Dorms as Brothels.

Interesting article. Not sure my thoughts on it really.

Deplorable, but it's not colleges/universities job to play parent. They should old enough to take care of themselves.

But might one say, as in the case of the Nebraska Postcard thingy, that the colleges might actually build on this trend and use it to their own benifit when recuriting people?

Okay yeah that was pretty bad. Colleges shouldn't encourage that behavior.

I fail to see the problem with the behavior that the colleges are supposedly encouragin. Social and moral values change with time, the author of the article tries to state at the beginning of the piece that he recognizes this and doesn't want to attack new shifts in cultural attitudes, but by the end it is apparent that that is exactly what he is doing.

Hmm. You see, I would think that the colleges should encourage the education, not the behaviour of the students in this matter. A college shouldn't bill itself as a party school (though they do) or a sports school (though they do) but as an education facility.

And I agree with your latter point. I had trouble fully understanding the real point of this article when the author states that he doesn't "Long for the good old days" but then seems to have a strong pointed arugement against what we have today.

Because it's a college/university. When they start to advertise itself for something it's not intended for(giant parties/orgies) then what's the point of going. Hell if they're gonna advertise for something other than education then they should probably lose any recognition for being a place of education.

Agreed. To move away from the use of sexuality in advertising, though, the biggest problem I have with this article is the assertation that the university system has moral " responsibilities of in loco parentis" regarding the actions of their students. While I don't think the universities should promote (or use in promotions) this behavior, I don't think it is their responsibility to prevent it. To use the author's own experience, the men at UVa in his time were "gentlemen" which, to me, implies a group of (young) adults who are old enough to be responsible for their own actions.

As for cultural shift, I think the sexual trend in colleges is as much a result of a shift in the purpose of universities in current American culture. In "the good old days" college life was job training for upper-middle class America. Most people were "married by the age of 23 or 24, many to our college sweethearts." The shift we see is away from "job training" and towards "self-discovery" (in the sense that we now believe we should "do what you're passionate about" for a career, not simply what we're good at or what pays best.) Many marry much later, into ther ate 20s and early 30s. Dating and courting happens largely after the college years.

I could go on, but I'll leave it at that...(and none of this means that I find the described behavior acceptable, because I don't)

Ask the people that go.

College is a product like anything else, it's not "for" anything but what the consumers want when they purchase it.

Really the only thing that affects academic accreditation is the perceived value by peers of the degrees offered by the school. Anything beyond that is simply another "feature" offered by the service provider to differentiate his product from the competition, and thus attract more consumers. If we only allowed products in this society to have one use and one use only, we wouldn't be nearly so prosperous as we are.

The majority of people probably still go to college primarily for an education, but that is not the only thing they seek. And for some, that's not even the primary goal. That's their decision to make and theirs alone.

That's what a college should do if it wants to attract you as a customer. You are far from the only consumer out there, you're a completely insignificant portion of total demand for college services.

Point is what?

That what you want colleges to promote or offer is not necessarily important.

Point is what?

Actually, by definition, colleges and universities are for something.

"University" has a similar definition, but includes graduate programs/degrees.

:ermm: I hope you know you're abusing the dictionary. Colleges are a service product. And like any other product in the economy, their "purpose" is subject to the demand of consumers and the reaction by suppliers.

To dispute your perception of the world.

Are you seriously going to play this game?

Well that's all well and good, but I hope they don't expect the government to keep paying financial aid to students who want to go there.

Oh, so my perception is that colleges should bow down to my will? Ah right, I'm glad you could clear that up with me. See, I thought that I was merely stating my opinion. how wrong I was about my personal intetions/[/sarcasm]

Why not? So long as they're accredited learning institutions that give degrees to successful students, I don't see a problem with anything else, the goal of financial aid is to encourage a wider field of people to achieve an education.

So now I have to ask you, if you didn't care what anyone else thought of your opinion or its significance in this world, why did you state it? This is a discussion forum, you offer up something like that, either I or someone else will evaluate its merit and respond.

