Thanks Shammy

I think here, outside of clear link to safety issues, there would be a minor riot if it was suggested that some one be tested for drugs as part of employment.

Its particularly curious because USA is such a bastion, both in rhetoric and in actuality, of individual freedom. Yet within there is this weird paradox.

I watch COPS the reality TV show - I'm amazed at the amount of criminal charges that are possible for small infringements - such as resisting arrest, possession of a small amount of grass, swearing at a cop etc.  I'm also amazed at the penalties when convicted for these minor infringements. What here might result in a warning or $300 fine in USA seems to result in a prison sentence.

OTOH I'm astonished at the tolerance and acceptance of gun usage. I know I shouldn't be.

^Of course, in relations to drugs, the testing is considered needed because of the absolute insatiable appetite for hard drugs that US citizens have.

I worked on oil refinery that brought in random drug testing, some trades were testing 100% positive, that would be scaffolders for cannabis and heroin for steel erectors. There was also a H poblem with the plant operators. It was embarrassing after a couple of months, the demographic was reduced to individuals who were known to be clean living.

A lot of American companies come into Europe in a blaze of we are going to drug test all the subcontractors and vendor representatives, but are soon put in their place. Here in the Netherlands drug testing is unenforceable and it is illegal to not in employ someone because they have refused a drug test.

Funny, how the two countries with the least social mobility in the Western world i.e. the US and the UK are also the most obese.

I suggest looking up US Supreme Court judge Ginsburg's recent comments about their constitution, plus the wild arguments it sparked, if you want to get a taste of "debate" in the United States works and how impossible it seems for them to agree on anything other than life MUST be a zero sum game...

from TI:

http://forums.filmnoirbuff.com/viewtopic.php?id=11501

"I'm sure I've asked before but can someone tell me what is a 'rush' in the USA university context?"

Rushing is the process by which freshmen are inveigled into joining a fraternity or sorority. This used to involve a lot of booze and drugs; I think they've toned it down considerably since I went through it in 1980. During the process the frat brothers do weird and abusive things to the pledges. This builds character.

"And explain - yet again - the difference in USA between university, college and prep school?"

The terms university and college are often used synonymously, and refer to a four-year, bachelor's degree program. However, nobody says "Fred's at university;" they will say he's at college.

Universities often have graduate schools attached. Colleges are almost always four year deals.

A prep school is a private high school, often a boarding school. High school in the US is grades 9-12, or ages 14-18.

"And a 'sorority' - its a sort of a club on university campus? What benefits are  there of being in the club? cheap booze?"

Fraternities and sororities are clubs, sort of. They used to be much more prevalent. My college, Denison University (which has no graduate schools) pretty much castrated the frats by not allowing the members to live in the chapter houses on campus and severely restricting their ability to ply the aspiring members and the general public with Old Milwaukee beer in kegs. When I was there (1980-84) the sorority sisters could only have six (I think) members living in the house because of a law on the books in Granville, Ohio, that defined a brothel as any dwelling with seven or more unmarried women. Who knows what they've done with those — probably turned them into lesbian grain collectives.

Cheap booze is the unifying theme throughout the generations. And sex.

In Canada, a University grants degrees; a College grants diplomas. The premise is that the former are more theoretical in nature and the latter more "hands on", or applied -- more directly related to job preparation.

The University I attended for my undergraduate degree in the early `80s (Waterloo) did not allow fraternities -- that may have changed since.

We were told in our Sixth Form that if you wanted to work for the secret service of the diplomatic field that St Andrews was the university of preference due to the communist spy cells that had infiltrated Cambridge in the past.

Of course, with my academic record St Andrews was off the cards.

A club like the Bullington at Oxford would be somewhat similar to American fraternities.

I might mention that the American fraternities and sororities customarily have elaborate rituals, often directly inspired by the practices of Freemasonry. On the positive side, they do provide a social nexus for students. Being a 17- or 18-year-old adrift in a university with 40,000 students can be a bit daunting. The bonds and connections forged in these organizations are thought to be of benefit socially and career-wise later in life. They ostensibly emphasize gentlemanly and ladylike behavior, character building, and they like to make a show of community service. On the negative side, they are often criticized as havens of snobbish, superficial values as well as being unduly devoted to social activities, partying and heavy drinking. Academic achievement is often regarded as being incidental or at least of secondary importance, or so critics like to claim, anyway.

My stepson was active in one for most of his college career. I think in hindsight he feels his time and energy could have been utilized more productively.