Last week, The Post reported this year's survey results from AlcoholEdu, the alcohol prevention program all Ohio University freshmen are required to complete. This year's freshmen reported less alcohol use - 47 percent classified themselves as high risk drinkers in October, as opposed to 65 percent of last year's incoming class. But drinking still increases once students hit school: Only 37.7 percent of freshmen this year had reported themselves as high risk drinkers before their first quarter - meaning the class experienced a 10-point jump once reaching Athens.
More worrying, however, is that freshmen's recreational use of prescription drugs is on the rise. 20.2 percent of freshmen reported using drugs in October, and 21.6 percent of those said they used prescription drugs like Ritalin, Adderall and Cylert. That's up from 2005, when only 8 percent of drug users reported using prescription drugs.
Despite the program's failure to decrease high-risk drinking, Ohio University continues to spend $41,000 a year on AlcoholEdu. Apparently, OU still thinks that this is a worthwhile investment. But this belief only underscores the chasm between administration and students: Most participants believe the online program is a joke.
AlcoholEdu does not teach anything that students have not already been exposed to in high school health class. Most of it is common sense - who really thinks that binge drinking is a healthy practice? Most students treat it as a busywork assignment, clicking through the parts while chatting with their roommates or watching The Office. It would be a far better allocation of resources to distill the information into a couple handouts and ask resident assistants to go over the information during their first floor meeting of the year.
But that won't happen, simply because OU - thanks to its party-school reputation - needs to demonstrate its commitment to healthy alcohol usage. AlcoholEdu is less about students' health and safety, and more about making OU look proactive. If students' health were a top priority, Hudson Health Center wouldn't be understaffed and stuck in a building that even administrators have said is unhealthy. But AlcoholEdu continues, and students still have to take their chances with a health center that may or may not meet their needs.
At a time when OU is worried about its budget, spending $41,000 on a program that students generally ignore and deride is a waste of money. OU would better serve its students by using that money elsewhere - for example, to improve Hudson. While the money won't be enough to begin to solve Hudson's problems, it would be much needed step in that direction. At the very least, it would indicate a university commitment to student health - as opposed to the current attitude, which seems to think that PR and promises are enough to patch the problem.
Editorials represent the views of The Post's executive editors.
4 Opinion
AlcoholEdu not worth high cost when Hudson needs drastic improvements
