**This article was submitted under our Community News section by a registered user. The comments in this article may not reflect the opinion or feelings of 2SecondsFaster.com, its management, or its staff.
___________________________________________________
An editorial appeared in today’s Boston Globe I found fairly fascinating. It mentions an upward trend in the number of colleges allowing co-ed housing.
The argument behind allowing such arrangements seems to surround the GLBT community. The offer is opt-in and appears to be taken advantage of largely by students questioning their gender identity, and those who may feel uncomfortable rooming with someone of the same gender if their room mate finds out they are attracted to the same sex.
Now, the article mentions a study that shows that couples trying to take advantage of this option is exceedingly rare. I don’t know if anyone here feels the same, but to me it makes sense. Few couples in college want to live together, at least all that quickly, or in such a confined space where neither can really get any privacy. Throw in that most room mates tend to be willing to give each other “alone time” with their boyfriend or girlfriend, and it doesn’t seem all that outlandish.
This trend isn’t all that widespread yet, it’s only hit about 3 dozen colleges (most of them, unsurprisingly, are here in Massachusetts). However, the success of such programs very well could lead to more schools jumping on board with such programs to appear more flexible and responsive to student needs.
What are your thoughts?
This post was submitted by Dan.
Quite clearly I didn’t proofread this well enough. Curse homonym errors and poorly structured sentences!
heh.
I wouldn’t be comfortable in a co-ed dorm. But then, I grew up an only child.
I think if people conduct themselves modestly, it doesn’t HAVE to be a problem, but since one can only control their own behavior and not the behaviour of other people, I think there is a strong potential for embarrassing situations that just don’t need to happen.
Helen,
That is not co-ed buildings… that is co-ed rooming.
Dan,
I changed hear to here..anything else you’d change?
Mercy, Stu, your’e pulling my leg, right? Good one! Don’t let anyone tell you that you aren’t funny! :-0
I’m rooming with a guy that is not my boyfriend. We share rent. We fight sometimes (he has terrible habits). But we are only friends and other than him being pathologically incapable of cleaning up his own messes, we are more than able to control our behavior around each other.
Dan,
Stu’s clarification to Helen is interesting. I think that we people in the Americas (especially NA) needs some deep thinking and honesty about this. We here are very quick to discard things like innocence to become growed-up. Too bad ……………… way, too bad, because IN innocence resides fun. Life without fun is macho preening (both sexes) or borring.
Canada’s ‘experiment’ with this was Rochdale College. It ‘fell-apart’ (literally) after 10 years!
Remember that ‘growing older’ is mandatory, but ‘growing-up’ is optional.
MK:
” However, the success of such programs very well could lead to more schools jumping on board with such programs to appear more flexible and responsive to student needs.”
If you could get rid of the second “with such programs” that’d be great, it’s redundant.
As for co-ed rooming. I roomed with 2 girls last year, and one other guy. We did have separate rooms, but it very well still could have led to awkward situations, but in all honesty I thought it was a great experience. Of course, this is different from the coed rooming presented here, but I don’t think I’d have an issue rooming with a girl. In all reality, most of my friends throughout high school have been girls, and we felt comfortable enough around each other that situations from the outside that may appear awkward really were no big deal.
It all depends on the personalities and individuals I guess.
The article states it is room and coed boarding.
And when you were an undergrad just starting off in college? I roomed with a guy when I moved back to Indianapolis. Of course there was nothing for me to worry about because he’s gay. What was most depressing was his boyfriends were so very cute! Not fair! Anywho…………
This whole thing makes me think of the movie “Threesome”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threesome_(film)
It’s a good movie and it may show a bit of insight into this kind of rooming. (don’t worry – everyone stays happy and no one is killed……)
OH – I should bring up that the movie Threesome is an autobiography…..
Sorry, Helen… It was not a joke.
Oh and I funny… Just in a methodical way and logical way (sarcasm).
Yeah. Well, I suppose it’s obvious I don’t think it is the best of ideas, Three’s Company notwithstanding.
PIP
It’s not that I think people can’t control themselves, or that I don’t think it works for anybody. But I do think it has more potential for embarassing situations.
For instance, I can change in a women’s locker room without having to hide behind the curtains. But I would DIE if a male other than my husband saw my…. goodies (or the baddies, pending on taste…)
Even with care, I would think it is difficult to not accidentally catch a roomate at an inappropriate time.
I do think that it depends on the individuals. I wouldn’t really be embarrassed if a male friend or even acquaintance saw me in a less-than-clothed state. Or I suppose I should say, I HAVEN’T been embarrassed when male friends/acquaintances have seen me in various states of undress.
I was once in the boiler room of a gross old theater and a bunch of roaches ran up my pant leg while I was working! I ran out of there so fast – into a hallway filled with male and female cast members I had only met that afternoon – and ripped my pants off before you could even blink. I honestly didn’t really care if anyone saw my underwear. We’re all adults. Whatev.
I did grow up in a theatrical environment, though – I was always performing. Always being measured, being touched, being seen. Changing in front of people when it was too quick to make it to a dressing room. etc. That’s how I went through puberty – so a guy seeing me wrapped in a towel as I dart for the bedroom is a non-issue for me.
I’m like a closet nudist anyway, lol. I would be way more embarrassed if someone read my e-mail or something, than if someone caught a glimpse of me nekkid. I see nothing to be embarrassed of when it comes to my body – though I do respect that some people are uncomfortable with nudity, so I keep the blinds drawn when I prance around my apartment in my birthday suit.
Reminds me of the post about military housing, remember? Distractions?
It can REALLY get complicated, can’t it?
I just think it is a sad state of affairs (pun intended) that this is what American college life has boiled down to… the hook up. It’s not like American colleges are doing that well academically and now we know why. A complete lack of understanding of what college is really for… education.
I do think we need to remember something here. We are talking about dorm rooms. Those small one little room. With the beds pretty much on top of each other and a double desk. This isn’t just a little sneak peak while quickly changing. This is living with someone 24/7.
The example that the article gives that has been doing this since 1970 – Hampshire College – is pretty much a joke. It doesn’t give out grades nor GPA’s. It’s one of those “liberal arts” college that barely even hands out homework. The majors focus primarily on film, music and theater. It has approx 1, 400 students.
The other college as an example is Wheaton College. A Woman’s college until 1988. It is another liberal arts college with apprx 1,500 students. Outside of the article I cannot find any information stating that the dorm rooms are coed. All I can find is that the dorm buildings are co-ed but the floors are not coed. I can’t even find anything coed on Wheatons own website.
Clark University is a research and liberal arts college. It has apprx 2,200 students. They started coed dorm rooms in 2007.
Brandies University – another liberal arts college with apprx 4,000 students. I can only find information that they were going to start having coed dorm rooms but I cannot find anything that states they do it yet.
Harvard – 0f course is huge – but I cannot find any information on how many dorm rooms are coed.
All this said. Research has shown that coed dorm floors are bad news.
http://www.livescience.com/health/091117-coed-drinking-sex.html
“A new study finds university students in coed housing are 2.5 times more likely to binge drink every week. And no surprise, they’re also likely to have more sexual partners, the study found. Also, pornography use was higher among students in coed dorms. ….
The findings are detailed in the Journal of American College Health. “
That article also said that a study in 2007 states that binge drinking in college fuels alcoholism later in life.
