<p>I don’t know about the private school where JHS is, but the one here has similar problems with widespread drug and alcohol use. I think it’s partly a case of the kids being able to afford more (expensive) drugs than the public school kids can. Why do parents here send their kids to the school? Originally they did because it was a “white flight” private school, and the main reason was to avoid integration. Now the reasons I hear expressed are that they truly think that their kids will be exposed to fewer bad influences at the private school than at the big public schools. I don’t think most of them know till after the fact, and I think the parents whose kids are currently there and are involved with drugs and alcohol probably tell themselves that it would be worse at the public school. That said, a lot of parents do pull their kids out and send them to public school.</p>
<p>“Mathmom, I’m guessing you’re living in Westchester. Are you sure that it isn’t just more of a news “worthy” story when kids trash a house in Scarsdale or Bedford than when they do in Port Chester?”</p>
<p>I think that’s a distinct possibility. I can only go on what makes the papers or what I hear in the rumor mill at our school.</p>
<p>“At the public school, the high-achievement, competitive kids generally don’t drink, and look down on those who do. They are afraid of being confused with the losers.”</p>
<p>That’s an interesting thought, and I think might be going on at our school too.</p>
<p>“Is it that the parents don’t know until after the fact?”</p>
<p>I think parents are clueless. Hey I might be clueless about my kids’ high school. Although there was at least some drinking going on at my high school, none of my friends did, so it was really a none issue. But I don’t think my parents ever really knew how many kids were expelled from my school. I never realized just how many it was until I became class secretary and for some reason they gave me a complete list that included everyone who had ever been a part of our class.</p>
<p>Echoing mathmom’s experience-- in my town, which is basically middle middle class, but skews lower class at one end and UMC at the other, my kids’ observation is that the big, destructive drinking parties all happened at the high end houses. They also felt that the kids they knew from that side of town, in general, started drinking earlier. Most of their friends from our half of town did not drink in HS, and many still do not in college, by report anyway (since I know mine does, I’m assuming he’s got no reason to hide info about others.)</p>
<p>Overall, I’ve never heard of any housetrashing type parties in my town which are common in the more affluent towns near us.</p>
<p>I think the parties happen in the affluent homes because it is those parents who often leave for the weekend. I can not believe the number of parents in my community who do not hesitate to leave teens alone to travel or go to a second home.</p>
<p>I echo the public school comments. Our slightly above average regional high school serves three small towns an hour outside of Boston with a mix of working class to upper middle class kids (not much poverty). The top students in the class did not hang out with the drinking crowd or the doper crowd. In fact, long-standing grade school friendships ended as old friends started drinking on weekends.</p>
<p>I’ve never really talked to may daughter about a socio-economic correlation with the drinking crowd at her high school. Of course, our towns (rural, mostly old houses) make judgements like that difficult. It would be difficult to know how much money a lot of folk have.</p>
<p>There was little to no drinking AT my son’s boarding school. When the kids were off campus on weekends, there was drinking at parties. In our former hometown, there was extensive drinking both at the public and private schools. Drug use was heavier at the private schools, with a drug “buying” cooperative formed by one junior class at the most exclusive prep school (day). Lower income kids tended to drink in cars or out at the lake. Upper income kids had the house parties which got busted and made the news. The top students at all the schools were as likely to drink as the less academically inclined kids.<br>
The boarding school kids I have observed over the years adjusted well to college, partied hard but managed to balance their academics and outside interests and seemed to have a much easier transition than did many of the kids from regular high schools who were away from home for the first time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a great question. Here’s my multi-variate answer:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Most (not all) of the parents don’t consider it that big a problem. As I indicated above, I drank a fair amount in high school and college. It didn’t interfere with my academic or social success either place, and it didn’t continue much thereafter. (I started cutting back on drinking and associated activity when I was a junior in college.) I suppose I considered it a lesson my kids had to learn for themselves. The vast majority of kids do learn it.</p></li>
