Originally Posted by Justin '77

faerowan and Alex,

Where in the Hell did you get the idea I disapproved of giving a caffenated beverage to a kid to calm them down? I thought, from the context of the rest of my post, that it was clear I intended to show a perfectly workable alternative to what is undeniably a hard psychotropic drug in treating even a physiological condition. Plus, if a kid didn't react in the classic 'hyperactive' manner (by mellowing out on a stimulant), the 'experiment' was not repeated. Clearly, the potential for damage in such a case is far, far less than what you would see subjecting a kid to a 'trial-run' -- usually 1-2 weeks of twice or three-times daily doses -- of Ritalin.

The irregular lobal activity faerowan describes is characteristic of (organic) hyperactivity. Attention-deficit, however, (to the best of my knowledge, and since I was 'diagnosed' as having it and put on the R for a couple of years,I've a personal interest in educating myself) has no recognized characteristic organic component.

As for the 1997 NIMH study, here is a link to an analysis of the study. I post only the paragraph headings; the link goes into much further detail:

I. The MTA was not a placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.
II. The blind classroom raters found no difference in any of the treatment groups, i.e., behavioral interventions were equal to medication interventions.
III. There was no control group of untreated children.
IV. Thirty-two percent of the Medication Management group was already on medication for ADHD at the start of the MTA.
V. The Medication Management group was highly selective (in ways that are not fully described) and probably not typical of children who seek services for "ADHD."
VI. The Medication Management group was relatively small.
VII. The children did not rate themselves improved.
VIII. Most of the subjects were boys.
IX. Drug treatment was continuous for fourteen months; behavioral treatments were stopped earlier.
X. The behavioral treatments were flawed.
XI. Most children suffered from adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
XII. There were no trained observers for ADRS.
XIII. There was no improvement in academic performance.
XIV. There was very little effect on social skills.
XV. All the principal investigators were well-known drug advocates.
XVI. The parents and teachers were exposed to prodrug propaganda.

This is not to say that some people do get nothing but benefit from the use of Ritalin (or any other psychotropic drug, for that matter). My primary beef is its relatively widespread use on children.

Point A) I never got the idea that you disproved the idea of giving kids caffine yo calm them down (as it so happens I do happen to dissaprove, but that's only because a number of my friend drink inane amounts of caffenated soda and coffee. They're a bit addicted at this point)
Point B) Wrong study. It was 14 months, published in 99, and involved 479 children.
Point C) MRI studies are done on people with ADHD as well as other disorders that appear in the DSM-IVR. As far as I know, those with ADHD doe have elivated activity in the frontal lobes. (that doesn't mean their frontal lobes are going haywire. Even a slight amount of elivated activty or shifts in the brain can cause half-bummed things to happen)
Point D) I'm sorry if it sounded like an attack. It was written late at night for me, and i was having a hard time writing stuff down. I kept going and going and going. I even forgot one thing I was supposed to list , from being so hyper.
Point E) I see we ahve more in common than I thought. I also did research after finding out my diagnosis(es)
Point F) I believe that psychotropic medications do have their use in pychology and psychiatrity, but should not be the only option.
Point G)There is an over and under medication of peopeol with ADHD. Social barriers preventpeopel wqho are part of the 3-5% who do hve the diorder. (remeber the large majority learns how to adapt on thier own, though usually not with full success)
Point H) I enjoy arguing with you Justin. Just thought you'd like to know.

Well so long, back to pacing and fast flowing thoughts. Faerowan

faerowan,

I don't argue that ADHD has no organic component (I will continue referring to it as such, since I need some way to differentiate between disorders which will respond to medication vs to therapy), rather that what is called ADHD is what used to be called hyperactivity, and that the addition of the AD-D is superfluous, and has the effect of conveying the impression of organic status on the 'disorder' called ADD (which I was diagnosed with; since I was a generally poorly-behaved kid, but never had problems concentrating or other classic hyperactivity symptoms).

