<p>Here is the (not so) surprising news: college students drink and have sex, but they tend to do so more often if they live in coed housing, according to this study:</p>
<p>[No</a> Surprise: Coed Dorms Fuel Sex and Drinking - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091117/sc_livescience/nosurprisecoeddormsfuelsexanddrinking]No”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091117/sc_livescience/nosurprisecoeddormsfuelsexanddrinking)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does anyone else see a problem with the statistical validity of a study that uses information gathered at 5 colleges ( what types? where? what size) to make a general statement about all 3000 plus colleges in the US?</p>
<p>“The participating campuses included two public universities in the Midwest and another on the West Coast, as well as a liberal arts college and a religious university on the East Coast.”</p>
<p>Yes. I see a huge problem with it. This isn’t a survey. </p>
<p>Who would have thought? With a religious university being 1/5 of the mix, that they would get these results. They’re more likely to be in single-gender dorms and not have sex…but it has nothing to do with the fact that there aren’t boys on the floor below them.</p>
<p>^Exactly. I think this is a case of “correlation does not mean causation”.</p>
<p>Can we also conclude that being in same-sex dorms makes someone more religious? Yeah, I thought so.</p>
<p>It amazes me that someone would do this “study” and publish it without even the merest hint that it was all completely bogus. I would like to know if assigning students to same-sex dorms lessened binge drinking. That’s a legitimate area of study. Too bad this ridiculous “study” doesn’t shed any light on the issue.</p>
<p>I actually think being in a coed dorm can make a person more religious. Can’t you just hear the praying “Dear Lord thank you creating the boy/girl in the room next door, please let her/him notice me” ;)</p>
<p>Also, there’s a problem with the single-gender housing. Is it elected (i.e., the student has to choose it), enforced (the only option), or random (some choose, some don’t)? That can make a big difference. If the students have chose the single sex dorms, there may be a lurking variable (like more party-conservative students choosing single sex dorms). If the single-sex housing is enforced, then there may or may not be any difference in the results.</p>
<p>DD was assigned a coed floor in a coed dorm and it was disgusting to share the bathroom with boys ;)</p>
<p>Right, applicannot, but even if the housing were randomly assigned, if they didn’t control for the overall conservatism of the school the results could be bogus. Suppose at Our Lady of Purity College 75% of the freshmen were assigned to samesex dorms (750 students) , and at Wild U 25% were (250 students). Then we would see a bogus correlation between samesex dorms and conservative behavior, when actually the correlation would have been between going to Purity and conservative behavior.</p>
<p>As a university Dean of Students for over 20 years, overlapping the eras of both single-sex housing and coed housing, I can tell you that this article is completely at odds with my professional experience and that of my colleagues. In all fairness, I must note that I have not been able to read the article since it’s just being published today. But in addition to the sampling limitations cited above, let me point out that the two researchers both receive their paychecks from one of the most conservative universities in the country - a place that would be embarrassed if they found coed housing to have positive benefits as well as a place that may reap some PR from the conclusions that they do draw. I’ve been told that the original claim that “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” came from a study funded by a major cereal company. I think this coed housing study may have similar objectivity issues.</p>
<p>The 42% figure on binge drinking (five drinks in one sitting for males; four for females) is right on target as a national average among college students. The 18% figure is an aberration influenced by something - religious orientation, parental controls, strict dorm supervision, whatever - but it bears no realistic relevance to today’s American college students. It’s certainly not the product of a single assignment to either a single-sex or coed dorm. Anyone who claims to be able to significantly diminish the interest of 18-25 year olds in sexual exploration and intoxicants had better have a magic wand in their hand. Young adults are hard-wired toward sexual interest because the perpetuation of our species is utterly dependent upon it. Unfortunately, the peak of sexual interest coincides with a phase in life characterized by social awkwardness, so in comes the heightened role of intoxicants. Education is valuable and protecting the safety and lives of young people is paramount. Buy diminishing these drives by over half, simply by changing the configuration of their college housing, is laughable.</p>
<p>I can tell you without a doubt that adding women to a residence hall - normalizing the living experience just as one would know it at home or in off-campus housing - tones down the behavior of young men considerably. Animal House behavior that is the norm among “the guys” is diminished greatly when a young woman is nearby to tell them “that’s so immature!” And sexual promiscuity on the hall is not a cultural norm. In fact, college students often refer to romance between males and females on the same hall as “dormcest.” The girl next door is not typically viewed as a guy’s prospective romantic partner. She may very well be the person to counsel him when he’s having trouble with another romantic partner.</p>
<p>In my single-gender dorm life at a church-related school in the '70s, males and females were so separated that it gave the opportunities to mix an unhealthy “predatory” character - the type characterized by panty raids. Men and women in the same buildings and on the same floors learn to see one another as whole human beings, not merely as sexual entities all dressed up for Friday night. And students who come out of the coed dorm environment may be especially prepared to continue to to build mature relationships with the opposite sex after they move out of campus housing.</p>
<p>I realize that I’ve just thoroughly panned an article that I’ve not had a chance to read. That’s not my standard style, so if I read it and find no sampling flaws or inappropriate generalizations, I pledge that I’ll be back on this forum to make amends and admit my error. But I sincerely doubt that that will prove to be necessary.</p>
<p>
From what I’ve seen, it is actually more of a problem in the single-sex dorms. The coed floors often have separate bathrooms by gender. But the single sex ones only have one type of bathrooms, so the “opposite sex visitors” (including the overnight ones) end up using them as well…</p>
<p>*Jason Carroll, a study coauthor and professor of family life at Brigham Young University. BYU was not one of the participating campuses. *
no kidding.
