workshop, the task force heard
invited presentations in the areas of
neurobiology, physiology, psychology,
sociocultural contexts, and measurement
issues. After reviewing the presented
material, the members reconvened on
February 4, 2004, to produce a consensus
definition, and submitted their recommendation to the full Council for approval.</p>
<p>They agreed that the definition should reflect what level of consumption, on average, was necessary to reach the legal levels of intoxication. So they changed the definition to 5 drinks for men, 4 for women in a two-hour period. Then researchers studied whether this would result in a lower reported binge drinking rate (with the time element introduced). Somewhat to their surprise, it made NO difference whatsoever. The reason for this is that, in fact, most binge drinkers were drinking more, and, as already noted, based on experimental data, the binge drinking estimates were already serious underestimates.</p>
<p>Momrath's entire set of arguments are really a smokescreen for the reality that her son's school has lots of drunks - and, without exception, they have all been addressed in the research. It also is a great school with fine faculty, great resources, very intelligent students, many opportunities. But lots of drunks. The president of the college calls it as he sees it, and he doesn't spend more than $5 million which isn't part of the college's strategic plan based on his "personal opinion". Or mine. Or Momrath's.</p>
<p>You might want to check out the links on this thread; that way you can avoid my opinion or Momrath's.</p>
<p>And no, there are LOTS of Williams students (and Middlebury students) who are not pleased by the drunken behavior of their classmates.</p>
<p>Keil, Just to clarify, no one's drinking beer with dinner at Williams or at any other college that I know of (unless they're 21 and in a restaurant). I was just using that as an example of 10 drinks in 7 days is not necessarily abusive. </p>
<p>We'd all be interested in comparing data: that's exactly the problem. You won't find apples to apples comparisons from college to college. Some colleges are very transparent with data, some are not. Just because the data is less transparent doesn't mean the students drink less.</p>
<p>I think the best way to judge whether a specific college is right for you is to talk to someone who is a current student whose values you trust. Hearsay and unreliable statistics can lead to false assumptions.</p>
<p>mini--did you read post 29? I'm interested in your response.</p>
<p>Smokescreen? I would tend to call the viewpoint of a parent of a recent student insider information. This is a parent who visited frequently, interacts with many other parents, knows many current and recent students personally. Viewed from the outside, statistics can be twisted and mis-interpreted. An insider may be biased (that's the point) but at least an insider has personal, hands on experience. </p>
<p>Trolling college newpapers looking for bad news and shocking stories will be successful at any school in the country: sex, drugs and rock and roll. The sex and drugs are constant, the rock and roll varies, but at the end of the day bad things happen at good schools all of them. Suicides, sexual harassment, drug dealing and overdoses, abortion art, racial epithets -- what college is immune?</p>
<p>Does Williams have a lot of drunks? No, absolutely not. Williams as a college is obsessed with excellence and its president has pursued excellence in many areas. Getting his arms around abusive drinking is one focus as is making the college more eco-friendly, attracting more low income students and many more programs to continue to move the college forward. </p>
<p>The fact that Williams' president and Middlebury's president and many other administrators across the country are putting drinking and substance abuse on the discussion table shouldn't lead to non-drinkers and light drinkers shunning those colleges. That would be counter productive and just push the discussion underground (which is the approach taken by many other instituations.) </p>
<p>Again, I have to ask, compared to what? Other than all women's schools, I don't see any evidence (meaning apples to apples surveys) that prove that Williams -- or Middlebury -- are have any more or less alcohol abuse than most other selective colleges and in the case of Williams there's a lot less drug use than at some of its peers.</p>
<p>Visit, draw your own conclusion. There are plenty of good reasons to cross Williams off your list. If the personality doesn't mesh, then move on to one that does, but don't assume that you're going to avoid substance abuse wherever you end up unless you head toward all female.</p>
<p>People just don't go to Williams, Amherst, or Middlebury for their athletics.</p>
<p>^ That wasn't my question at all. I had heard that those AWM had a critical mass of athletic people (not necessarily "athletes," but fit and energetic extrovert-types) and I wondered how that would affect campus culture. It eventually tangented into a debate about alcohol, as (I believe?) athletes are statistically more likely to drink underage.</p>
<p>Who are the "athletic people" going to watch if there are no good athletes? Think of who goes there. Here's a scenario:
Middlebury student #1: The quarterback's so cool. He was the captain at his high school of 500 in Farmington, Wyoming.
Middlebury student #2: Yeah I know. I heard he got a perfect score on SAT reasoning and 5's on three AP's as well.
Middlebury student #3: He also built robots in his basement and won grand award at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.
Middlebury student #4: And he can squeeze five hours into practicing football each week. Amazing!
Maybe I exaggerated a little, but my point is valid.</p>
<p>Could you explain your point a little more? No sarcasm--I seriously don't understand what you're saying.</p>
<p>I'm not an athletic person, and if a school had no organized sports to watch or participate in, I'd be perfectly happy.</p>