If a person is deficient in production of norepinephrine, stimulants can bring them to an appropriate level (though their brain is unlikely to develop the ability to self-regulate at that level, leaving them dependant on the drug for normal functioning). If, however, a person is initially at a normal level or if their brain chemistry changes or their tolerance decreases or what have you, they would likely be driven to excessive NE leves, which are causatively associated with bipolar disorder, phobiae, depression, etc. For those whose condition is best treated chemically rather than behaviorally, therefore, I still maintain that the use of medication to off-balance the functioning of a developing brain is something to be undertaken only with great gravity and care.

I agree with you Justin. They should have used a Goldberg Scale. And ADD and ADHD are now considered the same thing. DSM-IVR has three variations. (And i really should be spelling it ad/hd due to the new chnages :oops: sorry)

XoE:

Psychological disorders themselves are nearly always either organic or behavioral. When you say that they 'respond' to both therapy and medication, you are referring to the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. This is not to say that treatment of the symptoms is not laudable. I'd be the last to say that smoking bud is not a good idea for cancer patients (though I've yet to see anyone claim it has any effect on the tumors themselves); still, you don't treat a person's cancer by just getting them high. In the same way, people with OCD (for example) can learn to control their behaviors via therapy and become outwardly non-symptomatic. This does not mean, however, that their disorder has been 'cured', as it is generally caused by overactive terminal boutons generating an excess of particular hormones, and therapy can do little to address this root cause.

"The effects of psychotropic drugs are still not well-understood, but they are thought to involve changes in receptors, not just levels of neurotransmitters."

This is correct, though the clinical effects of Ritalin, Cyalert, Adderal, and Dexedrine are purely the acceleration of norepinephrine production; at the same time, drugs like Tofranil have the clinical effect of stimulating dendritic sensitivity. Even that is somewhat of an oversimplification. Many psychotropic drugs affect not just receptors and transmitters, but the organs (forgive me for not knowing the correct term) responsible for providing the feedback to the system. Of course, since the FDA approves it, it must be safe for kids.

How did we get from "How Millennials are Changing Campus Life" to a discussion about giving Ritalin to school-age kids and ADD/ADHD?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Well, it's not like they actually teach us useful, job-specific info in school anymore. Maybe for keyboarding, but that's it. Maybe it would help if you printed up the company policies in a mini-book or a notebook, or something along those lines, so they wouldn't have to ask for help most of the time.

Alex, they didn't teach us job-specific skills in school, either. I doubt it's possible to do so - the reason you should assume an internship. I did work-study from 1985-1988, and it was one of the best decisions of my life.

How are colleges changing? These same trends are very apparent on my campus.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/NW-kaplan_Front.asp

Why does it seem that suddenly the media is paying so much more attention to colleges than it did just a year ago? And why is it paying less attention to high schools? Hey class of 2002, has the media always stalked you like this?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why does it seem that suddenly the media is paying so much more attention to colleges than it did just a year ago? And why is it paying less attention to high schools? Hey class of 2002, has the media always stalked you like this?

Alex, I have been noticing the same thing. But I have been unsure whether the media has actually been paying more attention to college students, or perhaps I have only been noticing it more since I am now making the transition into college (being of the High School class of 2002). But now that you have noticed it as well, and I have read many more articles and seen more specials on TV, it seems safe to make this conclusion.

Why, though, does there seem to be so much attention on our class, and not that of 2000? Would not normally the first cuspers have much of the attention on them so as to shape things for the remaining generation? Was there much of a difference in attention given to the class of 1999 and that of 2000? I did not really pay attention to this sort of thing at that time (mainly since I had not yet read The Fourth Turning, and college was still a ways off). Or perhaps some of the ground has already been cleared by the first few cohorts and now the media is starting to realize that we are indeed part of a new generation and that the same mistakes that have already been made do not have to be repeated.

