Beetle Beats Us To The Punch - Alcohol Education A Farce
See what happens when Blogsome goes down? Beetle and CalPatriot beat us to the punch which, apparently, has been spiked.
In any event, let’s take a look at the apparently new Alcohol Education website, which has a “mandatory” course for all incoming freshman. What, do they have to wait to register for classes until the course is taken? The site, like anything at Berkeley, also claims to be non-opinionated, and like everything at Berkeley, it inevitably has some sort of secret agenda. By the way, this website is sponsored by our favorite administrator, Dean of Students Karen Kenney (Hi Karen!).
It’s hard to break it down much more than it already has. Beetle points out the ridiculousness of an unenforcable online format, while Pat over at Cal Patriot says, well, how funny it is. But let’s talk about the average college mind. Does anyone feel that this test will accomplish anything? Does anyone actually think that this website will shift today’s college culture away from “underage” drinking? Does anyone think that this test will create a conscience in each and every freshman, scaring them straight? Or that this whole program is completely redundant, considering the years of DARE training and high school classes the state mandates that we take?
Any reader who answered yes to any of these questions should probably apply for a lobotomy or apply for a job at the Office of Student Life. (But seriously, I’d like to hear your opinions.)
I really hope they didn’t spend any money on this program. But, since the school ought to get its money’s worth, I encourage you all to take a shot and take a shot at this test.
UPDATE: The Denver Post is reporting that Colorado University dropped the AlcoholEdu to pay for more effective means of fighting alcohol abuse. It cost their administration $48,000.
Why the slight to the Patriot in the headline?
Comment by ??? — July 21, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
“Farce,” not “farse.”
Comment by holohan — July 21, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
Take some psychology. It’s amazing how influential some of these things can be. In an experiment on social cognitive psychology done at Stanford, regarding HIV prevention and condom use, one group of incoming freshmen were made to participate in a simple sex education session highlighting their own empowerment - using role models that said they used condoms and stayed clean, that they have power to prevent diseases, etc. Another group was just shown standard sex education material and another group was shown something unrelated. The group that was shown the information highlighting their own control, based on soc-cog principles, ended up being much more likely to use condoms and avoid diseases, in the remaining years they were there. (I may be forgetting some of the details, but the gist is the same)
As bullshit as you may think this stuff is, it’s been proven effective time and time again. By making the students actively engage the information, by having them think about what they would do in each situation, by making the questions put them in a position of ‘power’ over the situation, this information is far more likely to affect change in the psyche. Humans are very maleable creatures, far more than you probably suspect, and this stuff just simply works.
Comment by iliketapioca — July 21, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
right… but does this site empower students by testing them on random facts? Or is it “standard”, as you referred to it?
Comment by Ben N. — July 21, 2005 @ 1:15 pm
Wether or not this program will be effective, it’s too big an opportunity not to make fun of it.
Seriously, go read Beetle.
Comment by Andy R. — July 21, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
Here’s a student review from a college that implemented the program a few years ago. According to this, it cost the school $12,000 back in 2003.
Comment by patr — July 21, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
GUYS! WAIT A SECOND! Quit making fun of it, this is important shit here. I just learned that drinking alcohol can have… negative consequences! Who knew?!?
Comment by John — July 21, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
I thought a graph that I saw of marijuana use rates was pretty fascinating. It was a gov’t survey with consistent method each year, and it showed a sharp rise during the 70s (which had republican administration) with a peak in 1982 when something like nearly 40% of young adults were smoking, but then it declined a lot to 1992 when it was much much lower, then it has gone up a bit since then. Meanwhile, 1989-1992 was considered a really bad drug crime wave in California for crack But what I want to know is what exactly caused this, and whether the government can actually influence usage in addition to and including incarceration, because if incarceration caused the decline in the 80s, then why did it rise during increasing incarceration in the late 90s. Is it the economy, cultural campaigns or Roe vs Wade in 1974. On one level you’d think culture would stay the same and there will always be the same percentage of various types of people.
Comment by anon — July 21, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
It’s not just incoming freshmen who have to take it. Transfer students do too. No matter their age.
Comment by Xian — July 21, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
anon,
I heard something breifly on the radio about how theres a lot of drugs right now available and it somehow related to Iraq. I realize this is really vague, but somehow during times of war and US invasions drugs become more accessable in the US. I obviously wasnt paying full attn but I think there is some correlation w/ republican admn; war; drug availability; and drug use.
Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
Republican Administration = More Access To Drugs…
That’s funny. I suppose the pothead vote will start to trend toward the GOP.
On a more serious note, I think our society needs to move beyond the statistics when it comes to drug use. Can government programs help stop drug use and abuse? Maybe, maybe not. Is our current War on Drugs a failure? Definitely. What’s more harmful: someone smoking crack and minding his own business, or the crime and violence caused by the black market for drugs? If people want to abuse substances irresponsibly, that’s great. They’ll get what’s coming to them for not doing a little safety research beforehand.
Comment by patr — July 21, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
But they’ll be fine if they take CrackEdu
Comment by Beetle — July 21, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
The program has been a topic of conversation around the Office of Student Life and they’re pretty proud of it. Apparently they initially used the program as a punishment for alcohol-related offenses in the dorms and report the following: “Of the 164 cases reported for Spring 2004, Only 9 students who took AlcoholEDU had repeat alcohol related violations. Out of the 422 reported alcohol violations in Fall 2004, only 23 of the students who took AlcoholEDU had repeat alcohol related violations.” Apparently RAs were stricted in the Fall. “This gives a recidivism rate for students who took AlcoholEDU of 5% where the average recidivism rate for all students with alcohol violations for the past two semesters is 9.5%” Just fun facts to know and share. The Res Hall people also admit to spending a hefty sum onthe program, but believe it to be worth it.
(Comment edited by admin by request of commenter)
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 21, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
those statistics are biased and don’t account for the fact that these kids were probably just more careful from then on. the consequences for a repeat offense scare students into drinking in more private arenas that the university cannot police–it doesn’t stop them from drinking irresponsibly or underage. i doubt the program has much to do with the low rate of repeat offenders.
Comment by god — July 22, 2005 @ 12:46 am
god-
yeah, I wasn’t trying to say that they were good or accurate numbers…the OSL and I have quite the history of disagreeing on data…just wanted to give an FYI on where they’re coming from.
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 22, 2005 @ 1:29 am
Lauren,
ALL RA’s start strict in the fall and end up being lax by the end of the year in the spring. That seems to be a first year RA’s experience. They realize the system doesn’t punish people when they write peopel up and just makes them hated by their residents. So they start to lax right away and by the end of Christmas break they return as an RA they’re not strict at all.
-Anon
Comment by Anon — July 22, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
Also, some get to know their residents and just don’t want to write them up.
Comment by Beetle — July 22, 2005 @ 5:01 pm