Several years ago, a US congressman said, "If I had my way, they'd be able to drink at 16 and not drive until they were twenty-five." There is a certain wisdom to that.

Hmmm...said the poster with raised eyebrow
 

This seem quite 'fishy' to me.

I noticed that most of the school represented are smaller institutions which do not have major sports teams (which usually results in less alumni $$).

And while several of these institutions are considerd good schools, I bet many of them are elipsed by larger state schools and the ivies in terms of competing for the same college age students. The Census has indicated that the 'pool' of 18 year olds in the US is decreasing as native born families have fewer children and often start their families later in life.

I also imagine that several of these institutions are being squeezed in state/federal funding cuts. So, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the motivation behind this 'initative' is to secure alternative sponsorship/funding streams (whether it is directly or indirectly sourced from alcohol companies and their vendors/suppliers).

Teeny tiny Ohio State? In the teeny tiny town of Columbus? Umm, ok.

I would not be surprised though if for the smaller schools, in smaller towns, part of the issue is to take the burden of enforcement off the local police department.

Very perceptive!:D

Yeah..you know...50,000 plus students is small. Plus Ohio State has no major sports teams..no alum dollars rolling in..poor old Ohio State. Ohio State is the largest state school in Ohio and one of the largest in the country.
Ok..done with my snark for the day..carry on thread.

There's an article in the Chicago Tribune today about how the driving age should be raised:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1775625.story

I know its been said many times before but this issue is sort of personal to me so please bear with me. It seems to me to be absurd that one can vote, enter into valid contracts, and serve in the Armed Forces at age 18 but one cannot drink until the age of 21. The outfit I commanded when I was forward deployed on active duty had a substantial percentage of under 21s serving with courage, honor, and professionalism. It seems to me that if one shoulders the responsibilities of citizenship then it naturally follows that with responsibilities come rights and priveleges. How do I tell a soldier I have just recommended for a combat decoration that he can't have a beer. How do I tell a soldier I have just rated highly in his EER annual appraisal for skill, dedication, maturity, and professionalism that he is not allowed to have a glass of wine with his steak. Well, actually, its part of my job to do so, but in following the law I don't have to like it or approve of it.
Are there risks attendant to lowering the drinking age? Of course there are, but who ever said that life was risk free? And speaking of risks, there are no draftees in today's Army, everyone is a volunteer. So if a soldier is willing to take the voluntary risk of laying his life on the line then this absurdity is unsupportable when one considers the principles upon which this Country was founded. I do not say that the drinking age should be lowered only for those who serve in the Armed Forces, but as all qualified men and women are eligible to serve, and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, at 18 then it seems that all men and women should be seen as intrinsically entitled. Not as a favor or privelege but as of right as fully participating citizens enfranchasized to vote, contract, and all other aspects of participating citizenship.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

what he said

That wouldn't work in America, save for highly urbanized areas. People in suburban and rural America are way too dependent on cars to have to wait until they are 25 to be able to drive. Think of how much harder it would be to get a job if you were limited to places where you could transit, bike, or rely on your parents to drive you. I'm 22 and I can't imagine my life still waiting to get my driver's license.

The bottom line is that no drinking age and/or driving age law is going to change drunk driving related deaths and injuries, personal responsibility and education will.

Their statistics are just not clear to me. Are they saying that there are more 16 year old driver traffic fatalities than 17 year old driver traffic fatalities? Did they only go with "first year" drivers for each age group? If not, then did they consider that 17 year old drivers had a year more experience than the 16 year old drivers? A year of experience makes a big difference.

Well the article does include the debate.

But, they're saying that New Jersey, where the minimum for a license is 17, has a lower fatality rate among teens than Connecticut, where the minimum is 16 years and 4 months.

My assumption with New Jersey is that you do not need to be 17 in order to get a driving permit - so either way they'd (potentially) have a year of experience with driving at 17 anyway.

I got my permit the day I turned 16. I got my license a month after my 17th birthday. Just a random fact about myself thrown in there for good measure.