As for the behaviors and characteristic changes on campus, since I have only arrived, I cannot say much. Only the senior class is still supposed to be of Xers, but there should still be numberous transformations during my four years in college, as there certainly were at my high school.

I can say, though, that most everyone on campus does seem to be very socially outgoing, for the most part. In my dorm, just walking by people in the hallway, it seems as if people are uncomfortable just walking by others without saying "hey" or something of the like. Again, I have nothing to compare any of my experiences with other than stereotypes seen in movies or hearsay. Can any slightly older millies tell what they have noticed as far as attitude changes on campus?

and if they're stalking the class of 2002, it follows that to no one's surprise at all, the class that the media is largely ignoring is... the class of 2001

i wrote quite a few posts on my take on college already; most of them were under my first identity (mmailliw) so look at that stuff if you want to know what i think; i'm too damn lazy to type it all again now :-)

Originally Posted by Number Two

i wrote quite a few posts on my take on college already; most of them were under my first identity (mmailliw) so look at that stuff if you want to know what i think; i'm too damn lazy to type it all again now :-)

Thanks, I shall try to look for those sometime.

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why does it seem that suddenly the media is paying so much more attention to colleges than it did just a year ago? And why is it paying less attention to high schools? Hey class of 2002, has the media always stalked you like this?

Alex, I have been noticing the same thing. But I have been unsure whether the media has actually been paying more attention to college students, or perhaps I have only been noticing it more since I am now making the transition into college (being of the High School class of 2002). But now that you have noticed it as well, and I have read many more articles and seen more specials on TV, it seems safe to make this conclusion.

Why, though, does there seem to be so much attention on our class, and not that of 2000? Would not normally the first cuspers have much of the attention on them so as to shape things for the remaining generation? Was there much of a difference in attention given to the class of 1999 and that of 2000? I did not really pay attention to this sort of thing at that time (mainly since I had not yet read The Fourth Turning, and college was still a ways off). Or perhaps some of the ground has already been cleared by the first few cohorts and now the media is starting to realize that we are indeed part of a new generation and that the same mistakes that have already been made do not have to be repeated.

As for the behaviors and characteristic changes on campus, since I have only arrived, I cannot say much. Only the senior class is still supposed to be of Xers, but there should still be numberous transformations during my four years in college, as there certainly were at my high school.

I can say, though, that most everyone on campus does seem to be very socially outgoing, for the most part. In my dorm, just walking by people in the hallway, it seems as if people are uncomfortable just walking by others without saying "hey" or something of the like. Again, I have nothing to compare any of my experiences with other than stereotypes seen in movies or hearsay. Can any slightly older millies tell what they have noticed as far as attitude changes on campus?

Unless there are a bunch of people born in 1984 compared to surrounding years (it was the end of the awakening) that the media knows this and pays more attention to the larger classes. I'd have to look up how many people were 16 in 2000 (Census) again but I'll have to re-find that table.
Hold on...

Okay, I can't find that table at all. I have no clue where the heck it went or how I found it in the first place. I do know that it did not come up when I searched for it, instead I got a table about health insurance.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why does it seem that suddenly the media is paying so much more attention to colleges than it did just a year ago? And why is it paying less attention to high schools? Hey class of 2002, has the media always stalked you like this?

Alex, I have been noticing the same thing. But I have been unsure whether the media has actually been paying more attention to college students, or perhaps I have only been noticing it more since I am now making the transition into college (being of the High School class of 2002). But now that you have noticed it as well, and I have read many more articles and seen more specials on TV, it seems safe to make this conclusion.

Why, though, does there seem to be so much attention on our class, and not that of 2000? Would not normally the first cuspers have much of the attention on them so as to shape things for the remaining generation? Was there much of a difference in attention given to the class of 1999 and that of 2000? I did not really pay attention to this sort of thing at that time (mainly since I had not yet read The Fourth Turning, and college was still a ways off). Or perhaps some of the ground has already been cleared by the first few cohorts and now the media is starting to realize that we are indeed part of a new generation and that the same mistakes that have already been made do not have to be repeated.