<li><p>It’s a great school; the kids are beautifully educated and get into great colleges. Overall, the parents are extremely happy with the outcomes, who the kids become. The public options are a lot riskier: a little better, maybe, for extremely focused, disciplined kids, but a lot worse for kids who need some help.</p></li>
<li><p>There aren’t better options in the private school world.</p></li>
<li><p>Parents like the close, clique-less atmosphere of the private school, and are willing to look the other way about the role that alcohol and drugs play in maintaining that. They may not be (I am not) comfortable with the Manichaean attitudes in the public schools, where kids are either “good” or “bad” and there may be hostility between groups.</p></li>
<li><p>Parents make their school choices when their kids are 4-14. Problems aren’t apparent then, and they are not realistic about the likelihood that their kids will behave like all the other kids do.</p></li>
<li><p>And there is a lot of denial, too.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Let’s face it, though. Kids put themselves at risk with alcohol and drugs, but almost all of them escape essentially unscathed. Smart kids from affluent families usually don’t suffer serious, long-term consequences from their pecadillos (nor, really, should they). One of the reasons I think drinking and drugs flourish in affluent communities is that they don’t actually have visible negative consequences for most of the kids. In poorer communities, alcoholism and drug addiction are always visible issues, and kids feel like they have to take a stand against them. Among the rich, alcoholism and drug addiction are well-disguised and a lot more functional, so kids aren’t as aware of their extent or seriousness, and don’t feel a need to protect themselves.</p>
<p>“Let’s face it, though. Kids put themselves at risk with alcohol and drugs, but almost all of them escape essentially unscathed. Smart kids from affluent families usually don’t suffer serious, long-term consequences from their pecadillos (nor, really, should they).”</p>
<p>Kids who take their first drink at ages 15 or earlier are roughly four times more likely to have alcohol problems as young adults, and 4.5X more likely to become alcoholics as the general population. (There is a whole series of articles published this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the subject). Instead of 8% of the population, rates are upward of 30%.</p>
<p>Smart kids from affluent families DO suffer long-term effects. Not usually, but not “unusually” either. (One in three or so.) </p>
<p>Much of this is genetically linked, of course. Growing up in the late 60s, and having gone to high school in the East Village, and later in college, I can truthfully say that, while alcohol generally, and in small doses, simply puts me to sleep, I virtually never met a drug I didn’t like. And used signficant quantities. And one day I just stopped. Period. No problem. No second thought. But lots of my fellow students, who used less, and sometimes significantly less than I did, ended up with lifelong problems. </p>
<p>In my family, virtually every member of the family was a smoker before the Surgeon General’s warning in 1962. With one exception, they all stopped - cold turkey. No classes, interventions, gum, or patches. I grew up thinking that’s the way it is done. I now know from my professional work that, on average, individuals attempt to quit 8 times before being successful, and nicotine is more addictive than heroin. But so much of it is genetic, which suggests that, if it runs at all in the family, parents have a responsibility to counsel their kids that they are not “like other kids”, and need to act accordingly. </p>
<p>When I was in college back in the Dark Ages, most of the hard liquor seemed to be consumed by the preps, likely because they were more capable of affording it. I did, however, have an alcoholic for a roommate (he drank every night - Russian vodka, and he was Russian Orthodox and used to get it for Christmas), and he likely would have had a hard time of it (he did drop out, but came back to finish two years later), except that he was murdered two blocks from Harvard Yard at the age of 25. Go figure.</p>
<p>Mini: </p>
<p>Of course I’m not going to dispute your or the AMA’s numbers, but there has to be some cultural variability in them. Among the people I grew up with, I don’t know where you would possibly find the control group – none of my peers made it past 15 before having a first drink (usually with their parents). And, of course, some of them are alcoholics, but nothing like 30%. Street myth also has it that alcoholism rates in Europe are lower than here, generally, and I would think that many more European kids have alcohol before 16. </p>
