Congratulations are in order for the Ohio University student body. We did it.
With fortitude, grit, determination and a lot of self-serving student surveys we’ve managed to reclaim our rightful spot among The Princeton Review’s top five party schools.
Much to the chagrin of an administration that has fought hard to neutralize the party school image by stepping up penalties for alcohol use, OU came out on top for hard liquor consumption and fifth in overall drunkenness in the 2009 edition.
We’ll try to do better next year.
By exaggerating as much as possible when answering questions on the use of alcohol and drugs, the number of hours spent studying outside of class time and the popularity of Greek life, we can climb to number one.
Remember the time you started a water balloon fight on South Green? Forget it. You pieced together, (using only dorm furniture, dining hall trays and duct tape,) a water slide descending from a fourth-floor dorm window. The beer bong you made with your roommate? Scrap it. You loaded a super soaker with cheap liquor — and took it to philosophy class.
It’s not too early to start thinking about next year, so go to http://survey.review.com to put OU on the road to notoriety.
But wait, The Princeton Review challenges the headway evidenced by judiciary numbers that show a major drop in alcohol-related cases since 2005. Total violations dropped 351 from last year, when OU ranked ninth among party schools.
Given these numbers, a gnawing question arises: are OU students drinking less, or are they just getting better at avoiding detection?
Let’s suspend our skepticism of a ranking system based only on voluntary student surveys for a minute and pose an even better question.
Is The Princeton Review’s latest ranking actually a testament to the average OU student’s ability to adapt?
We think so. Nay, we know so.
Given the record number of nationally competitive awards won by OU students this year, judiciary numbers and this latest party school list, we must conclude that OU students are getting smarter — and drunker, apparently.
When you think about it in this light, The Princeton Review’s list is far from a black eye for the administration. It catalogues university-wide success.
Through their recruiting efforts and policies, the administration has managed to attract smart, hard-drinking students — the ultimate double-threat. This new breed enjoys a rum and coke but is crafty enough not to get caught with it.
Our university features a student body we’ll put up against the best of them — in the classroom and the bar.
So why should students be the only ones enjoying all the backslapping over the Princeton Review?
Pat yourselves on the back, Ohio University administration. You’ve done well.
Reader Comments
God I hope the university pulls funding from The Post. You make me sick!
Right when I thought the "lets talk bad about the administration even when it doesn't really apply to the situation at all" group of writers had graduated, we get this drivel. Looks like it's another year of hack journalism!
We're all gluttons for punishment. I find some of the stuff in the Post rather... disappointing, to say the least, but, just like you two (ts1227 and CNash), I still read it! Online, anyway.
Incidentally, it does relate to the administration, as in recent years they have tried to crack-down on the "party school" image and, judging by the new Princeton Review, failed miserably.
Anyone look at the rankings? I find it interesting that OU ranked in the Party Schools, Lots of Hard Liquor and Lots of Beer lists (and no other lists), while the four schools that beat us on the Party list also appeared on rankings like Best Career/Job Placement Services, Best College Newspaper, Best College Library, even Everyone Plays Intramural Sports. Maybe the students who vote just want to maintain OU's image as a party school and, as they're already enrolled, couldn't care less about college rankings. Who knows.
OU for "best journalism"?? LOL!!
Will never happen as the first two so eloquently point out. So as curiosity states, bring on the gluttony.
Im really disappointed with this article, it had the opportunity to be a great evaluation of the results of the survey and failed miserably.
In the article it came so close to being a balanced story but become a stupid rant when the author wrote "Let’s suspend our skepticism of a ranking system based only on voluntary student surveys." People only fill out surveys they are interested in, this is especially true when the surveys evaluate yourself.
Ex.
Men, would you be interested in a survey that evaluated your shopping habits to see if you had a great fashion sense nationwide?
Women, would you be interested in a survey that asked your weight lifting performance to compare your strength nationwide?
The answer to both of these are obviously No's, and that is how people who aren't determined to make OU climb the party list feel. As a result, the people who will volunteer to take the time to fill out the surveys will likely exaggerate their answers in order to sway the results in "their favor". The same would likely be true if you switched the genders above, men would exaggerate their strength and women would likely say they bought more expensive brands.