As for the behaviors and characteristic changes on campus, since I have only arrived, I cannot say much. Only the senior class is still supposed to be of Xers, but there should still be numberous transformations during my four years in college, as there certainly were at my high school.

I can say, though, that most everyone on campus does seem to be very socially outgoing, for the most part. In my dorm, just walking by people in the hallway, it seems as if people are uncomfortable just walking by others without saying "hey" or something of the like. Again, I have nothing to compare any of my experiences with other than stereotypes seen in movies or hearsay. Can any slightly older millies tell what they have noticed as far as attitude changes on campus?

Unless there are a bunch of people born in 1984 compared to surrounding years (it was the end of the awakening) that the media knows this and pays more attention to the larger classes. I'd have to look up how many people were 16 in 2000 (Census) again but I'll have to re-find that table.
Hold on...

Okay, I can't find that table at all. I have no clue where the heck it went or how I found it in the first place. I do know that it did not come up when I searched for it, instead I got a table about health insurance.

actually the census day was April 1, 2000 so only 1/4 of the people born in 1984 would be 16 then (the rest would still be 15); even using a Sept or Oct year cutoff it would still be at least 50/50 or so...

maybe the odd classes (97, 99, 01, 03, etc) are more Xish than their counterparts and the even classes (98, 00, 02, 04) are more Millie-like (and therefore get noticed more?) the cause/effect relationship could be juxtaposed but this might explain something

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why does it seem that suddenly the media is paying so much more attention to colleges than it did just a year ago? And why is it paying less attention to high schools? Hey class of 2002, has the media always stalked you like this?

Alex, I have been noticing the same thing. But I have been unsure whether the media has actually been paying more attention to college students, or perhaps I have only been noticing it more since I am now making the transition into college (being of the High School class of 2002). But now that you have noticed it as well, and I have read many more articles and seen more specials on TV, it seems safe to make this conclusion.

Why, though, does there seem to be so much attention on our class, and not that of 2000? Would not normally the first cuspers have much of the attention on them so as to shape things for the remaining generation? Was there much of a difference in attention given to the class of 1999 and that of 2000? I did not really pay attention to this sort of thing at that time (mainly since I had not yet read The Fourth Turning, and college was still a ways off). Or perhaps some of the ground has already been cleared by the first few cohorts and now the media is starting to realize that we are indeed part of a new generation and that the same mistakes that have already been made do not have to be repeated.

As for the behaviors and characteristic changes on campus, since I have only arrived, I cannot say much. Only the senior class is still supposed to be of Xers, but there should still be numberous transformations during my four years in college, as there certainly were at my high school.

I can say, though, that most everyone on campus does seem to be very socially outgoing, for the most part. In my dorm, just walking by people in the hallway, it seems as if people are uncomfortable just walking by others without saying "hey" or something of the like. Again, I have nothing to compare any of my experiences with other than stereotypes seen in movies or hearsay. Can any slightly older millies tell what they have noticed as far as attitude changes on campus?

Unless there are a bunch of people born in 1984 compared to surrounding years (it was the end of the awakening) that the media knows this and pays more attention to the larger classes. I'd have to look up how many people were 16 in 2000 (Census) again but I'll have to re-find that table.
Hold on...

Okay, I can't find that table at all. I have no clue where the heck it went or how I found it in the first place. I do know that it did not come up when I searched for it, instead I got a table about health insurance.

Could it possibly be the same reason that when we (the early wave Millies) were young, they focused on our preschools them our elemtary schools, then our high schools,and now as we gain a mjority of college, they are focusing on college? The rash of stuff on cllege does seem to take the place of the rash of stuff for highschool. This also seems to have repeated for the second waver. They just finishied a rash of books on preschoolers and early elmetary schooler, and now ther is a lot of buzz oabout these books about late elematary and middle school? Faerowan

Originally Posted by faerowan

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why does it seem that suddenly the media is paying so much more attention to colleges than it did just a year ago? And why is it paying less attention to high schools? Hey class of 2002, has the media always stalked you like this?