I would say that this needs to be discussed with more than just the usual flair of “it wouldn’t bother me if someone saw me naked….” type attitude. (No offense to those here who have said that……..I’m referring to the national attitude of it.) There is more involved in this than just being naked – there is an education to think of.
Oh – and the other thing about all the schools is that they are all private schools.
I’ve always like the idea of boys over here and girls over there. Even in the classroom.
I went to an all girl high school, and while I hated it at the time, and my grades were AWFUL…I cannot even imagine what a mess I would have been if “boys” had been thrown into the mix!
Maybe they should think about doing the same thing at universities.
First, partying would be cut in half.
Second, pregnancy would go down.
Third, a LOT of young people would probably opt out of the college experience if it actually became about LEARNING instead of partying.
I just don’t see any downsides, except from the “students” point of view. But, hey, they’ll “learn” , right?
“The example that the article gives that has been doing this since 1970 – Hampshire College – is pretty much a joke.”
Hey! I know people – brilliant people – who graduated from there! One owns his own fencing school and more than a couple work with me in theater. Focusing on film, music, and theater is not a joke – there is a lot to know, and they are valid industries to work in. Hampshire is part of the Five Colleges along with Amherst, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and UMass Amherst – nothing to sniff at there. It’s highly ranked in the country among graduates who go on to get a doctorate, and more than 50% of its alumni go on to at least one graduate degree.
The emphasis is on projects and portfolios and evaluations, rather than grades – it’s more work to quantify a student’s progress, but who says that’s a bad thing? What does a B really say? That a kid showed up for tests but never for class, that a kid kept his nose to the grindstone and tried his hardest and a B is what he got? Was the kid phoning it in or working his butt off? If I were reviewing a transcript I’d take evaluations and portfolios over grades any day.
It’s different, and it’s not for everyone, but that doesn’t mean it’s a joke. I consider it an approach to education that I wish was feasible on a larger scale.
FTR I do agree that living in a dorm room is different than living in an apartment – I was just responding to the comments about potential for embarrassment in being seen without clothing by a member of the opposite sex.
“First, partying would be cut in half.”
Not necessarily. My older sister went to Smith, which is an all-girls school, and it was party central because boys would basically bus in on the weekends.
I do like same-sex education, though. I think both genders can benefit when it’s done well.
Ha! See? They ONLY partied on the weekends! That’s at LEAST half… lol.
Alexandra –
My apologies for offending you, that was not my intent. And I apologize if you feel I ‘dissed’ the University and possibly your friends as well.
What happens to those graduates if this recession falls into a complete depression? Sure, they are brilliant – but has that school given them something to fall back on? It is single focused. Sure, it boasts that it’s history department is good – but how do you not ‘grade’ someone in history (the school boasts that they never give out grades)? You can do a portfolio type assignment (which would be cool) – but that won’t cover all the history education that most student get at other universities because of the time it takes do do some sort of portfolio. Yes, many students go on to get a doctorate – but a doctorate in what? Usually the arts.
One thing you must know, if you don’t know yet – during a depression the entertainment industry is the first to go. All those students who only studied the subject of ‘the arts’ is going to be seriously hurting. This school provides them nothing to fall back on. People who can barely afford food are not going to the movies, theaters, art exhibits…… These have already seen problems of sustaining themselves during a recession. Movie theaters and theaters are closing left and right around here. And I know they are in Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois. People can’t afford to be entertained anymore. So…..what are your friends to do?
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/bway101/5.html
The 1930s arrived with bells and breadlines. The number of Broadway people affected by the stock market crash was uncountable. Everyone from producers, such as Flo Ziegfeld – who closed his hit production of Whoopie so that he could rush it into film production – to ushers, whose theaters remained dark, was affected by the crash…..
New productions on Broadway dipped to 98 shows in 1939; for the first time since the turn of the century, there were less than 100 shows being offered…..”
The government did help out some of the artists to provide people their much needed entertainment ….. for free. These artists became dependent of the government. If a depression happens now the government is actually going to be more broke than the people.
Now the entertainment industry did make some great strides during that time. However, they did so by using 1/4 of who they had in the 1920′s.
I say that the university is a ‘joke’ because these students are shelling out a whole lotta money – Tuition, Room and board is almost $50,000 a year and we haven’t even gotten into the cost of books and other fees – and their ‘industry’ is already being hit pretty hard. Most colleges and University stress very hard that if you want to study the arts that you have a good Minor that is not in the arts. This is so you have something to fall back on when you find yourselves in the breadlines.
Also – I believe that not grading people or giving them some sort of ‘standard’ is keeping students in a form of la la land. In reality – you will be judged, graded and held accountable for your performance. With Narrative evaluation it is all based on opinion with no standards. That is not how the real world works and I think we are lying to young students by telling them otherwise.
Again – I apologize for any offense – I would never intend to do that. My wording was harsh – but I do have a ‘harsh’ opinion on the matter. (My roommate from college back in the early 1990′s got her masters in fashion design. When she found herself without a job she was able to fall back on her minor of Business Administration and got a management job. Without the Minor she would have been SOL.)
I gotta say, I really don’t think any of that behavior can be linked to the sexes just living together- it’s one factor of many.
As for being offended, I found the idea that most students find school is for partying a bit more offensive than any of the other stuff. Thats why my campus in particular exists- because of lack of education among the urban population, the majority of whom are people of color.
I think the public school students in general are more likely to “get” college is for education, but then generalization to the contrary of all students is pretty absurd. I’ve worked with individuals from private schools who think the situation with defunding the publics is deplorable, and that anyone who wants to apply themselves through college should be able to do so if they did well enough in high school.
Students get that college is about education, but it is about far more than that too. It’s about applying what you learn, exploring your interests, and, yes, like any other environment, socializing and networking.
I won’t lie, I do go to parties. It’s part of college life. But it is also a way to meet new people and make friends, and you can still focus on the education, and find others studying the same things you are. It helps when your looking for a job and someone at a party mentions so and so is hiring, or that the school has a new scholarship or grant you can apply for if finances have you on the urge of dropping out, etc.
Of course, I also go to parties with fellow poli sci nerds/student government individuals and the like (though, that doesn’t necessarily say much since some student governments apparently have keggars during their meetings).
As for degrees in general, B.A.s are already beginning to mean less and less, because a liberal arts education is essentially all the same. Now its already become about Masters, and even then what you studied may not be as important as the skills you can show off after the fact (research, patience, time management, willingness to learn, leadership, etc).
As for the partying itself, implementing what you mentioned MK would just drive it further underground and off campus. College administrators can barely control it as is, because a zero tolerance policy is unrealistic and is shown to fail on multiple occasions, whereas not really punishing transgressions leads to negative press as a “party school,” granted, that label will always exist now since it’s become a part of the American psyche, but it doesn’t help college administrators try and come up with a policy they can enforce on campus without failing their students in one fashion or another.
Dan,
Fine. Drive it underground and off campus. The harder it is to do, the happier I am. I never said that EVERY student is a perpetual partier, but having put four of them through college, I know what I’m talking about when I say that not EVERY student is, well, a student.
I’m glad I went to a school with both boys and girls. I relate to boys much more than to girls because they tend to be more honest and less judgmental. Girls get “cliquey” which to me is just silly. In private school (elementary) I had to deal with some of that, and I learned my lesson. The minute I learned a college was all girls I immediately took them off my list. I don’t know what I would do if I was surrounded by that much estrogen in everyday life. I would go crazy!
