Was the 18 YO Drinking Age the Most Damaging?

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by 33girl
Well, I thought that Vietnam produced dead fraternity members, but I guess that's just me.

I'm not mentioning the name of whom I spoke with, because I am likely to quote him out of context, and did so with the way I mentioned Vietnam. His comment was not that Vietnam was a good thing. He basically said that those who fought in it had there collegiate careers postponed, and that they started college as older, and more mature students.

Re the "diverse" comment, I didn't quite know how to put what I meant...I knew it would come out wrong. (This is another thing that has nothing to do with drinking age) A lot of new student aid came about in the 1970's and 1980's....college (and Greek life) was no longer only for the rich. Greek life also expanded at a lot of smaller schools. So you're going to get a much wider variety of types of people joining, which I think is great. It seems nowadays that the pendulum is swinging back and all the risk-management preventatives (third party vendors, party buses etc) are once again making Greek life something you have to be wealthy to be part of. I'm not saying the preventatives are inherently bad, but when you have to do all that it takes a toll on your finances that chapters cannot always handle without jacking their dues into the stratosphere.

The result is that you have a smaller pool of people joining Greek life and more risk of homogenization. So I didn't mean race-religion-sexuality diverse, I meant it in a $$ way.

I thought that the emergence of student aid, for new classes of people, was primarily initiated with the GI Bill immediately following WWII.

His perspective is primarily from his undergraduate greek system, which dates to the 19th century. His graduate work was at schools without greek systems, so he had no direct frame of reference at those two schools. Also, I'm sure that he talks with his peers about these issues.

As far as the cost of preventives making GLOs less affordable, the current trend is of increasing membership size, as liability insurance is at an all-time high. I don't believe that the numbers show any correlation between the cost of liability insurance and the ability to maintain, and even increase chapter sizes.

Maybe there are some parents who think college time = party time, but I'm guessing that there are far more out there like the parents at South Carolina who had fits that their little darlings might be wasting a millisecond of study time pledging.

I was very surprised to hear him mention this, and I don't think that he meant that this was the norm, but rather, as a small, but visible trend that creates problems.

But to answer the question, NO, the 18YO age was not the primary variable. There were far too many other things going on at that time. (Including one I missed - coeducation at formerly all-male schools)

I'd like to hear some more opinions on this from those who were involved when the drinking age dropped.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by BSUPhiSig'92
I think the whole reason why the 70s and 80s seemed so out of control was the scrapping of in loco parentis as the norm.

When did the "scrapping of in loco parentis" happen?

[33girl]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
As far as the cost of preventives making GLOs less affordable, the current trend is of increasing membership size, as liability insurance is at an all-time high. I don't believe that the numbers show any correlation between the cost of liability insurance and the ability to maintain, and even increase chapter sizes.

Raised liability insurance = raised dues. Raised dues often = less members, ESPECIALLY at smaller schools with smaller chapters.

So are you agreeing with me that if things keep on the way they have, eventually there won't be such a thing as a chapter with less than 100 members, solely because it won't be cost effective? If so, that sucks. (Not the fact that you agree, but the fact that would happen - not everyone wants to be in a huge chapter.)

[BSUPhiSig'92]

Most schools got rid of in loco parentis in the late sixties-early seventies. It came directly out of the whole sixties student movement and student demands for greater freedom from the university administration. For example, my mother graduated from college in 1957. She lived in a women's dorm with a 10PM curfew on the weekend and bedchecks. Curfew was midnight on the weekend. If you were not in your room at bedcheck, you got in trouble. Women ate in a separate dining hall at assigned tables and could not leave the table until everyone at the table finished eating. If you went out on a date on the weekend, you had to sign out and tell where you were going. In those days colleges had at least as many rules as there were living in your parent's home, and my mother even went to a state school!
Imagine her reaction when in 1987, she found out we could have female visitors in our rooms until 2AM on weekends! In her day, men weren't allowed out of the lobby! Now I'm surprised when I started working at a university where all the dorm floors are co-ed, and there's no visitation hours.(the bathrooms are single sex though)

[LXAAlum]

I remember the 18 drinking age (for 3.2 only) when I first rushed - and this was the very end of wet-rushes. Wow.

