Within the research literature (for instance, Roche and Watts, 1999), student

drinking is commonly discussed in the context of the major lifecycle

transition involved in the move from a second to a third level educational

institution. From this perspective, colleges are not mere education mills

where the entire focus is on academic learning, the passing of examinations

or the acquisition of qualifications. Instead, college life is widely viewed as

providing  young people, who are no longer children but who are still

outside the workforce, with a unique status and with the  opportunity to

socialise with peers and have fun; and part of this fun commonly involves

drinking. Although most heavy drinking students can be expected to mature

out of this habit as they progress through their college careers and, later

still, take on a range of work and other personal responsibilities

(Schulenberg and Maggs, 2002),  this  is not to suggest that there is no

necessity for college alcohol policies. On the contrary, the negative

consequences of student drinking (which are considered in detail in the

accompanying CLAN report) are generally regarded as justifying the

drafting and implementation of college policies aimed at reducing this

spectrum of harm.  

In line with the broader public health approach to alcohol related problems

(Edwards et al., 1994; Babor et al., 2003),  it  is suggested that colleges can

only hope to be successful when they employ a 

policy mix 

which combines a

range of  individual and environmental  prevention strategies. Perhaps  the

most commonly used individual strategy is that which aims to prevent

alcohol related problems by educating drinkers about the risks involved in

alcohol consumption and urging them to be moderate in their drinking

habits; these educational approaches are philosophically attractive in that

they are not  paternalistic but instead respect the right of adults to make

their own decisions. Such strategies would seem particularly suited to third 

level colleges where students are expected to be more autonomous and

self directed than would be the norm in primary and secondary educational

systems. However, research on the outcomes of education of this kind

(Interim Report of the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol, 2002; Larimer and

Crance, 2002) has consistently found that while it may increase knowledge

and influence attitudes, it is largely unsuccessful in changing actual drinking

practices, and that it is unrealistic to expect it to counteract other

environmental forces which normalise and facilitate regular, heavy drinking.

Social norms marketing

(Perkins, 2003) is a relatively  new  form of alcohol

education devised in the USA and aimed at fostering  less risky drinking  in

colleges by educating students  about how moderate peer drinking norms

actually  are.  Although its proponents claim considerable success for social

norms marketing,  the  results of the first national evaluation (Wechsler et

al., 2003) did not support  these claims.  Public health advocates (American

Medical Association, 2002) generally tend to view drinks industry

involvement in third level colleges as being based on commercial

59