The survey is obviously garbage (as is AlcoholEdu for the same reasons), and people need to stop considering its words to be gospel. These pointless publications also serve to depreciate your degree in employer's eyes, as well as attract non-bobcat students and the destruction and police presence that they bring with them(i.e. Halloween which I think most people would agree is not our best party weekend)
By the way, sarcastic congratulations/compliments to administrators is really played out.
Gee… am I the only one who saw this editorial for what it really was, a sarcastic commentary on the dubious value of Princeton Review rankings? Did none of the other commentators get the point the editors were trying to make?… that the Princeton Review rankings are garbage, non-scientific, and we should not take them too seriously, like our administration seems to? They are essentially saying what most people in the comment thread are saying, So… I am confused about the visceral reaction to it. When I see statements like “a lot of self-serving student surveys”, “By exaggerating as much as possible when answering questions on the use of alcohol and drugs” and let’s not forget “Let’s suspend our skepticism of a ranking system based only on voluntary student surveys for a minute”… I see what they are getting at, and cannot see why it is so hard to understand.
I hardly think the Post is advocating any of the behavior mentioned in the editorial (like bringing a super soaker full of liquor to philosophy class) they are simply saying exactly what everyone else is… that students embellish when taking these non-scientific surveys so they are easily manipulated junk. All you need to do to be #1 is lie and lie big.
And yes…. I do think our administration deserves a bit of ribbing on this issue… because they seem to be incredibly dishonest with themselves as to the extent of the alcohol problem on campus. They write a new policy that does little except increase sanctions for drinking…. Watch as our judicial referrals drop, and then say hallelujah the battle is won. However, in the surveys that are given out by Health Promotions (actual scientific surveys that are used to keep us in accordance with the Drug-Free Schools and Communities act) we see little change in behavior. For example… 50% of our incoming freshmen report binge drinking prior to arrival (higher than the national average), a full 77-79% of our student body reports drinking five or more drinks over a two week span (may not seem like much, but that actually means that nearly 8 in 10 members of our student body show potential high-risk behavior over a two week span, kinda astounding) and the most dubious is that over the past three years, OU Students have reported that they drink an average of 14, 16, and then 14 (again this year) drinks per week (a fairly statistically insignificant change, in addition to being around DOUBLE the national average) I guess what I am saying is…. We drink…. A lot…. And we drink recklessly…. A lot…. And it always seems like upper administrators are denial about that or wish it was not true (except for the people in Health Promotions… they are the only one’s who are not afraid to be blunt). Once again these are our numbers and they are collected using reliable methods (unlike the Princeton Review)
And this is precisely because our entire approach to combating binge drinking has been stricter sanctions… which has decreased our judicial referrals… but not significantly changed behavior in our own surveys It is not rocket science to determine what that means (students adapted to the new policy). We needed a more holistic approach to dealing with alcohol abuse. Here is an idea for starters…. We are working a lot with improving the freshmen experience for retention purposes, why not beef up our 100 level classes and make freshman year harder? Why not make our prerequisites (particularly in the humanities and social sciences, where most of our students are enrolled) actually difficult?
I am not saying this would be the end-all be-all, but other schools have used it for retention purposes (Duke being the most prominent, it is based off of the theory that students are socialized into how much work they will need to do throughout their college career within the first couple of semesters/qtrs) we could try it as an effort to combat binge drinking among first year students. Once again, I am not saying it would be perfect, but multiple approaches have to be made if you want to change behavior. Student Senate essentially made the argument that we needed a multi-layered approach to binge drinking three years ago… and were kinda ignored in favor of a policy that only toughened sanctions,,, but we can start doing things like this now. So… I say at least…. Bravo to the Post for a funny editorial… I laughed the whole time.