Things certainly have changed, I can definitely say, for the better by raising the drinking age - I was "fortunate" I guess that I wasn't affected by the change to 21 (I was grandfathered, and one of my AM class members missed the cutoff by ONE DAY - was he ever pissed) - but those days were definitely wild. Too wild, really. The risks people took - driving, social issues, while intoxicated...unreal. Also, it really allowed the focus to be on alcohol more than what we should have focused on as fraternity and sorority members - we were too interested in abusing the pleasures of membership, versus focusing on the responsibilities of membership. Things have changed for the better in that department, in my opinion, for the most part.

I'm somewhat glad the age was raised - though I don't see the problem it was intended to fix as having been solved at all - it still happens all to often (I still don't get how 18-20 year old students feel this "entitlement" to be able to drink as well - it is illegal, and that is just the way it is - don't like it? Work to change it!)

What really bugged me about the change - was how the federal government put so much pressure on states to make the change by threatening to withhold money for highway/road projects in-state. I always found that tactic to be somehow unconstitutional, but no one ever challenged it, they just caved in to the demands.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by 33girl
Raised liability insurance = raised dues. Raised dues often = less members, ESPECIALLY at smaller schools with smaller chapters.

So are you agreeing with me that if things keep on the way they have, eventually there won't be such a thing as a chapter with less than 100 members, solely because it won't be cost effective? If so, that sucks. (Not the fact that you agree, but the fact that would happen - not everyone wants to be in a huge chapter.)

All I'm saying with regard to the impact of liability insurance on chapter membership size is that, if it continues to rise, the demand for collegiate fraternal organizations will eventually diminish. We have not reached that point yet, as evidenced by the fact that the current cost of liability insurance is at an all-time high, and demand for GLOs is increasing.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by BSUPhiSig'92
Most schools got rid of in loco parentis in the late sixties-early seventies. It came directly out of the whole sixties student movement and student demands for greater freedom from the university administration. For example, my mother graduated from college in 1957. She lived in a women's dorm with a 10PM curfew on the weekend and bedchecks. Curfew was midnight on the weekend. If you were not in your room at bedcheck, you got in trouble. Women ate in a separate dining hall at assigned tables and could not leave the table until everyone at the table finished eating. If you went out on a date on the weekend, you had to sign out and tell where you were going. In those days colleges had at least as many rules as there were living in your parent's home, and my mother even went to a state school!
Imagine her reaction when in 1987, she found out we could have female visitors in our rooms until 2AM on weekends! In her day, men weren't allowed out of the lobby! Now I'm surprised when I started working at a university where all the dorm floors are co-ed, and there's no visitation hours.(the bathrooms are single sex though)

I'm assuming (no Odd Couple quotes, please) that this went hand-in-hand with the lowering of the drinking age. These two trends probably complimented each other nicely.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
I'm assuming (no Odd Couple quotes, please) that this went hand-in-hand with the lowering of the drinking age. These two trends probably complimented each other nicely.

Bad assumption. The drinking age didn't suddenly change -- it happened over a number of years. Ohio, where I was, and NY were among the last to change. What caused the final states to change the age was a Federal Highway Act which basically said that states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21 could not receive any Federal Highway Funds.

In Loco Parentis was an issue of whether a university should act as a students parent away from home. Most of the things mentioned by BSUPhiSig were still in place for women when I started college in 1965. They slowly began to relax at about that time. I would credit things like the Women's Movement, the Vietnam War and just the general cultural change that led to things like allowing 18 year olds to vote (1968).

So, it doesn't track to me that as young people were given more responsibility and taking the option to drink away would go hand in hand. Seems to me that they were in direct contradiction. The opposite dyanmic.

For whatever it's worth, one of our long time chapter advisors is the City Attorney in a college town, and it is his opinion that the drinking age for beer should be lowered to eighteen in order to take the "thrill" of "breaking the law" away. It would make things a lot easier on the police and the courts -- at least in that situation.

[WCUgirl]

This isn't really on topic, but I went to hs (in Florida) with a guy who wanted to go to Tulane specifically because he thought it was the best school in Louisiana at the time. He was set on a Louisiana school for college because at that time they were the only state to have an 18-year-old drinking age. Well, he got in, went, and they raised the drinking age to 21 his first semester! He was so pissed! So he left and went to FSU.