It’s the same reason I can’t watch America’s Next Top Model. The estrogen level even seeps out of the screen and you know in every single episode at least one of them is going to cry for some silly reason. “I can’t smile right today! *tear*” And then Tyra goes, “Great! What a success for ME!”
Anyway.
pip,
lol
The “fairer” sex my butt!
Heh, interesting PIP. I tend to be someone who gets along better with girls than guys. I’ve never been all that “macho” and whatnot. A lot of the ones I hang out with are pretty aid back and whatnot though, they don’t go for each other’s throats so maybe thats why, ehh.
MK-
Driving it underground makes it worse, thats the problem many universities right now are having. It causes far more problems as students don’t seek help when someone is in trouble, it gives the school even more bad press, and it would also lead to more resentment on the part of students towards administration. They don’t want to be babied. They are living n their own and away from parents for a reason. I love my independence. I want to be able to make my own choices and mistakes, and most students feel the same way. They are adults under the law, and they do want to be treated as such. Banks do, police do, the government does, and yet doing something like that contradicts everything that goes along with that. I know Holy Cross in Worcester is now trying to make all students stay in the dorms by buying out conveniently located properties often rented by students and tearing it down so students have no choice but to dorm.
Well, Dan, that’s nice.
Except, 18 and 19 year olds are not allowed to drink legally. If they go off campus and a bar serves them, then shut down the bar! For the same reason I don’t really believe that the death penalty should be used because the “system” needs reform, or that abortion should be legal because, hey, kids are gonna have sex, I also think “Hey, let them drink on campus cuz they’re gonna do it anyway” is bass ackwards.
You want to be grown ups? Then follow the law. That’s part of being an adult. You want to be treated like an adult, then act like one. Wait to drink til your of age. Don’t drink on campus cuz that’s not what the campus is for. You want to have sex? deal with pregnancy. You want to drive a fancy car and eat? Then work, don’t live off the state. How many of those students are paying for both their education AND their room and board with no help from the state or their parents? If they are, then kudos to them for their maturity. I’m sure those are the exceptions that also understand the value of an education and aren’t squandering their time boozin’ it up. They’d be the first ones to say “Clean up your act, and clean up the campuses”.
MK-
It isn’t bars serving alcohol, you know that as well as I do. These take place in off campus apartments, where students are rarely caught or regulated, and, on top of this, when police bust parties it isn’t possible or practical to arrest them all.
I’m one of a lucky few who got a full scholarship, and so I am able to use my student loans to live away from home. However, there are students on my campus working full time, paying for rent and their tuition/fees (out of state for some of them mind you) and STILL are able to have a social life, and yes, for many of them that does involve alcohol. Some are of age and some are not, but I certainly think they’ve earned the right regardless more than anyone for simply being born 3 years earlier.
The reasoning and stats behind age 21 is a farce IMO. We are one of a select few with a drinking age above age 18. I know that no change in the law will effect me, I’m almost of legal age anyway, but it would make it far easier for campuses to regulate drinking, would encourage students to seek help on campus rather than drop someone on the curb at a hospital, or worse yet letting them die, and thus makes the problems surrounding college difficult far easier to deal with. College presidents recognize this fact and have been pushing for an open dialog about getting rid of the federal statute that blackmails states to standardize the drinking age at 21, thus the Amethyst Initiative and the like.
Being treated like adults doesn’t just mean following the law, it also means they should be treated as such under ALL laws, not all but one, fairly arbitrary, law.
On another note, I think it’d be far more effective to issue a license to purchase and consume alcohol rather than just any state issued ID. Punishing individuals for alcohol transgressions would be far easier, whether it means delaying when they can actually get such a license, suspension, or revocation, and you simply add on to social host laws to cover those as well.
Dan,
The reasoning and stats behind age 21
I agree. I think it should be 25. I thinking driving licenses should be issued at 18 and I CERTAINLY don’t think 14 years olds should be getting birth control behind their parents backs.
If students are drinking off campus in apartments, they are getting the liquor from somewhere. If they get caught, they don’t need to get arrested. They can simply be asked to leave the school. THAT is what being grown up means. Enough of you get thrown out of school, I’m pretty sure that would clear up the drinking problem…
They DONT get asked to leave the school, thats the point. Rarely are these students punished for OFF CAMPUS actions. They feel they can’t intervene most of the time because students will get angry and respond.
There have been cases on my own campus (non-residential). The arrest of a student driving drunk off campus was reported by the disciplinary board as one that shouldn’t be pursued because it was an off campus action. The student body president was arrested for allegedly dealing marijuana from his apartment (though its looking likely the charges will be dropped or lessened, from what I’ve heard) however the school is withholding ANY disciplinary ruling until anything is proven one way or the other. And even then, if convicted I wouldn’t be surprised if he is only stripped from office because he is a student in good standing and well known around campus.
Same sort of things happen at the privates. On campus there tend to be housing disciplinary action, in terms of choice, whether you can dorm their the following semester, etc, but typically it is not suspension that these kids are threatened with because it is unrealistic.
As for laws, I’d much rather see the driving age raised and the drinking age lowered. Knowing how to drink responsibly and not drink and drive should be taught before someone gets behind the wheel, but that is unrealistic here. I’d rather see everything (voting age, military sign up, marriage, etc) all either be 21 or 18. Doing anything but is just absurd.
However, there are students on my campus working full time, paying for rent and their tuition/fees (out of state for some of them mind you) and STILL are able to have a social life,
Yes, but how many? Face it Dan, the majority of kids off at college are there on the states dime or their parents dime. As I said Kudos to the kids that are paying their own way COMPLETELY, but those few, rare kids are not the ones that are partying excessively…they have to much at stake.
I’ll tell you what…any kid that is 19 and COMPLETELY, no scholarships, no loans, no parental help, towing his OWN line, can get a special card that says he’s allowed to drink. How many you think will cut the mustard?
MK-
For the record, even if they got thrown out of school- that wouldn’t stop it. Students would likely band together in their own communities, and I can guarantee you they won’t be ratting each other out to police. This is why my apartment complex tries to keep students separate- because they know the other neighbors will report whereas students will shrug off the party as a normal occurrence and not call it in.
I’d rather see everything (voting age, military sign up, marriage, etc) all either be 21 or 18.
Make that 25 and you’ve got my vote. As for no disciplinary actions being taken, that brings us right back to “you don’t throw out the rules cuz you can’t enforce them”. That’s the insane mentality that has Obama trying to rework the ENTIRE health system, rather than make the one we have work! The same mentality that says “Let’s legalize pot, since we can’t control it!”…there may even be sound reasons for legalizing marijuana, but not being able to enforce the laws on the books should NOT be one of them. Neither should drinking be allowed because we can’t enforce drinking laws…that’s just nuts!
Again, that’s not a reason to condone/allow bad behavior.
Also, if landlords were held accountable…
You know if an 18 or 19 year old drives a car and hurts someone while under the influence, the PARENTS can be thrown in jail! If they are 21, they take the rap themselves.
MK-
One of the reasons we can’t enforce drinking laws is because of the drinking age BEFORE age 21. This is why drinking age 21 is a problem- its been ingrained in US culture since its founding, and rather than denying it we should be accepting it and legislating and enforcing it accordingly, rather than enforcing a law that has proven it doesn’t work. It quite obviously needs to be reworked one way or the other.