<p>What makes sense to me, both logically and experientially, is that if a kid grows up in a drinking culture, compared to kids in non-drinking cultures he or she is both (a) significantly more likely to drink , and therefore (i) significantly more likely to drink before age 16, and (ii) significantly more likely to become an alcoholic, and (b) significantly more likely to have at least one alchoholic parent and thus to be at genetic risk for alcoholism. A first drink before age 16 makes more sense to me as a risk indicator than as a cause.</p>
<p>As an adult, I really don’t like the drinking culture at private schools or at elite colleges. It disgusts me, and I am very aware that there are some real victims. Ultimately, when I stopped drinking heavily, one of the big reasons was that I didn’t want to keep contributing to a couple of friends’ self-destruction, even though by then I knew they were going down whether or not I drank with them. But Teen Me would not have been much interested in hearing what Adult Me thought about it. It took more maturity than I had at 17 or 19 to understand how something enjoyable that didn’t seem to harm me at all could be bad.</p>
<p>remember Lucifer, our poster who thought he could handle it…he is dead</p>
<p>“Street myth also has it that alcoholism rates in Europe are lower than here, generally, and I would think that many more European kids have alcohol before 16.”</p>
<p>Alcoholism, liver cancer, and cirrhosis are all higher in France and in Sweden than in the U.S. I was literally in a presentation on the latter today at a major conference put on by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. It seems that Sweden is a good country to study, genetics wise, because it is easy to isolate “pure Swedes” (grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. all Swedes) from the rest of population. They discovered that a single gene allele accounts for an 11% “surplus” in alcoholism among Swedes (and 21% higher risk for opiate addiction.)</p>
<p>Control groups are actually rather easy to find if one uses large population-based surveys, as the articles published in JAMA and JAPHA this were. Now, mind you, they did NOT segment by wealth: they were looking at the total risk profile based on age of first use. But you should know that, in the main, alcoholism (unlike drug abuse) is roughly the same across economic classes (I have lots of data on that one.)</p>
<p>Re public versus private high schools- For what it’s worth, my kids go to a private prep academy. Discovery of alcohol and drug possession/use is periodic at our campus. However, because it is a private school, it is kept under wraps. Students who get caught are allowed to “leave” the school rather than be expelled. This allows the school to keep itself out of the local newspaper. Therefore, officially, our school does not have any problems with alcohol and drugs.</p>
<p>Like MoWC there have been incidents of “off-campus” weekend drinking in the past at the prep school where my daughter started this year - typically at day students’ homes. I had a 10 minute talk with the admissions people about how substance abuse was handled at the school. And depending upon the severity of the issue, there are second chances allowed (with mandatory counseling and frequent random testing), but those who fail a second time are gone immediately including off-campus incidents. Unfortunately, more frequently than anyone would like, kids get mixed up in these things.</p>
<p>I know there will probably be kids who drink someplace around my D, but that would be true in public school where we are anyway. At least at her school, there is a consequence for drinking any time 24/7 where at public school, the only consequence is during the school day or at a school sanctioned event.</p>
<p>The difference I see with college campuses (getting back to the original theme of this thread), is that there is a lack of kids dismissed for underage drinking and (any age) illegal drug use. Basically, unless you completely embarass the university repeatedly in the newspaper, you can plead your case, go to more rehab and continue on until you drink yourself out academically.</p>
<p>And the greek organizations seem almost teflon coated with regard to illegal drinking. I can remember a local greek house already on “probation” for alcohol issues that had one of its well to do members rent a home in an upscale neighborhood a couple miles from campus and rented a school bus to take its inebriated members (all ages) to the house from campus (no DUIs here, eh?), until the neighbors complained about the bus. I believe that since it wasn’t an “official” house event, it didn’t affect the fraternity any further.</p>
<p>Goes to show that those who want to party will go to a great length to get around any rules. And universities don’t really want to be dealing with 10% or more of their students in their disciplinary system. They didn’t fix the broken window a long time ago and now have a slum on their hands. And they wring their hands about the problem. Spare me!</p>
