Most students have recognized a basic truth about college: It’s not the real world. In life after college, 10 a.m. isn’t “early,” skipping a scheduled meeting is a big deal, and what some students call “partying hard” is commonly referred to as “alcoholism.”But this truth is ignored by legislations in respect to the drinking age.Last week, over 120 current and former university presidents called for a serious public dialogue to consider nationally lowering the drinking age to 18. Instead of proposing a new drinking age, they draw on their experiences as senior university administrators and proclaim what most students already know: 21 isn’t working.Twenty-four years ago, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act to compel states to impose a minimum drinking age of 21. Under this law, states lose 10 percent of their annual federal highway appropriations if they set the drinking age lower than 21. While the law was well-intended when it was first written, it can be dangerous when applied to students of America’s college campuses.Empirically, it seems that the majority of college students will drink, no matter what the rules or laws say. Even though dry dorms are taken seriously here, and the new alcohol policy is vigorously enforced in campus residences, students under the age of 21 drink. Before finalizing their academic schedule, freshmen have already completed an online alcohol tutorial about the health risks and legal ramifications of underage drinking, but still they drink. In case there are any freshmen that missed the message, Resident Assistants spend most of their first floor meetings reviewing the alcohol policy, and still they drink.But it seems to us that the main goal of the current drinking age isn’t to stop an 18-year-old freshman enjoying a beer after a hard day of classes or a glass of wine with dinner. The problem, so it seems, isn’t drinking – it’s drinking and then driving.One vocal advocate for the drinking age of 21 is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but their case is not perfect. They argue that by lowering the drinking age, more teenagers will drive after drinking. They say that lowering the drinking age “will cost lives.” Whether this argument holds or not when looking at the “real world” is irrelevant, because it, like the lawmakers, ignored the difference between the real world and college. At many colleges, driving after drinking is a problem that can easily be avoided.While, ultimately, a national drinking age of 18 would be hailed as a welcome change by many, the university presidents could call for a more moderate change to start the process. It would be enough for the university presidents to lobby for a change that would apply only to university campuses. There, students could buy beer and wine from the university or university-approved vendors. This could happen only after the government has certified the school as having more than adequate free public transportation to ensure students wouldn’t be tempted to drive home. As an experimental change, this could encourage more responsible drinking among students, as well as a university environment that is both safer and less adversarial.”