I think 25 is too high MK, and it would make us the highest in the world, and would, again, be completely unenforceable. Good luck telling a young professional they cant have wine at a business function, or champagne at their wedding, etc. Enforceability does need to be considered with all laws. Lack of enforceability has killed laws before, and age 21 is likely to become no exception.
As for marijuana, I’m pro-legalization as well (surprise coming from the liberal ehh?). It’s no worse than alcohol and/or cigarettes, and taxing and regulating strength like cigarettes means plenty of tax revenue for the federal and state governments.
And what claims this is bad behavior? A law that people, including many parents, do not think is all that legitimate. This is why MA decriminalized marijuana, and this is why MA would likely have the drinking age at 18 if it didnt risk highway funds that Reagan had put in place during his presidency.
MK-
MA doesnt tend to follow that route. They go after the kids license and take it away or delay it for quite a long time.
As for landlords, again, good luck in a college town. Those kids bring in far too much money to the city, so they aren’t going to go after them. Its all about the $$$, and college students spend quite a bit.
And, for the record, I believe recent studies have shown, underage or of age, my generation has the highest use of DD’s than anyone else. I’ll see if I can pull up a link.
It’s no worse than alcohol and/or cigarettes
This is your reasoning? It’s NO WORSE?
I tend to choose things because they are good. Not because they aren’t “that” bad.
I agree, 25 is too high. I was being a bit facetious. But 21 is just fine.
If the law isn’t enforced, then you’re right something should be done. Children’s lives and well being should not be dictated by how much money is brought in at their expense.
This world is truly messed up…
MK-
Considering it was a part of American culture, and we justify “personal choice” with cigarette use, when another plant that is no worse is made illegal because of its effects on health, yeah, I think someone should be able to make the same personal choice in regards to their health.
As for 21 being fine, I think the binge drinking problems show that that simply isn’t true. Binge drinking occurs because alcohol use for college age kids has been forced under ground, so rather than drinking throughout the night, they drink the amount they would consume in a night all at once. Clearly age 21 isn’t helping.
And, unlike coed dorm rooms, lowering the drinking age has support from both public and private college presidents and chancellors.
Something should be done, and it shouldn’t depend on the money, I agree. But ignoring that factor is dangerous. The way to do it all, I think, is either raise it all to 21, or keep everything, including alcohol, at 18. Consistency is key for a law regarding something like when you will be recognized as an adult. I think lowering it would be a better route because a)there is a history of having the drinking age at 18 b)it allows administrators to more easily regulate drinking on campus and c)it would save lives.
Val –
As far as entertainment being a risky industry in a recession – that’s true of many, many industries. Not everyone will be nurses – and if everyone were nurses, nurses would be facing major unemployment. I have more than a couple friends who worked for Bear Stearns; I know quite a few people with “hard” degrees who currently live with their parents, working in various service industries, in the current economic climate. I know quite a few theater people who are struggling, too. I also know people in both industries who are doing quite well – some amazingly well. Having a job isn’t always a guarantee, no matter what you do. But if you do what you enjoy and what you’re good at, and if you work your butt off, then barring economic disaster you will probably get by. Economic disaster strikes, but that’s not an example of the unworthiness of certain industries.
You don’t need to lecture me about the risks of working in entertainment. This is my life. I work on multi-million dollar shows, multiple shows per year, one of which has been in the news incessantly for its financing problems over the past six months. It is terrifying to see a show that big miss months of work and months of payments. Terrifying. But I have friends in sales, or finance, or – yes – even nursing, who see some pretty terrifying things in their own industries right now, as well. I have acquaintances who found themselves unemployed after their companies went out of business or downsized. And “entertainment” isn’t just entertainment. I don’t know anyone in “theater” who is unemployed during fashion week, or during the DNC or RNC. The Pope visits and has a big Mass, politicians hold speeches and debates, TV shows appear every half hour all day long. Yeah, TV could just stop broadcasting, and all debates could be shut down, etc – but that’s the sort of major disaster you can’t really plan for simply by choosing the right major. I mean, if TV goes off the air, other industries are probably experiencing some serious problems as well.
So “entertainment” is not as fuzzy an industry as people often think it is, for one. It is a highly competitive one in the best of times – not just on the “talent” end but on the labor and production end as well. It is a difficult industry in boom times, and it is even more difficult in lean times. But that’s the nature of economics. You go into theater expecting that. To some extent, you learn about that in school – career management.
“Also – I believe that not grading people or giving them some sort of ’standard’ is keeping students in a form of la la land. In reality – you will be judged, graded and held accountable for your performance. With Narrative evaluation it is all based on opinion with no standards. That is not how the real world works and I think we are lying to young students by telling them otherwise.”
I actually feel the exact opposite. I cannot think of really a single time in my life as a working adult that I had an experience more comparable to receiving a grade, than to receiving an evaluation. I do projects and – yes – build portfolios of sorts. And while there is a deadline, a final project, it is the process of my work that is evaluated – not merely the end result. There is no way to “cheat” my way into a good evaluation from my boss. If I slack off for weeks, if I don’t show up every day even on the days where nothing important is happening – but the show opens to rave reviews anyway – I will not get hired back. The only way to keep my job is to work hard, every day, without fail. There are lots of ways to cheat into a good grade on a test – and I don’t mean actual cheating. I mean slacking off and then cramming; that sort of thing. It’s entirely possible to get an A and learn nothing at all. It’s harder to get a good evaluation and learn nothing at all.
I am not saying that this format of evaluation is for everyone. But I think it would be good for people like me. I have never been motivated by grades, and in college courses where I felt that I was “only” working for a grade – where I was just doing busy work – I struggled to do well at all. I grew disillusioned. Many of my classmates did better than me in courses like that. But I am quite successful in a highly competitive industry right now, and more than a couple of those classmates have struggled in the “real world,” where what matters is not how you look on paper but how you work every single day. How you plan, how you learn. How quickly you learn and how much you CAN learn. etc. I think I would have done much better – and probably learned much more – in an environment where less focus was placed on “getting grades,” and more was placed on developing my education under the guidance of an involved mentor.
I do agree with you, in general, that it’s foolish to pay that much for an education. I personally extend it and feel that it’s foolish to pay that much for ANY education, barring some extenuating circumstances. (ie, people in my industry – I think paying for NYU is worth it, if you’re willing to work your butt off. Because it’s possible to spend your junior and senior years at NYU working on legitimate theater productions – occasionally on Broadway – and that is some seriously valuable networking right there.) I did very well in high school, and I got into a couple Ivy League universities. But I got full scholarships to a lot of schools as well – schools I never even looked at until they contacted me offering scholarships. I chose one of those schools – I would never pay $50,000/year for an education when the biggest factor in education is me, not the school! When I had to give up that scholarship and take care of my mom, I went to community college and then state university. Expensive private schools don’t seem practical to me, given my financial situation.
At the same time, if someone has the money to spend on something like that, then I think they are well within their rights to spend it – and I think their children are lucky, not a joke. All other things being equal – financially etc – I’d have loved the opportunity to study at schools I would have considered a foolish choice in “real” life. That is a luxury and a privilege – to obtain an education in the setting and style you prefer – but that doesn’t make it inherently a joke. I probably would have learned more in that setting than I did at my own university, just because of how I learn and who I am. C’est la vie.