<p>“I can not believe the number of parents in my community who do not hesitate to leave teens alone to travel or go to a second home.”</p>
<p>Boy, ain’t that the truth. The parents at my small, expensive private day school were so clueless, it was just laughable, especially in light of the fact that this school prided itself on intense parent involvement in all kinds of activities. Off the parents went to St. Bart’s, and we all knew where the party was going to be.</p>
<p>The school usually hosted a forum for freshman parents to talk about risk issues (this was around 1988). Parents were insisting, with straight faces, that kids don’t smoke and drink at 14. My parents, who were then on their third teenage daughter, rolled their eyes and went home; they knew darn well that 14 y.o.'s drink and smoke, and they knew there was no point in trying to convince those parents otherwise. I suspect it isn’t a coincidence that my parents, lacking the rose-colored glasses, raised three teetotaling nerds and one responsible user.</p>
<p>I wonder which one is the responsible user,…no, I don’t.</p>
<p>The obstetrician and mother of two.</p>
<p>So much for that Supreme Court Bacchanalian fantasy I’d been harboring. It entailed red sequinned robes,…</p>
<p>the follow-up:</p>
<p>**Kappa to be charged with College violations **</p>
<p>The Office of Undergraduate Judicial Affairs notified Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority Wednesday that the organization, and several of its individual members, will be charged with violations of various College standards of conduct.</p>
<p>The charges brought against the sorority will include causing or threatening to cause harm to new members of the organization, hazing, alcohol policy infractions and violation of the sorority’s terms of probation, according to a statement issued by Acting Associate Dean of the College Mary Liscinsky. </p>
<p>The alleged offenses committed by the individual members, the number of members charged, and other personal information have been held by the College in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.</p>
<p>The charges are the result of an investigation following the Oct. 9 new member event at an Enfield, N.H., rollerskating rink that resulted in the arrest of 11 members. On that Monday night, an ambulance and the police were called by older members because several new members were highly intoxicated.</p>
<p>Director of UJA April Thompson said that the charges against the sorority would be heard by the Organizational Adjudication Committee and that the Committee on Standards would handle the charges against the individuals. Both committees will be independent in their arbitration, as well as in their respective decisions about any possible consequences.</p>
<p>“We’re at an allegations stage, which is a very early stage,” Thompson said. “The OAC will be informed by precedent. That’s what will guide the committee, that’s what will guide their decisions if the organization is found to be responsible.”</p>
<p>Thompson also praised the members who called 911 on behalf of their intoxicated peers, calling the action “a really amazing and courageous decision.”</p>
<p>Liscinsky stated that the Good Samaritan Policy may apply to the members who were hospitalized during the incident. The Office of the Dean of the College will judge whether or not the policy applies to this incident, which occurred far from campus. Acting Dean of the College Dan Nelson said he believes the spirit of the policy applies, though it would be rare to employ the policy in an off campus incident.</p>
<p>“The College’s standards of conduct apply to students on and off campus, and in crafting and refocusing, over the years, the College’s Good Samaritan policy, that attention and focus is really on student safety,” Nelson said. “We believe strongly that the policy should apply to students whether they call from the basement of a fraternity, the floor of a residential hall or some space off campus.”</p>
<p>If the Good Samaritan policy is cited, the organization and its members could be freed of alcohol violations, though charges such as hazing could remain.</p>
<p>Nelson also praised the members for calling 911.</p>
<p>“One of the best things that happened in this otherwise very unfortunate situation is that somebody called for help for students who needed it,” he said. “It’s important for students to do that and I’m very pleased that that happened in this case, as troubled and concerned as I am about the rest of the reports about what might have happened that evening.”</p>
<p>Thompson went on to emphasize that the charges are by no means an implication of the organization’s guilt.</p>
<p>“I wouldn’t want the community to point fingers,” she said. “There are a lot of questions that need to be asked and the organization needs to talk to a committee about the answers to those questions.”</p>
<p>Kappa President Whitney Dickerson '07 did not return phone calls for comment.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thedartmouth.com/[/url]”>The Dartmouth;