Which brings me to my last point… people at this school seem to mess up the distinction between columns, letters to the editor, editorials, and actual ARTICLES a lot… and I do not know why. An editorial does not need to be balanced… or objective… or simply state what all sides of the argument are… In fact, it would look kind of silly if they did because it would completely destroy the purpose of an OPINION page… you can disagree with the opinion all you want (although I noted that I do not think many people are fundamentally disagreeing with most of the assertions in this article), but if you are going to talk about whether something is “balanced reporting”…. Please do so on comment boards that are not part of the opinion page
And yes.... I know I used the word article in the third to last sentence.... no one is perfect :)
dom: you are right: the editorial did poke fun at the P review and ribbed the administration. You are also correct that editorials do not need to be balance BUT an editorial board is beholden to the institution that provides the financial backing to it. The Post, a long with all other papers, cannot afford to the rub the financial bankingers noses in its own shit because eventually they are going to take their ball and go home. My point is, the post has every right to be critical of the administration but there is a line...I believe they have crossed that line many times over including this editorial.
backers*
Curt: EEEH I am going to have to disagree with you there.... the Post has been editorially independent for many years... I really do not think they are beholden to anyone.... the university can not censor them because their editorial page is considered a traditionally open forum... and even though the university could pull funding if they really wanted... come on... they would not do anything that dumb.... imagine how bad the chronicle of higher ed ... dispatch... or hell even a national publication would eviscerate us.... would be much worse than the damage caused by any editorial in a school newspaper
plus let's not forget the money that is given to the Post only goes to pay for a budget staff member (and only part of his salary, shout out to Jim you rock)... not to the production of the paper.... so to try and link them to our institution is kind of a leap.... Trust me, 95% of their funding comes from ad buys anyway and the reason they get office space is pretty much due to tradition (they were in fact fully funded by the school until the mid 70s)... I also have heard that they tend to give all of the money back to the school that is given to them at the end of the year as a matter of policy... which would further compound things
so yea the administration could pull funding or take away their office (although that might even be dicey)... but its effect would be nil... and the blowback on our institution from free-speech groups would probably be worse...
though I do not agree... I like debating people who know what they are talking about
dom: i see your point. i disagree with a few small issues that arent worth arguing; however i disagree that the effect of pulling out funding would be nil. Yes, in terms of money it may mean little; but the administration would be sending a message that there are consequences to one's actions. If you piss your boss off you probably will be fired. If you say or write something that offends a backer, they will pull their money out.
at any rate. the university should not pay to have its name dragged through the mud, no matter how small the funding is.
OR the university could just tell the post its has to pay rent for the use of baker center.
Cnash..
charging them rent would lead to complaints of trying to limit free speech or drum up even more resentment for fighting 'the power.'
But you are right, the University should not have there generous handout to the Post be returned by tar and feathering. The university should be called out when it is warranted (such as the bonus given to the president with the current financial state of the univ.) however in this case the rant is absurd.
Once again.... I really do not understand why this editorial is so offensive to people.... they lightly prod at the administration for focusing so much on judicial referrals (instead of actually trying to change behavior, which all of our data I noted above says is not true) Other than that.... they make fun of the Princeton Review and stick up for OU students by mentioning how many awards we win.... If people think this is so offensive maybe you should all read some of their editorials from the late 60's or early 70's.... this is nothing.
Where do we draw the line at what is acceptable criticism and what is not? no one seems to be able to say what it is.... and where does it stop? I was President of GSS for two years... and we passed a lot of resolutions that were very critical of the administration.... we receive money... should our funding have been pulled? Should all of the athletes who protested the sport cuts (I hate this example, but it is salient and current) have had their scholarships revoked? What if the Greek community expresses outrage over any new policy, should all of their charters be pulled? I guess I just do not see where legitimate criticism ends and "tar and feathering" begins. And considering success with dealing with alcohol has been part of the President's goals as listed by the Trustees for the past three years.... it seems just as legitimate as discussing the salary raise, our budget problems... or any other issue.
And let's face it... the university does not actually give the Post a dime... WE do through our general fee money. So they are beholden to us... not the university. If we want to remove our general fee money from them.... we could do it (I still think it would be petty and make us all look dumb though), and they have office space in Baker that once again our fees pay for (FYI all of the students at the Post pay these fees too)... so I really do not see them as under any obligation to be nice to our administration. Now if we as students wanted to make our "power of the purse" known in terms of our general fee and yank funding... that is our perogative.... just once again I think it would make us look silly and would probably garner more negative publicity for the university than any editorial would have
Submit a comment to The Post