I’m not offended by anything you said, on behalf of myself or my friends. I don’t need to be offended on behalf of the friends, because they’re doing pretty well, and I don’t know ANYONE in entertainment who doesn’t understand that you squirrel money away in busy times and live carefully in slow times. I just consider statements like that to be rash and often poorly-informed. It’s an easy knee-jerk reaction to be like, “Psh, no grades!? Wtf are they paying for, anyway!???” but IMO an ‘apprenticeship’ is the best way to learn, for many people, and Hampshire college fosters more of an apprentice-mentor relationship between students and teachers than most traditional schools do. It’s certainly not for everyone, but not necessarily worth of automatic dismissal either. That was my only point.
PIP -
“I’m glad I went to a school with both boys and girls. I relate to boys much more than to girls because they tend to be more honest and less judgmental. Girls get “cliquey” which to me is just silly.”
Do you think that maybe one of the driving forces behind girls being so freaking annoying comes from the presence of boys? I’m not leading into anything, just asking. I always felt incredibly ostracized by girls at my school, but in consistently single-sex situations – ie the all-girls camp I attended every summer – it was like a different world entirely. I always felt that when approval was finite – when a boy either liked you or your friend; when either you got the role in the ballet or the girl next to you did – then girls got very catty. But when approval was available to anyone who earned it – classes that were for girls only, where one girl succeeding did not mean another failing, etc – girls tended to be very supportive. I think girls – and women, historically – probably struggle more with finite amounts of approval and success than men do, which IMO explains a lot of the viciousness that can come out when situations are explicitly win-lose – one girl comes out on top, the other on bottom; no middle ground. etc.
Just thinking out loud.
That may be true Alexandra, I guess I never really thought about it that way. But I will say that in terms of sense of humor, music taste, movies/TV shows and interest in things like politics, I tend to generally have these in common with guys. So that may account for it.
Binge drinking occurs because alcohol use for college age kids has been forced under ground, so rather than drinking throughout the night, they drink the amount they would consume in a night all at once.
Oh PUHLEASE! Binge drinking occurs because immature people get their hands on alcohol and abuse it! Seriously. You cannot really believe that 18 year olds binge drink because they HAVE to…This is exactly why people your age should not be allowed around alcohol. That kind of thinking is why the drinking age IS 21.
Consistency is key for a law regarding something like when you will be recognized as an adult.
No Dan. ACTING like an adult is when you will be recognized as one.
Again. And again. It is a RARE 18 year old that is paying his OWN way in life, and an even rarer 18 year old with the maturity to handle alcohol and all that goes with it.
MK-
No, the drinking age is 21 because MADD formed and no one wants to fight mothers who have lost sons and daughters to drunk driving, myself included. Then again, the statements they made about the data has been shown again and again to be shaky, if not downright misleading. Now more deaths are happening off the roads rather than on the roads because of fear of legal retribution from those underage.
As for the maturity, handling, etc, I know 18 year olds who are far better at drinking liquor i.e. know limits, drink responsibly, etc than many of legal age. What you are advocating for is a test that is impossible to hold up to scrutiny because of the varying maturity levels of individuals. You don’t “earn” the right to be an adult under the law, it is assumed. If it were “earned” there would be tests for everything from laws to drinking, loans, etc. It isn’t a practical way to go about it which is why there is an age of adulthood common in U.S. law (18). That is when you can sign a contract (i.e. get married or adopt), enter into loan agreements/hold debt, have the ability to vote for your local, state, and national reps, join the service, or any host of other responsibilities. Withholding one doesn’t make sense and is bad policy. You bring drinking age to 18, have a required class on alcohol education (which many schools have started to do), and you will see fatalities drop. Fatalities from drunk driving were already dropping before Reagan moved the age back up again, and now fatalities are happening off the road because they don’t want to get in trouble. That’s why some schools have created amnesty policies for their students bringing someone to health services or a local hospital who is in need of help. But those facts also tend not to be well advertised (out of fear of parents labeling them a “party school”) and students are generally mistrusting of administration in general because they do tend to break promises when its the reputation on the line.
Alexandra and Pip,
I went to an all girl High School. It was the worst time in my life. Every day I prayed to die. A couple of times I thought about it, but wasn’t sure how to write the note…
I think whether it is a great experience or absolute hell depends on the person.
I think the real problem here is that when something goes wrong at these parties, like alcohol poisoning, underage drinkers are afraid to get help for the ill person and hope for the best. That is why many college administrations support 18 as legal drinking age. So that students can get help without fear of repercussions.
I personally don’t have a problem with 18 as legal drinking age. I have no problem with 18 year olds voting or being able to sign up for the military, so why think they are mature enough to make important decisions like that, but not drink a beer? I have problems with 15 year olds being able to pass for 18. Many 18 year olds are apparently able to pass for 21 and buy alcohol. Now we’d have problems with 15 year olds passing for 18, a much bigger deal in my opinion.
I know, many of you don’t consider enforcement to be a valid argument. Sorry. I guess I do.
Helen-
IDs are easier to enforce at 18. Getting a fake ID at 15 is far more difficult than at 18. The cost is huge for any passable ID, and it’s highly unlikely any teenager will have that kind of disposable income. Working full time at minimum wage for 2 months still wouldn’t give them the satisfactory cash. And add in that parental involvement is much higher at that age, and it is much more difficult for teens to get ahold of alcohol on their own. Furthermore, if the drinking age change gets billed as a privilege, 18 year olds wont WANT to share, they’ll want to apply it like they do their senior privileges, etc.
Dan,
I know 9 year olds that are mature enough that I’d trust them driving. I know 11 year olds that would make wonderful mothers. I know 10 year olds that could babysit.
Should we change the law to accommodate the rare few that could handle it, ignoring the VAST majority that can’t?
Name me an adult, over 30, that binge drinks. Name me an adult, over 30, that sets out to get so drunk he can’t find his car. Show me these people, and I’ll show you what we call an alcoholic. Only immature individuals drink to get drunk, drink in huge quantities in one sitting…
Perhaps we should reverse your logic. You say you know the odd individual that can handle drinking at age 19 so we should lower the age. I say I know an odd individual that cannot handle drinking at age 50. Maybe we should raise the age?
The brain of a person before the age of 21 is still growing and vulnerable to the affects of drugs and alcohol. I’m sure I could google and find a site that tells you what happens to the brain when under the influence…especially the sort of intense drinking that goes on at colleges.
The idea that this happens because we “force” these young adults to binge drink by not welcoming them with open arms into the bars, is just another sign of immaturity and one more reason why you and others of your age are not ready to handle alcohol…
No, the drinking age is 21 because MADD formed and no one wants to fight mothers who have lost sons and daughters to drunk driving, myself included.
Seriously. MADD didn’t even exist when I was 21 and that was STILL the drinking age!