Alex, I have been noticing the same thing. But I have been unsure whether the media has actually been paying more attention to college students, or perhaps I have only been noticing it more since I am now making the transition into college (being of the High School class of 2002). But now that you have noticed it as well, and I have read many more articles and seen more specials on TV, it seems safe to make this conclusion.

Why, though, does there seem to be so much attention on our class, and not that of 2000? Would not normally the first cuspers have much of the attention on them so as to shape things for the remaining generation? Was there much of a difference in attention given to the class of 1999 and that of 2000? I did not really pay attention to this sort of thing at that time (mainly since I had not yet read The Fourth Turning, and college was still a ways off). Or perhaps some of the ground has already been cleared by the first few cohorts and now the media is starting to realize that we are indeed part of a new generation and that the same mistakes that have already been made do not have to be repeated.

As for the behaviors and characteristic changes on campus, since I have only arrived, I cannot say much. Only the senior class is still supposed to be of Xers, but there should still be numberous transformations during my four years in college, as there certainly were at my high school.

I can say, though, that most everyone on campus does seem to be very socially outgoing, for the most part. In my dorm, just walking by people in the hallway, it seems as if people are uncomfortable just walking by others without saying "hey" or something of the like. Again, I have nothing to compare any of my experiences with other than stereotypes seen in movies or hearsay. Can any slightly older millies tell what they have noticed as far as attitude changes on campus?

Unless there are a bunch of people born in 1984 compared to surrounding years (it was the end of the awakening) that the media knows this and pays more attention to the larger classes. I'd have to look up how many people were 16 in 2000 (Census) again but I'll have to re-find that table.
Hold on...

Okay, I can't find that table at all. I have no clue where the heck it went or how I found it in the first place. I do know that it did not come up when I searched for it, instead I got a table about health insurance.

Could it possibly be the same reason that when we (the early wave Millies) were young, they focused on our preschools them our elemtary schools, then our high schools,and now as we gain a mjority of college, they are focusing on college? The rash of stuff on cllege does seem to take the place of the rash of stuff for highschool. This also seems to have repeated for the second waver. They just finishied a rash of books on preschoolers and early elmetary schooler, and now ther is a lot of buzz oabout these books about late elematary and middle school? Faerowan

and one more thing... 1984 is actually in a population valley related to other years... it's tied with 1983 for the lowest birthrate of the 80s and although slightly more people were born then than in 83 (due to the birthyear of the parents) fewer people were born then than 82 or 85 (so the class of 02 should logically be the SMALLEST)

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Jane Eisner writes a column about the Millennial generation and the recent controversy over whether the University of North Carolina should assign a book about the Koran to incoming freshmen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...al/4003843.htm

Give Class of 2006 a chance to create its own syllabus
by Jane Eisner
Philadelphia Inquirer
September 5, 2002

They have flooded the nation's dormitories during the last few weeks, about 1.3 million of them, armed with enough technological equipment to computerize several small nations, and enough promise and potential to lead this very large one.

The students entering four-year colleges and universities for the first time this fall (among them my oldest daughter) grew up believing that minivans were present at creation and Madonna was always an aging celebrity. They think the Evil Empire is a celluloid enemy and Big Brother a television show.

Those of us who know otherwise can joke about the carefree myopia of youth, but we ought to get serious about this: These young men and women are the first to pass through the gates of higher education in a post-Sept. 11 world. And they will help define what it means to be an educated citizen.

That definition has never been written in stone, and periodic attempts to broaden or massage the canon are always controversial.