/end hijack

[Erik P Conard]

I entered college in Kansas in 1954. The legal age for beer was
18, we had no liquor sales then.
We drank legally, but NEVER, NEVER in the house and we rarely
had "keggers." We never approached sponsors or school officials with booze on our breath. We were, I guess, discrete, or we may
have been called "hypocrites." We policed ourselves, and were a
bit tough on drunks, criticized them openly in chapter meetings. We did NOT drink in the house...we did not vomit on the SAE lawn or pee on the Sig Ep porch. We had rather strict manners, and as
I see it now, held our booze and manners considerably better as
compared to today's 21 age. I am sorry, folks, but if we can draft
you to be killed at 18, you sure as hell can have a drink. But, with
it comes responsibility. Some of you will disagree, that's ok, too.
I worked off a lot of the booze jitterbugging. We had fun and I do
not know of any drunk drivers, or bad behavior. We did not have
confrontations, either, with the many non-Greek administrators that you have to put up with, so I am sorry for you all. I had a
wonderful experience and wish it for you-all, too. EPC, TKE

[justamom]

The 70's...

I can't even remember when it changed. It (alcohol) was all over the place. No real control as anyone could attend TGs that the fraternities held at their houses. This was about every other weekend. Bars never looked too closely at an ID and some didn't even have photos. What's was worse (IMO) were the drugs. Kids mixing them with drinking made for real heavy safety issues in every vein. No concept of a designated driver existed-not in anyone's vocabulary. People driving on the Houston freeways loaded out of their MINDS!

Philosophically, I agree with the war/drink stance. Yet, I don't think there is the same level of maturity (meaning emotional and responsible) across the board that there was in the past. I don't mean to paint everyone with the same brush, just that a lot of young people are kind of "soft" and immature because many parents (myself included) have pampered them. Then again, I feel sending an 18 year old to war is the equivalent of sending a "teenager" as opposed to a "man". Alcohol appears to be so benign when you are in college. The truth is, many who start down that road cannot see the damage ahead-especially at 18.

One thing though-there didn't seem to be as many deaths.
Could be they just didn't make news out of it.

[H0neymoon]

This doesn't really have anything to do with much.. haha... just thought I'd say that over here in England the legal drinking age is 18, so I've been drinking for two years and I intend to carry on when I get to college haha. To tell you the truth I do think that the 21 legal age in the States is much better than our 18.... kids our out of hand over here... because as you all know, realistically, 21 means 18, and 18 therefore means 16... so young teenagers are getting completely out of hand. Also... in the States you can drive at 16... that gives you five years of alcohol free driving. Here you drive at 17 and drink at 18... not good.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
For whatever it's worth, one of our long time chapter advisors is the City Attorney in a college town, and it is his opinion that the drinking age for beer should be lowered to eighteen in order to take the "thrill" of "breaking the law" away. It would make things a lot easier on the police and the courts -- at least in that situation.

I agree with the this. I do think think the older one gets, the "thrill" of binge drinking disappears.
The legal drinking age is 19 in most of Canada (18 in Alberta and Quebec). I entered university when I was 19 (as were most Ontario students because of OAC). My residence allowed all alcohol (except for beer in bottles...cans were fine), so everyone who was of legal age (and I am sure some who were not) had alcohol in their room. I'll admit, that in my first year I was at the bar at least twice a week. When I returned for my second year, I hardly ever went out. Maybe I went to the bar once or twice every 2 weekends. I had other things to, and drinking till I puke wasn't one of them.
I still drink, but I don't purposefully drink to get drunk anymore, which I think is the real issue here.
So maybe instead of dealing with the drinking age (which I do believe is part of the problem) why we should start asking why is binge drinking "so cool"?

[BSUPhiSig'92]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
I'm assuming (no Odd Couple quotes, please) that this went hand-in-hand with the lowering of the drinking age. These two trends probably complimented each other nicely.

Actually, in Illinois we had different drinking ages for men and women back then. Women were allowed to drink at 19 (I think) for men it was 21.

[justamom]

Lady Pi Phi-So maybe instead of dealing with the drinking age (which I do believe is part of the problem) why we should start asking why is binge drinking "so cool"?

I'm with you on this! Couldn't agree more!