According to this recent study on Friday classes and college drinking by the University of Missouri-Columbia, Thursday drinking on college campus has a negative correlation with Friday class: the less class on Friday, the more drinking on Thursday nights. While this insightful study proves what any college student could have told you, it raises concern for administrations who want to decrease the level of alcohol consumption in their students. The director of the study, Dr. Wood, suggests the following solution: colleges should require students to enroll in early classes - before 10 a.m. - on Fridays.
What?
As someone who usually has class on Fridays (often as early as 9 or 10), I haven't been able to partake much in Thirsty Thursday extravaganzas; however, knowing this upcoming semester promises Fridays free from classes, I probably will spend a couple Thursday evenings this autumn enjoying the start of a three day weekend. Of course Friday classes inhibit or discourage drinking of Thursday nights, but proposing a schoolwide requirement for Friday classes? What about drinking on Friday and Saturday nights? The proposal seems, besides being impossible and ridiculous, like a bandage solution for the larger problem of alcohol consumption. Sure, perhaps Friday classes would cut down on Thursday drinking, but there's a lot of other ways to cut down weekend drinking. Cut the football program: no tailgating, no after parties, less game hype since watching it on TV is nothing like it is live, there would probably be less drinking. If you have a private, religious church, force everyone to 7:00 Sunday morning service. It would probably cut down on Saturday drinking.
I give props to the administration for caring for the students, but no offense, I think you're fighting a losing battle. Until America as a whole changes its perspective on drinking, I imagine the Thirsty Thursday will not die a quiet death.
Consensual Sex?
If you've been following this story, the young man in Georgia sentenced for ten years in prison for consensual oral sex between himself (17) and his partner (15) will not be up for bail. I have conflicting opinions on laws of consent, age of consent, and sexual interaction between young people in general, but I find this case an interesting example of sex law in the US. Note that for Georgia, the laws for rape (not aggravated child molestation as he was charged) state that: (b) A person convicted of the offense of rape shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this Code section shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7 (according to Georgia sexual offenses).
There seems to be a wide gap, in my opinion, between consensual oral sex at a young age and rape, which can apparently yield the same sentence of ten years in prison. I'm not advocating lesser sentences for sex offenders, but it seems like attacking a consensual oral sex between a fifteen and a seventeen year old seems somewhat extreme (especially when aggressive, first degree rapists can have the exact same sentence). I am no authority on any sort of law, but I would almost support a fourteen year old age of consent with a two year time gap for consensual sex such that a sexual acts could occur between fourteen to sixteen, fifteen and seventeen etc.
Additionally, the proposed sentences for rape also seem to vary a great deal, punishable by ten years in prison or death? While I am no expert, I would daresay that each rape is very different with varying circumstances that most likely require different sentences, but isn't the very acting of human violation the same? The varying degrees of sentence, to me, suggest that degree of violation can vary drastically when it is always an extremely heinous crime.
Prozac Pregnancies
Experts now claim that Prozac and other SSRI drugs might not be as high-risk to pregnant women as once thought. It is encouraging to know that pregnant women might be able to use anti-depressants during pregnancy, perhaps to offset the stress and anxiety caused by pregnancy. While I think that anti-depressants are theoretically a good thing, part of me wonders what women are doing having children if they are clinically depressed or dependent on anti-depressants anyways.
I'm not saying that clinically depressed women do not deserve to have children or incapable of raising healthy, happy children. I understand that a lot of anti-depressants work to cure chemical imbalances to correct a physical process in the human body, sure thing. But what about the women who take anti-depressants because they simply do not feel happy or satisfied with their lives? I grant that adding a child to one's life has the potential to improve quality of life, but I think overall a child could cause more complications than solutions. If you're not happy as you are, you might need to work on changing your attitudes and perspectives within yourself before adding a fully dependent person to your responsibilities.
Other things that made me wonder...
- "Ask a bunch of straight guys [if they could switch to being gay] and they would tell you, 'Are you kidding me?' " says Rieger, a lecturer in psychology at Northwestern University. "So the other way around doesn't work either."
- For example, it finds that only nine states...require aspiring elementary-school teachers to take an introductory American history class while in education school."You want to make sure the teacher knows something about the American Revolution and the Civil War," Walsh said.
One last note...I don't know why, but my blog registers this month as qershor instead of June. I think it's trying to tell me something.
Nuk ka komente:
Posto një koment