[1744] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Seeking feedback on alcohol policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Kelch)
Fri Feb 10 17:24:05 2006
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:23:43 -0500
To: jessiehl@mit.edu, Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>
From: Steve Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20060210163941.f4gg5710lrqc8g0c@webmail.mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
CDSA does, in fact, collect hard data on this issue. They survey all
of campus, as well as a concentrated survey of frosh. High risk frosh
(those that binge, drink frequently, etc.) are also subject to
voluntary follow up interviews.
The numbers are such that yes, frosh are the group with the highest
risk on average, and the least knowledge about alcohol.
Steve
At 04:39 PM 2/10/2006, jessiehl@MIT.EDU wrote:
>Quoting Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>:
>
> > Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu> writes:
> >
> >> Are people at MIT capable of discussing this sort of issue without
> >> it turning into dorms vs. frats?
> >
> > Sure. Raising FoC doesn't make it a dorms-vs-frats issue. I lived in
> > a dorm for four years, and I think bundling housing purchase with
> > tuition is dumb. FoC is only justified based on an untested belief
> > that dorms are safer environments for frosh than fraternities.
>
>That was directed more at skorb than you. I'm not a fan of most
>justifications
>for FOC myself.
> >
> >> it appears that the problem primarily comes from frosh.
> >
> > Hunh. Are these hypotheses made up to fit the data? Or is there
> > actual data available on how many freshmen get dangerously drunk and
> > don't receive appropriate medical attention? That sounds hard to
> > collect, so I'd be very interested to see it.
>
>I don't know of any hard data, more "this is what happened in most of
>the cases
>we're aware of." I believe I've seen data before at colleges with all-frosh
>dorms saying that a disproportionate amount of dangerous alcohol use happens
>among the frosh, but unfortunately I don't remember where.
> >
> >> I do not think that this is the fault of either a collective or an
> >> individual responsibility mentality - I live in a dorm, and even
> >> though we don't have membership/pledging, people still take care of
> >> each other, because they are friends, just as people in FSILGs take
> >> care of their friends.
> >
> > But you do see solutions in terms of centralized social programs,
> > rather than decentralized approaches to microcommunities, or changing
> > the party culture to one in which loungehopping down Amherst St. isn't
> > interesting.
> >
> > For example, I imagine you'd be less likely to see the behavior you
> > describe on the east side of campus---after all, with only 2 major
> > residence clumps, it's hard to jump between more than 3 or 4 parties
> > in an evening.
>
>Well, yes. As it happens, I live on the east side of campus, and I've not
>witnessed that sort of behavior much there, but feeling that it doesn't happen
>as much on the east side of campus, isn't very relevant for someone who's
>dangerously drunk after a night of party-hopping in Amherst Alley.
>
>I wouldn't call something that is implemented separately in each dorm, as the
>original GRT-on-call idea was intended to be, a "centralized social program"
>that is in opposition to microcommunity solutions. I mean, I think of GRTs as
>very much a microcommunity feature.
>
>Changing the party culture throughout campus is, I think, beyond my abilities.
>
>- Jessie
>_______________________________________________
>MIT-talk mailing list
>MIT-talk@mit.edu
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
