Infamous Harvard Studies
 

It seems that everyone uses the Havard studies to justify asserting their brand of morality on people . . . visa-vis the common message of: :(

Don't drink.

So, and this applies especially to the senior members of this group and other older humans that I have spoken . . . I am going to assume that you all actually READ the entire SURVEYS before you started using them in your arguments. :rolleyes:

I definitely took the time to research and read the studies, I had to go to a different library to get them, before beginning to comment on them.:p

Although, I would be really impressed if you showed the personal courage to admit right here in this thread that you hadn't bothered to actually read the studies before you they became the cornerstone of your arguments. ;)

Anyway, here is a link to the surverys going back to 1993 . . .

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/SurveyReportIndex.html

Here isa link with the summary of those surveys:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Docu...onograph_2000/

And here is a link with some related stuff:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/

James,

Never read the Harvard studies, and never quoted them. Go back and take a look if you want.

Unless they were parts of pieces I've received from FRMT, Ltd. and/or other pieces from newspapers or newsweeklys that come across my desk.

That's possible.

I drink.

Question For James
 

Not knowing what's been said previously, I could not tell fro your mesage at the top of this thread if you oppose or support the Harvard Studies. I downloaded the links you provided, and I must say that I'm shocked at what I read. The studies were and are being funded by the Rbt Wood Johnson Foundation, the very aggressive organization whose method is punishment above all else. It's obvious even to the casual reader that the Johnson Foundation started with a premise, then commissioned Harvard to do a study that proved their point of view. The text is dripping with venom toward greeks. Virtually all the outtakes refer derisively to 'frats'. This whole production has the feel of an 'advocate study', produced by extremists who want to use it as a hammer to beat down anyone opposed to them. reading the material is a real eye-opener! Thank you for providing the links. If my impression is not what you intended, please accept my apologies. You do a fine job moderating this important topic on GreekChat.

Re: Question For James
 

James - I think anyone who wants to can tear any study apart. The FACT that the Harvard studies seem to be particularly virulent in their "attack" on the Greek system is important only if there is not other evidence supporting their conclusions.

The old addage, there's 3 kinds of lies:
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics," will probably remain true regardless of the study.

Is there evidence (outside the study) to suggest that someone in a fraternity is more likely to be involved in excessive drinking. I don't know whta any of us will ever accept that premise.

We are cetainly deal with higher risks than many student groups. Take a look at the insurance rates. We pay more because the insurers want to make money - and they charge us more because they experience higher losses with us. Simple.

I disagree that the conclusion of these studies is "don't drink." Funding is indeed a good critical element to look at, and I applaud you for that disclosure. But I would recommend we spend time dealing with our own issues.

Brad

Brad,

ITs not a matter of trying to destroy his studies, although I do have a problem with people that use these studies as arguments without reading the original text. When a person hears
or reads about studies its like playing the game telephone, the farther you are removed the less reliable the message. Plus its really hard to analyze the study if you don’t have it in front of you.

Lets assume his statistics are valid and lets discount the idea that the study may have been designed to find the results that it did.

There are three really basic ideas presented. These are in no particular order. One is the percentage of binge drinkers. Two is the amount of what is labeled unacceptable behaviors associated with drinking. And three is the definition of what actually
constitutes a binge drinker.

Lets start with the overall impression that the study gives and has been used in platforms
against college drinking . When I read the arguments I receive the impresion that alcohol
causes extreme behaviors, and many of them are anti-social ranging from sexual assault
to playing your stereo too loud. I get the impression that binge drinking is the cause of
this, and that a vast amount of people are responsible for these behaviors through binge
drinking (40% or so), and that binge drinking (bad drinking and bad behaviors) are
caused by people that drink 5 drinks (or more) in any given evening regardless of time
frame, tolerance, or body weight.

The biggest thing he has done is label binge drinking at 5 drinks. I currently weigh 250
pounds at approximately 15 percent body fat. I inclue body fat percentage because fat
weight doesn’t significantly increase alcohol tolerance. Which is why women will often
have a lesser tolerance for alcohol, not just because they weigh less, but their body fat
percentages or generally much higher than men’s.

5 drinks in two hours would not have me legally drunk. In fact it would take 14 drinks in
two hours to give me the .2 blood alcohol level that the guest of Kappa Sigma had that
fell out of the window.

If he really is associating binge drinking with risky behaviors, then in order to have
more credibility he would have to redefine it with more drinks, or qualify it with body
wieght, time frame or other factors. But if he did that it would be likely that his
percentage of binge drinking would go down significantly and would not cause such a
sensation.

Because, if 5 drinks in a given evening is not likely to be the cause of the anti-social
behaviors he blames on binge drinking, then the issue itself is no where near as severe as
it is being portrayed.

That is the point of reading the study critically, not to find fault with his statistics, but to
question the central premise.

You go James! :D