But usually the cycle of change comes gradually, in stages, the way dormitories that once posted stern chaperones at the door to keep out members of the opposite sex now welcome everyone. It takes a generation or two to shift from curfews to coed bathrooms.

The terrorist attacks - because they struck at our very civilization - sped up the cycle of change and exposed our academic vulnerabilities. Suddenly, it's not enough to read Shakespeare; one must study Islam. It's not enough to learn calculus; one must understand the intricacies of global markets.

This new, demanding syllabus startles some traditionalists, frightens others. That fear was at the heart of the ridiculous (and futile) lawsuit filed against the University of North Carolina for assigning its students a book on the Koran. It's a fear of the unknown, a fear that the familiar will be replaced by the foreign - when, of course, true education is all about venturing into other, unsettling worlds, trying them on in your mind, and growing stronger for the effort.

These attempts to censure what is taught, and who is teaching, are really a denigration of who is being taught. Those who screamed that learning about the Koran would harm UNC's students don't believe in the students themselves, don't believe they can think critically and with discernment.

The critics who sent hate-filled messages to UNC Chancellor James Moeser - "May you find a packet of anthrax and a pipe bomb in your mailbox," read one - are actually tossing epithets at America's next generation. You're not civilized enough to learn about competing cultures, they mean. You're not sure enough in who you are to learn about someone else.

Wrong. The generation now unpacking computers and extra-long bedsheets is arguably the smartest, savviest, most engaged, and optimistic one to come along in decades. These "Millennials," write Neil Howe and William Strauss in their book Millennials Rising, "have a solid chance to become America's next great generation, as celebrated for their collective deeds a hundred years from now as the generation of John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Joe DiMaggio and Jimmy Stewart is celebrated today."

And if this generation decides that the study of the Muslim world is as important as the study of ancient Greece, maybe we should expand our definition of the educated citizen.

In explaining the decision to stick by the Koran assignment, Moeser said of UNC's students: "We put our trust completely in their desire to read, to think and to learn."

At this crossroads for our history and culture, students in the Class of 2006 should be given the chance to show they're worthy of that trust.

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Jane Eisner writes a column about the Millennial generation and the recent controversy over whether the University of North Carolina should assign a book about the Koran to incoming freshmen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...al/4003843.htm

Give Class of 2006 a chance to create its own syllabus
by Jane Eisner
Philadelphia Inquirer
September 5, 2002

"a post-Sept. 11 world."

By that she means "culture wars plus", right? The same old culture wars with even newer arguments, like this one about the Koran, and the Bay-Area-Atheist with his never ending scroll of litigation.

A drift to religious orthodoxy...?

BTW: Anyone who wants to sample some of the abundant ?generational? takes on contemporary Christianity might want to look at the bottom of an interview with this author, which can be found by following this link. http://christianitytoday.aol.com/ct/2002/009/3.40.html


Which writers or books are these young adults most influenced by?
They seem to be attracted to modern classics. For example, they read C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. A lot of the Catholics have discovered the earlier writings?those of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine....






Do you have a way of knowing how statistically significant this trend toward orthodoxy is among younger people today?

These things?sexual values, philosophical perspectives, eternal hopes?are difficult to quantify with one overarching number. So I tried to break down the question and address it using a variety of statistics related to the many realms of young adult experience?sexual values, political activism, attitudes on college campuses.

In many of those realms, the statistics indicated that young, orthodox Christians are fighting an uphill battle against the culture and, often, the church. But many statistics also suggest that trends are moving in their favor. In the "Sexuality and Family" chapter, for instance, I cited such studies as the annual ucla survey of college freshmen, which in 1998 found approval of promiscuity at a 25-year low. Nearly 40 percent of students said they approved of casual sex in 1998, down from a record high approval rate of about 52 percent in 1987. Support for legal abortion also dropped for the sixth straight year in that survey.