;)</p>
<p>They only looked at five schools- I wonder how those schools were chosen.</p>
<p>My daughter had co-ed dorms and co-ed bathrooms- I didn’t have a problem- the bathrooms were spotless and the students practiced a lot more modesty IMO than in single sex dorms.</p>
<p>Thanks gadad for your insight. I know my son was apalled at the behavior and attitudes of some in his all-male dorm and found a co-ed dorm much more “normal” in behavior. Plus there were cute girls downstairs, and they had cute friends to introduce him to!</p>
<p>WOW - what a judgemental sort we have here on CC. I just love how everyone pans a research study that is just being published today - that they have not read in full, because they disagree with the conclusion. WOW.</p>
<p>Can you at least wait until you read the study?</p>
<p>Well, on the one hand the authors are both “Professors of Family Life” at BYU, and the article was published in the American Journal of College Health. So . . . reason to roll one’s eyes. On the other hand, if you read the article they acknowledge the potential selection effect, and claim to have controlled for it. They did not look at kids who had chosen to be in single-sex dorms. They claim to have been surprised at the results.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you, and I have the same sense that my judgment is premature and perhaps, unfair. But the conclusions of the study have been excerpted and posted on Yahoo! for the world to see in advance of the article’s publication. Only 1 in 1,000 who read the Yahoo! article will ever read the AJCH article, so all they’ll know is the premise that coed dorms are the root of all campus evil. And if I waited several days to get the full text of the article, my post would then wind up on page ten of a CC thread that’s already set its direction. So our need to respond to an unpublished article is triggered by the decision to release the conclusions of that unpublished article.</p>
<p>berryberry, I have learned to be skeptical and take into consideration the numbers of the study, who is backing the study, and what the questions were.
Who decides what binge drinking is? Were there any positive results from living in a co-ed dorm? How were students selected for the study?
Howabout ability to get to know dorm mates on a slower level rather than as " dates"?
Would they choose a co-ed dorm again, why or why not?
How much were students paid for the study?
Did living in a co-ed dorm affect grades or participation in other activities on campus?
What is " co-ed"?
is it rooms, floors or what?</p>
<p>berryberry: I am panning it because it is pseudo science. It draws spurious conclusions based on a limited sample and no sociologist worth her/his degree would consider signing their name to it. </p>
<p>Social research is supposed to follow the scientific method and analyze data and present data that is statistically reliable. The sample size and the apparent lack of randomization alone are grounds for panning.</p>
<p>From the article, about selection bias</p>
<p>“Most of the students who live in gender-specific housing did not request to be there; they were placed there by the university.” Note the “most,” not “all.” It doesn’t say whether or not they discounted those who had. </p>
<p>And while we will have to wait for the full study to be sure, I also find it hard to believe that students had NO control over what dorm they were in. For instance, at my school, you can chose “Freshmen Only” or “Mixed Class” housing for your freshmen year. The only single sexed halls are in the mixed housing and, surprise surprise, people who chose the all freshmen housing tend to be more inclined to party. So even if people in single-sex halls didn’t chose those specifically, they did chose NOT to be in the freshmen dorms. At other schools, specific dorms are known more to be party dorms, etc.</p>
<p>So unless there is absolutely NO choice about what dorm to be in, I have a hard time believing that there isn’t some selection bias. And, as people have pointed out, this i a really small sample size.</p>
<p>I picked a coed building so there would be someone to kill spiders for me. XD</p>
<p>That and most of the same sex dorm options didn’t allow male visitors after 5, and given that my boyfriend goes to a different school and has to take the bus here that was pretty much prohibitive of him visiting AT ALL (as well as most of my friends, almost all of which happen to be male). The coed dorms were also much larger, and I wanted a larger variety of people to be around rather than being trapped in a house with a bunch of girls I may not even like. And, given perhaps least priority, I’d heard from several different people that the people living in the women only housing tended on the whole to be more conservative, which didn’t especially appeal to me. There are probably thousands of different reasons to choose coed over single sex that have nothing to do with sex or drinking.</p>