Postmortem reflection and analysis

Post Mortem Reflection

First of all, your professor is correct in suggesting that you have drifted away from the thesis of your piece. In fact your thesis is a bit weak, and could be beefed up a bit. The project description says you should "articulate the problem and its importance." You begin by saying some view the policies at Drexel as to harsh and others say the policies are not harsh enough, so you are setting out to discuss the policies.

But perhaps the real problem is underage drinking and drug use -- among college students. And the Drexel policies may be wrong-headed too, but the heart of the problem is not Drexel, as I see it from the materials you provided, but college students drinking issues. In fact, why is there a need for strict policies regarding drinking if there isn't an existing problem in the student body?

So, if you accept my suggestion, here's perhaps how your paper could be made stronger. Of course you have every right to pass judgment on Drexel's policies, but I would use a thesis that points out statistics on underage drinking, or binge drinking, or auto accidents caused by drunk drivers who are college-age, as justification for tough policies to be enacted.

Suggested Thesis: Because national statistics reflect that abuse of alcohol by college students leads to an estimated 1,825 student deaths, nearly 600,000 injures and 97,000 instances of sexual assault annually (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services), Drexel University has established some tough policy guidelines to deter the abuse of alcohol (and drugs) for Drexel students. But are those policies fair and just? Do the punishments fit the offense? This paper takes the position that Drexel's policies could use some serious revisions.

Okay, now you have the thesis. If you can find some localized statistics on Drexel students' abuse of alcohol (fraternities that were sanctioned for parties with underage students; a student death from alcohol intoxication; police arrests of intoxicated students at parties; rapes at parties where the girl passed out, etc.), that will help build the case that Drexel had a perfect right to come up with new policies. but, right after you present those data, then build a transition into why the policies are not fair, or somehow don't fit the misdeed. I get it, a three strike-based policy. Look into what other universities are doing when it comes to sanctions for students abusing alcohol.

Also, look into the matter of Drexel providing education about alcohol for incoming freshmen -- is there a seminar that is mandatory that gives freshmen the facts of alcohol abuse and points to helpful resources for anyone who believes they have a drinking problem?

Next, you use "drugs" over and over but you don't narrow it down. I assume you are talking about marijuana when you mention "…paraphernalia" like bongs, pipes, etc., but when you say the "first violation" and list the "consequences," what would constitute that first violation? Being caught with a joint? Or a pipe or a bong?

You don't spend enough time on the marijuana issue. What if a student is caught with a gram of cocaine? Is that the same punishment as a joint? What if a student has ecstasy pills in a little vial? Is that the same punishment as having some pot paraphernalia? If so, that is a wrong-headed policy because marijuana is not at all the same as cocaine and certainly doesn't include the danger of addiction as cocaine and heroin represent.