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a non-profit organization that seeks to stop drunk driving, support those affected by drunk driving, prevent underage drinking, and overall push for stricter alcohol policy. The Irving, Texas–based organization was founded in 1980 by Candice Lightner after her 13-year-old daughter was killed by a drunk driver, Clarence Busch, a 46-year-old cannery worker.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving
Brief history of the minimum legal drinking age
After Prohibition, nearly all states restricting youth access to alcohol designated 21 as the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). Between 1970 and 1975, however, 29 states lowered the MLDA to 18, 19, or 20. These changes occurred when the minimum age for other activities, such as voting, also were being lowered (Wechsler & Sands, 1980). Scientists began studying the effects of the lowered MLDA, focusing particularly on the incidence of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers. Several studies in the 1970s found that motor vehicle crashes increased significantly among teens when the MLDA was lowered (Cucchiaro et al., 1974; Douglas et al., 1974; Wagenaar, 1983, 1993; Whitehead, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1975; Williams et al, 1974).
A higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. When the MLDA has been lowered, injury and death rates increase, and when the MLDA is increased, death and injury rates decline (Wagenaar, 1993).
A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al, 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. At least 50 studies have evaluated this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993).
A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many minors still drink and purchase alcohol, the policy doesn’t work. The evidence shows, however, that although many youth still consume alcohol, they drink less and experience fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths (Wagenaar, 1993).
Research shows that when the MLDA is 21, people under age 21 drink less overall and continue to do so through their early twenties (O’Malley & Wagenaar, 1991).
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promoting-healthy-lifestyles/alcohol-other-drug-abuse/facts-about-youth-alcohol/minimum-legal-drinking-age.shtml
http://www.alcoholpolicymd.com/press_room/Media_kits/press_room_mk_brain_report.htm
Underage drinkers are susceptible to several immediate consequences of alcohol use, including blackouts, hangovers, and alcohol poisoning. They also may be at elevated risk for experiencing neurodegeneration (particularly in regions of the brain responsible for learning and memory), impairments in functional brain activity, and the appearance of neurocognitive deficits. Additionally, underage drinking, the occurrence of drinking episodes, and a pattern of binge drinking directly impair study habits and erode the development of transitional skills needed for progression to adulthood.
Conclusions. Underage alcohol use is associated with brain damage and neurocognitive deficits. The harmful consequences of underage drinking have implications for the learning abilities and intellectual development of underage drinkers. Impaired intellectual development may continue to affect individual even after they have entered adulthood. Emerging data on the susceptibility of the adolescent brain to the harmful effects of alcohol create an imperative for policy-makers and organized medicine to address the problem of underage drinking through renewed initiatives.
I know of a perfect monday funny now..
Pip,
Have you ever heard of a guy named Stephen Meyer? Or Jonathan Wells?
You mean the creationists?
NO! The Intelligent Designers. There IS a difference. Yes, them. Have you read their stuff?
Sorry, MK, I don’t find much of a difference between the groups.
Anyway I have heard of but not read their stuff…reading creationist literature can raise my blood pressure.
Helen, I’m sorry to hear that.
I think you’re such a wonderful person. Some kids are such jerks. I was so unpopular in middle school – fortunately I had other things going for me at the time; I had a whole “outside” life in a semi-professional ballet career/education. So real school was like, whatever – I enjoyed learning but I didn’t consider it my social outlet. I got pushed down a flight of stairs once, and someone stuck gum in my hair during math class – but in the ballet studio it was all about what I could DO, not who I was, and that was such a wonderful escape.
Oddly, I was fairly popular in high school, once I moved. But I have always remembered how awful it felt to be ostracized for no reason. Some people are just jerks – fortunately that’s not limited to gender! I love my guy friends as much as my girl friends. But I think I know more guy-jerks than girl-jerks now that I’m an adult…
Pip,
Read what you just wrote…seriously. I tell you that there is a difference, a HUGE difference between ID and Creationism, and you say “Not to me there isn’t”…I thought you prided yourself on seeking the “truth”. You totally dismiss an entire group of people because you won’t take the time to find out what they have to say?
You insist that evolution is TOTALLY TRUE, the topic is closed, yet you’ve never looked at the opposing view? Are you afraid you might read something that challenges your beliefs?
I have read all of the stuff that you have ever put up her about evolution. I have kept an open mind…I have listened to people rail against anyone that dares to even QUESTION this theory. I’ve been told it isn’t a THEORY, it’s fact.
Now I find someone who, intelligently puts forth another way of looking at it, and your response is “I never read the opposition because it might get in the way of my belief”????
AND you have decided what OTHERS believe (ie there is no difference between ID and Creationism).
I have always thought that they were two different things, but YOU convinced me that they were one and the same. I felt really stupid after that conversation. I’ve come to find out that I was right all along.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are as different as Evolution and Creationism ….
I’m really disappointed in you girl…
MK,
I HAVE read the opposing view. I have researched it extensively. I wrote a research paper on it. I really don’t find it much different than creationism. The only difference I see is that ID hides behind a “designer” and creationists flat out say it’s “God.” It is a little more blatant. ID attempts to be scientific, but has not produced reliable research to back up its claims. Of course, creationists also sometimes try to be scientific, but they haven’t produced ANY original research that I am aware of. So in terms of scientific standing- I consider them very similar.
So I have looked into it. Yet, I don’t really want to read an entire book. I have read the Dover trial transcripts. About one book in itself. I’ve seen movies, videos, read entire websites and magazine articles. I’ve also researched theistic evolution. I have read an entire book about that- and they are a much more intellectually honest bunch.
But, if you see a HUGE difference, can you tell me what it is? You told me, but didn’t really back up your claim.
BTW, Evolution is both theory AND fact. Fact- animals, plants, bacteria, etc all evolve. Theory- evolution is responsible for the speciation and ultimately diversification of life on earth.
Creationists believe in a LITERAL translation of the bible. They believe that the earth was created in 6 days, is only 6,000 years old and that there is NO truth to evolution.
IDer’s believe that there is EVIDENCE of some sort of an intelligent designer, which COULD be God but could be aliens or something “WITHIN” the cosmos. They do NOT believe this because it is in scripture but because they have found things through SCIENTIFIC methods, that point to an intelligence of some sort. Many of them are Christians yes, but there are TWO questions which are being asked.
Science only answers one of them. Is there an Intelligent designer? Who or what is it? ID only attempts to scientifically answer the first question. Being a Christian does not and should not disqualify you from have a valid, scientific viewpoint.
I consider myself an IDer but DO NOT consider myself a creationist.
No one, not a single IDer denies that animals evolve within their species, but they, and I, do question the idea that we all descended from a single animal. The article I read does a pretty good job of pointing out that like global warming, there is some pretty questionable “evidence” being used to promote Darwinism.
I’m not disappointed that you believe in the Theory of Evolution, I AM disappointed that you lump anyone that doesn’t hold to YOUR theory, as inconsequential and off their nut.
So I’d like you to read the article that I read, and show me where it is flawed. That’s not a challenge, that’s a concession that I don’t KNOW the truth. I have heard your side, I have read this article from the other side, and I was trying to give you a chance to refute it. That’s called honest debate. But right off the bat you dismissed it as false because it doesn’t agree with you…
I have said a THOUSAND times over, on Jills and here, that I simply DON’T KNOW. I trusted you to be unbiased and patiently explain things to me, but I am beginning to think that you are way too biased to do that…am I wrong?
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
MK-
The wikipedia is outdated and missing information. Drunk driving rates were already beginning to decrease before high way dollars were tied to the drinking age. Of course drunk driving spiked, a)the stigma wasn’t as high as it is today and b) culture shock, which had begun to recede.