I think statistics can give important indications of which way the cultural currents are moving, but I would not attempt to argue that the statistics are uniformly or even predominantly on the side of these young orthodox Christians. But I do argue that they have the potential to make up in influence and zeal what they lack in numbers. I believe their influence on statistical indicators will be reflected in the future.

Many statistics suggest that the dissatisfaction these young adults have with secularism and materialism is shared by many of their peers, Christian or not. That suggests that many more in this generation may join this trek toward orthodoxy in years to come.





Posted by Neil Howe on the T4T Blogsite http://www.lifecourse.com/generations/

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Jane Eisner writes...

Yadda, yadda, yadda! The real issue is shall we blog or not "blog"? That is the real question. :-?

The party appears to be winding down, as the 3T ages...spring break no exception.

Following quoted without intention of profit or infringement, etc...

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...4/4868036s.htm

Some resorts throwing cold water on spring break
By Jayne Clark
USA TODAY


For more than a decade, Cancun, Mexico, has been party central for the boozed, be-thonged and besotted boys and girls of spring break. But this year, the drink-till-you-drop college crowd will find less-indulgent hosts.

A majority of the Caribbean resort's hotels, bars and clubs that cater to the student trade have signed a ''civility agreement'' to enforce laws that in past years often were ignored, officials say. Among them are bans on underage drinking and public nudity.

But Cancun isn't the only locale attempting to dilute the combustible mix of booze, sun and hormones that dowse college kids when school's out. Spurred either by fed-up residents, safety concerns for the students or concern that ribald crowds drive away mainstream tourists, a number of party-hearty havens are imposing limits.

In Daytona Beach, Fla., a new law bans thong bikinis and other super-revealing attire in public places. Another recent ordinance strengthens the prohibition against on-street alcohol consumption by banning open containers within 100 feet of main drag Atlantic Avenue. The idea is to prevent revelers at large events from drinking in parking lots and other quasipublic places, police officials say.

The beefed-up public-nudity law, passed in October, includes sometimes-arcane specifications ('' . . . that portion of the buttocks which lies between the top and bottom of the buttocks, and between two imaginary straight lines . . . '' must be covered). The restriction doesn't extend to Daytona's beaches, however, which are under county jurisdiction.

Compared with the 150,000 or so students who are expected to bombard Daytona during three to four weeks in March and April, the spring hiatus in Fort Lauderdale will be restrained. About 15,000 are expected, and that's fine by city officials, who worked to overcome the 10-coeds-to-a-cheap-motel-room image forged by films such as 1960's Where the Boys Are. After attendance peaked at 350,000 in 1985, the drinking age was raised to 21, barricades were erected to prevent cruising and the mayor went on TV to announce the welcome mat officially yanked. Even then, it took an additional five years to get the message out, tourism spokeswoman Francine Mason says.

This year, Cancun expects 40,000 students, a third fewer than last year and a plunge from the peak of 140,000 in 1998 and 1999. Some tourism officials aren't sweating the loss, though.

''We lost a lot of business in groups and conventions,'' tourism spokeswoman Ana Mari Irabien says. ''Regular tourists ran away.''

Tourism official Alejandro Alvarado is more measured, however. They're welcome, if they behave, he says. ''We are not Sodom and Gomorrah.''

I went to Puerto Vallarta in March of 2001, right at peak Spring Break time. However, there were not a whole lot of college age kids there. There were a bunch of families with teenagers (but not so many younger kids). What college kids I did see weren't really having parties as much as they were just playing volleyball and swimming and so forth. There were also a bunch of people in their 30s-50s, about half of whom were from overseas (the other half were of course Ameri-Canadian). The only "inappropriate" activity widely allowed is that some women tanned topless at the pool. I think it bothered me more that my mom knew that I could see it, than it bothered my mom that I was seeing it. Overall, people seemed pretty well behaved, especially given the time of year. I'm sure Cancun and the like were just full of orgies of booze, though. (No, not real orgies, although that was possible in hotel rooms. I meant out on the beach).