Because believe it or not, I didn't expect my post on this forum to change the way colleges thought of the world and viewed their learning institution. I merely add my opinon to this forum and see where dicussion leads. I could go around and state that all of your posts are worthless to the people they are in reference to, and that would do.....nothing at all. So yay for you, you sucessfully made an asine useless comment for no reason.

I consider that point done with, you may continue to talk about it if you wish.

And when you attack responses as you have, it leads to this point. My posts on this forum are given with the purpose of changing other people's opinions and adding to my own repository of knowledge. If you post an opinion that I disagree with, I will make that disagreement known, and I will continue that discussion until one of us relents.

I'm sorry that you think my original comment was useless. You'd do well to reread it, as it's purpose was to put your own opinion in the context of the system we were discussing, and to show its true value within that system.

Thanks, but I was going to whether you gave me permission or not.

Good for you. Any more off topic posts will be deleted (as we've both gone far enough off topic on this one, not even an interesting tangent :lol:) ,I figured you might want the chance to get the last word in. If you want to continue this, do it via PM.

Back on topic now....

Well as you said LP...

The students may want to go for the parties, but the government wants you to go for a higher education and the government is putting up the money. It isn't exactly in the government's best interest to pay tuition to a place that advertises that you can 'play the field'.

Hmm, but if they are producing people who obtain degrees, have a higher education and all that, the same as other universities that don't advertise for parties, whats wrong with that?

Well that depends. If their percentage of people graduating starts to drop then they become a risk and I'd rather not have my tax dollars wasted anymore than they already are.

Is there some kind of study on this? I don't think there is, but there should be.

Colleges are more than just service industry. The government gives grants to subsidize the research & developement that occurs there. They are given property tax cuts, energy, etc. & its students receive government financial aid in the form of both government subsidized loans & grants.

If taxpayers are subsidizing you then they have say in the running of the business.

Most parents don't send their kids to college to get pregnant. A large number of abortions that occur in this country are by females in college. It leads to family issues over the value of a life & whose life has priority. If the parents are still supporting these students & claiming them as dependants, then they still have some say in the structural environment of their lives & the institutions they attend so that they're not disruptive to their families.

Some colleges have seen increasing drop out rates, some haven't. I don't think there's been any attempt to link the two (sounds likea good research project though). In any event, drop out rates in big universities aren't nearly large enough that government needs to get in a huff about it.

That's something parents should take up with their kids, then, not the government. College children are (except for an insignificant minority) adults of voting age themselves, with full legal responsibility to make their own decisions.

The decision of those adult females, their responsibility, their problem.

They do. If parents don't like it, they can choose not to pay for it. In the marketplace, you vote with your pocketbook. If colleges are making money off of such campaigns, it means that those campaigns are making sales, in this case, as you say, that means the parents are buying.

These are not independant people standing on their own feet and neither is the institution. They don''t have the independant means yet to stand on their own in society that's why they're in school. The only reason they have voting rights is because the government wanted to exploit them with the draft. They demanded lowered voting age in return. Parents were not for this. They are not wholly independant to contract because parents can still be sued for acts their children do until 21 if they're still dependants. You're not acknowledging that they fall in grey areas in legal terms. They don't have life experience yet in all areas & still need parental guidance. For many its their first time away from their parents for any long period. Anyways the purpose of government is serve the people within the nation. If parents are paying then they can take it up with government.

Your second statement is very callous to any social responsibility. What kind of civilization do you want? People need more than just money to function. They have a right to pursue happiness too. That includes forming family bonds and its ability to function.

Though a certain poster does fail to remain eloquently respectful, the point is validly made when it comes to the higher education in this country. It is a business, providing value added services to it's consumers in whatever forms it may.

Sports, especially college football and basketball to a degree, remain a strongly deciding factor. The better their historical performance, their scouting and recruiting, the coaching and the "perks", the more students there are that likely to join their ranks.