Secondly, alcohol related deaths are INCREASING not decreasing, among college students. That is common knowledge and is brought up in government education programs and in various alcohol education classes at colleges, and that binge drinking has also been increasing. Government studies on the topic come out fairly often, and since at least 1998 at the very least, everything has been on the rise- which only shows that rather than having all these deaths on the road, they’ve moved off the road and where help is unavailable or not sought out of fear, costing lives that could have been saved.
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/NIAAACollegeMaterials/magandprev.aspx
And it’s far better to have administrators step in. College students already stop heavy drinking earlier than non students, and drink less often.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa68/aa68.htm
And this is an argument for lowering the drinking age, why? It’s just more proof from where I’m sitting that college age students are not mature enough to handle drinking.
The attitude that “they’re going to do it anyway” is what got us passing out birth control to middleschoolers and abortion on demand.
I’m sorry. I just don’t think changing the law because you can’t enforce the law is sane. Maybe we should stop chasing the terrorists cuz they’re just go continue blowing things up. Or change the law to say that murder is okay, cuz, hey we can’t stop murderers from murdering…it’s just too hard to enforce the law!
Maybe we should just give every kid that enters college a sixpack and save them the trouble of getting fake ID’s! Honestly, Dan.
And how does this help your argument? It says exactly what I’m saying. 18-25 don’t use alcohol properly! And it damages their brains in a way it doesn’t with adults!
It’s not only that young people are drinking but the way they drink that puts them at such high risk for alcohol-related problems. Research consistently shows that people tend to drink the heaviest in their late teens and early to mid-twenties,/i>
and
Research shows that the brain continues to develop throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood. Many scientists are concerned that drinking during this critical developmental period may lead to lifelong impairments in brain function, particularly as it relates to memory, motor skills, and coordination (9). Young adults are particularly likely to binge drink4 and to suffer repeated bouts of withdrawal from alcohol. (4 NIAAA defines binge drinking as consuming about four drinks for men or three drinks for women in about 2 hours.) This repeated withdrawal may be a key reason for alcohol’s harmful effects on the brain (10).
I don’t care whether they drink the same off campus as on, or whether those that attend school drink the same or less than those that don’t. 18 year olds should NOT be drinking. No matter where they are. Schools are only brought up because in lieu of parents, they are the authority and theoretically are looking out for OUR kids well being!
“They do NOT believe this because it is in scripture but because they have found things through SCIENTIFIC methods, that point to an intelligence of some sort.”
Except that they don’t use scientific methods. I haven’t read any paper htat had grounds in the scientific method. Also, I have NEVER EVER met an IDer who wasn’t religious. Never met an IDer that didn’t have an opinion on who the designer is (and it wasn’t aliens). You’d think that if they thought that there is a designer then they would try to figure out who that designer is. Sigh, I’m afraid they have no desire to give away their religious biases.
” ID only attempts to scientifically answer the first question.”
There is a major difference between IDers and theistic evolutionists, in terms of where they lay their beliefs. IDers generally spend their time “fighting darwinism”; theistic evolutionists ARE the ones who answer the question that science doesn’t. IDers are trying to remove evolution regardless of the evidence, because they don’t believe in it (and not because of evidence- because they have produced none). On the flip side, many theistic evolutionists have contributed very greatly to the wide body of evidence that evolution holds.
I know what I’m talking about. In high school I began as an IDer. Now I believe in theistic evolution. I’ve researched and come to my conclusion. Sorry, but there are some times where there is simply a crossroads between people who think they are right, and I think I”m right- and evidence is on my side. Furthermore, things that are scientific are pretty easy to define. ID doesn’t use the scientific method, and it doesn’t follow the philosophy behind the scientific method, so it’s not science. Plain and simple. Would you accept the idea that Mormons are Christians, even when you know they aren’t by their very definition of things? Same principle. Be vary wary of people who try to make it into some “big bad science vs the poor downtrodden hero” story– that is ID having a martyr complex. They are allowed to hold an opinion that God created us- that is just a personal spiritual belief. But they take it farther- they are trying to claim it’s science- but it’s not. Call me biased, but that is the way things are.
Here are some things to point out from the article. I’ll add this in a separate comment post.
Regarding Haeckel’s Embryos, SkepticWiki has a good summarization:
Haeckel’s hypothesis, which he called the “law of biogenesis”, was that the development of embryos should retrace the evolutionary development of their species: usually expressed by the slogan “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Haeckel’s hypothesis was based on a conception of evolution which is absolutely erroneous: the idea that successive evolutionary developments are tacked on to the end of the developmental process.
Creationists love to claim Haeckel’s drawings as an example of faked evidence for evolution. But of course, they are not fake evidence for evolution per se, but for the erroneous idea that evolution is recapitulated in embryological development.
The exact recapitulation that Haeckel believed in would in fact be a real puzzle in the context of the theory of evolution, since there is nothing in either the laws of genetics or the law of natural selection which requires the “biogenetic law” to be true: it would be baffling and inexplicable if it was. A mutation can, after all, affect any stage of development: there is no reason that the latest mutation to occur should also be the last to be expressed; and if a mutation affecting early development is beneficial, then it should be favored by natural selection.
One peculiar claim sometimes repeated by creationists is that Haeckel was convicted of fraud for his claims about embryos. Fraudulent scientific claims are not in and of themselves criminal, or our jails would be bursting at the seams with Young Earth Creationists.
Above all, Haeckel is valuable to creationists as a straw man For example, here [5] we have an article entitled Embryology Rejects the Lie of Evolution. It does not, of course, produce one single fact in embryology which actually conflict with the theory of evolution, because there aren’t any; instead it simply conflates the theory of evolution with Haeckel’s hypothesis and attacks that. This is much easier than attacking the actual theory of evolution or the mass of embryological data which supports it.
To quote the biologist Stephen Jay Gould:
We should… not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!
Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps more easily astonished than we are. Modern school textbooks are written by professional textbook writers: the chapters on embryology will not, as a rule, be written by embryologists. Creationist claims that these pictures are used “fraudulently” is sensational to the point of being libelous: there is a deep ethical distinction between being a con-man and being his dupe.
We may also discount Creationist claims that the theory of evolution needs to rest on such flimsy foundations, for want of better ones: as we have pointed out, the only thing that rests on Haeckel’s drawings is Haeckel’s own discredited hypothesis; the theory of evolution can get by very nicely without them.
Such cases are all too common in the writing of school-level textbooks. For example, the reader may well remember being taught in school that the hyperbolic shape of cooling towers helps them to cool vapor: this myth is so widespread that some university level textbooks of thermodynamics (e.g. Cengel and Bowles) take the time to rebut it explicitly. These claims, while regrettably common, are not deliberate fraud, nor are they required to support the theory of thermodynamics.
Regarding Miller-Urey experiment:
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment
A perfect critique. Highlights:
These allegations might seem serious; however, Wells’s knowledge of prebiotic chemistry is seriously flawed. First, Wells’s claim that researchers are ignoring the new atmospheric data, and that experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment fail when the atmospheric composition reflects current theories, is simply false. The current literature shows that scientists working on the origin and early evolution of life are well aware of the current theories of the earth’s early atmosphere and have found that the revisions have little effect on the results of various experiments in biochemical synthesis. Despite Wells’s claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth’s early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.
The NSCE is actually a really good resource for these issues! But I’ll continue. Regarding the tree of life:
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-2-darwins-tree-life
Wells mistakenly presents the Cambrian Explosion as if it were a single event. The Cambrian Explosion is, rather, the preservation of a series of faunas that occur over a 15-20 million year period starting around 535 million years ago (MA). A fauna is a group of organisms that live together and interact as an ecosystem; in paleontology, “fauna” refers to a group of organisms that are fossilized together because they lived together. The first fauna that shows extensive body plan diversity is the Sirius Passet fauna of Greenland, which is dated at around 535 MA (Conway Morris, 2000). The organisms preserved become more diverse by around 530 MA, as the Chenjiang fauna of China illustrates (Conway Morris, 2000). Wells erroneously claims that the Chenjiang fauna predates the Sirius Passet (Wells 2000:39). The diversification continues through the Burgess shale fauna of Canada at around 520 MA, when the Cambrian faunas are at their peak (Conway Morris, 2000). Wells makes an even more important paleontological error when he does not explain that the “explosion” of the middle Cambrian is preceded by the less diverse “small shelly” metazoan faunas, which appear at the beginning of the Cambrian (545 MA). These faunas are dated to the early Cambrian, not the Precambrian as stated by Wells (Wells 2000:38). This enables Wells to omit the steady rise in fossil diversity between the beginning of the Cambrian and the Cambrian Explosion (Knoll and Carroll, 1999).
Homology: http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-3-homology
Today, biologists still diagnose homologous structures by first searching for structures of similar form and position, just as pre-Darwinian biologists did. (They also search for genetic, histological, developmental, and behavioral similarities.) However, in our post-Darwin period, biologists define a homologous structure as an anatomical, developmental, behavioral, or genetic feature shared between two different organisms because they inherited it from a common ancestor. Because not all features that are similar in two organisms are necessarily inherited from a common ancestor, and not all features inherited from a common ancestor are similar, it is necessary to test structures before they can be declared homologous. To answer the question, “could this feature in these groups be inherited from a common ancestor?” scientists compare the feature across many groups, looking for patterns of form, function, development, biochemistry, and presence and absence. Many features are tested simultaneously against genealogy through a process that Kluge (1997; see also Kluge, 1998, 1999 for discussions of independent homology tests) termed testing “multiple ad hoc hypotheses of homology.”
Peppered Moths: http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-6-peppered-moths
The purpose of Wells’s distraction is to put the actual experiments into question and make it sound as if the textbook authors are either mistaken, or intentionally trying to fool students. The insinuation is that because Kettlewell released the moths during the day, they did not find “normal” resting places. Whether or not this is so, the release and capture experiments took place over a number of days, so the moths were able to take up positions of their choosing, even if the first day was not perfectly “natural” (Kettlewell, 1955, 1956, 1973). Kettlewell’s experiments were not perfect — few field experiments are — and they may have magnified the degree of selection, but all serious researchers in the field agree that they were certainly not so flawed as to invalidate his conclusion.
In his second objection, Wells ties the Kettlewell experiments to textbooks by constantly repeating the statement that the illustrative photos were “staged” (Wells, 2000:150); the important issue here is not how the photos were made, but rather their intent. Wells implies that the photos purport to show a “lifelike” condition to prove that moths rest on trunks. This is not the case. The photos are meant to demonstrate the visibility of the different forms of the moth on polluted and unpolluted trees. It is absurd to expect a photographer to just sit around and wait until two differently colored moths happen to alight side by side. Further, how the photos were produced does not change the actual data. Birds eat moths and they eat the ones that they see more easily first. The textbook photos never claim to depict a real-life situation, and it is improper to imply otherwise.
Finches: http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-7-darwins-finches
Wells initially focuses on the “biological urban legend” that the finches inspired Darwin to compose his theory of evolution. Of course this has nothing to do with whether or not the finches are a good example of an adaptive radiation. Therefore, his “requirement” that textbooks specifically mention that the finches “played no role” in Darwin’s formulation of natural selection is irrelevant, only serving Wells’s efforts to portray evolutionary biologists as people who just “make things up.” This is like saying that because Betsy Ross did not really sew the U.S. flag, the flag does not actually exist. Wells even goes so far as to brand the finches a “legend” — what is he trying to imply? Finally, Wells’s assertion that Darwin was not inspired by the finches is not exactly correct. Although Darwin did not realize the significance of the finches until after Gould pointed it out to him in 1837, he then noted that the different species of finches were island-specific like the other Galápagos animals and suggested that they too were descendants of a mainland ancestor. Darwin made extensive notes about the finches in his diaries (Desmond and Moore 1991). The finches, then, did play a role in the formulation of Darwin’s theory and they became an important part of his evidence for the role of natural selection in evolution; they were not a “speculative afterthought” as Wells claims.
To get a good handle on human evolution re: fossils etc I highly recommend this video as a start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8
Oh, and finally I recommend for a really good handle about the debate, you look at some of the dover transcripts, here: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
A good introduction to theistic evolution is “Finding Darwin’s God.” Good stuff.
MK-
They are drinking so dangerously because it’s the way age 21 has forced it to happen- in excess away from any safe oversight.
I wish more people took advantages of laws in some states that allow parents to serve their children alcohol. It demystifies it and teaches responsible drinking.
As for harm, alcohol harms adults as well. That is no surprise. Alcohol is quite literally a poison. However, the harm you mention is not known all that well. Many individuals have no effects whatsoever, and some face some ill effects. The most damage tends to come to those who combine alcohol with drug use, for obvious reasons.
I know the dangers of alcohol. A friend of mine just moved back to Boston after being hit by a drunk driver in the western part of the state (they only survived because they were in a Volvo), and I have a mother who has been sober now for about ten years, and a father my sister and I have confronted on a few occasions about his drinking habits. Throw that in with the health problems, and one wonders why humans ever felt the need to continue drinking it aside from feeling the toxic effects (i.e. getting a buzz or getting drunk).
Pip,
Thank you very much. That is much more in line with what I expected from you.
I’m not out to PROVE YOU WRONG…as I have said, so many times I’m sick of hearing myself, I know virtually NOTHING about evolution. I have no real opinion about it one way or the other. I try to listen to everything, and Denis Miller (I think I said Michael Medved earlier, sorry) had this guy on the radio and it raised some questions…
Dan,
All I can say is that you keep proving my points for me…lol…I think I’ll just let you keep talkin’ and before you know it you’ll have talked yourself into my way of thinking.
As for the reasons teens binge drink…it has nothing to do with the drinking age in my opinion and everything to do with being 18. You honestly believe, that if the drinking age were lowered to 18, 18 year olds would sit around sipping white wine and calling cabs to get home, and not use drugs because, hey, they feel so grown up now that they are allowed to legally drink???? Funny, the drinking age was 19 when I was 19 and I was working in a bar. I still got smashed out of my brains every chance I got…and so did all of my friends.
MK- I imagine you being smashed and I start giggling. is that so wrong?
Pip,
I giggle myself remembering. You’d be surprised at how I used to be. I forget that you guys only know me as the “Old Catholic Broad”…
Picture me with a Stevie Nicks perm, a black leather mini skirt, hot pink converse high tops, a doobie in one hand, my 5th beer in the other, reading tarot cards while Pete Whalen (Remember him from the St. Patty’s Parade) is playing Simon and Garfunkel in Dan the Piano guys basement…
That ought to make you giggle.