University Room Regulations

Approved and Prohibited Items

    The following items are approved for use in residential (住宿的) rooms: electric blankets, hair dryers, personal computers, radios, televisions and DVD players. Items that are not allowed in student rooms include: candles, ceiling fans, fireworks, waterbeds, sun lamps and wireless routers. Please note that any prohibited items will be taken away by the Office of Residence Life.

Access to Residential Rooms

    Students are provided with a combination (组合密码) for their room door locks upon check-in. Do not share your room door lock combination with anyone. The Office of Residence Life may change the door lock combination at any time at the expense of the resident if it is found that the student has shared the combination with others. The fee is $25 to change a room combination.

Cooking Policy

    Students living in buildings that have kitchens are only permitted to cook in the kitchen. Students must clean up after cooking. This is not the responsibility of housekeeping staff. Kitchens that are not kept clean may be closed for use. With the exception of using a small microwave oven (微波炉) to heat food, students are not permitted to cook in their rooms.

Pet Policy

    No pets except fish are permitted in student rooms. Students who are found with pets, whether visiting or owned by the student, are subject to an initial fine of $100 and a continuing fine of $50 a day per pet. Students receive written notice when the fine goes into effect. If, one week from the date of written notice, the pet is not removed, the student is referred to the Student Court.

Quiet Hours

    Residential buildings must maintain an atmosphere that supports the academic mission of the University. Minimum quiet hours in all campus residences are 11:00 pm to 8:00 am Sunday through Thursday. Quiet hours on Friday and Saturday nights are 1:00 am to 8:00 am. Students who violate quiet hours are subject to a fine of $25.

    Getting rid of dirt, in the opinion of most people, is a good thing. However, there is nothing fixed about attitudes to dirt.

    In the early 16^th century, people thought that dirt on the skin was a means to block out disease, as medical opinion had it that washing off dirt with hot water could open up the skin and let ills in. A particular danger was thought to lie in public baths. By 1538, the French king had closed the bath houses in his kingdom. So did the king of England in 1546. Thus began a long time when the rich and the poor in Europe lived with dirt in a friendly way. Henry IV, King of France, was famously dirty. Upon learning that a nobleman had taken a bath, the king ordered that, to avoid the attack of disease, the nobleman should not go out.

    Though the belief in the merit of dirt was long-lived, dirt has no longer been regarded as a nice neighbor ever since the 18^th century. Scientifically speaking, cleaning away dirt is good to health. Clean water supply and hand washing are practical means of preventing disease. Yet, it seems that standards of cleanliness have moved beyond science since World War Ⅱ. Advertisements repeatedly sell the idea; clothes need to be whiter than white, cloths ever softer, surfaces to shine. Has the hate for dirt, however, gone too far?

    Attitudes to dirt still differ hugely nowadays. Many first-time parents nervously try to warn their children off touching dirt, which might be responsible for the spread of disease. On the contrary, Mary Ruebush, an American immunologist(免疫学家)，encourages children to play in the dirt to build up a strong immune system. And the latter position is gaining some ground.

Why College Is Not Home

    The college years are supposed to be a time for important growth in autonomy(自主性) and the development of adult identity. However, now they are becoming an extended period of adolescence, during which many of today's students are not shouldered with adult responsibilities.

    For previous generations, college was a decisive break from parental control; guidance and support needed to come from people of the same age and from within. In the past two decades, however, continued connection with and dependence on family, thanks to cell phones, email and social media, have increased significantly. Some parents go so far as to help with coursework. Instead of promoting the idea of college as a passage from the shelter of the family to autonomy and adult responsibility, universities have given in to the idea that they should provide the same environment as that of the home.

    To prepare for increased autonomy and responsibility, college needs to be a time of exploration and experimentation. This process involves "trying on" new ways of thinking about oneself both intellectually(在思维方面)and personally. While we should provide "safe spaces" within colleges, we must also make it safe to express opinions and challenge majority views. Intellectual growth and flexibility are fostered by strict debate and questioning.

    Learning to deal with the social world is equally important. Because a college community(群体) differs from the family, many students will struggle to find a sense of belonging. If students rely on administrators to regulate their social behavior and thinking pattern, they are not facing the challenge of finding an identity within a larger and complex community.

    Moreover, the tendency for universities to monitor and shape student behavior runs up against another characteristic of young adults: the response to being controlled by their elders. If acceptable social behavior is too strictly defined(规定) and controlled, the insensitive or aggressive behavior that administrators are seeking to minimize may actually be encouraged.

    It is not surprising that young people are likely to burst out, particularly when there are reasons to do so. Our generation once joined hands and stood firm at times of national emergency. What is lacking today is the conflict between adolescents' desire for autonomy and their understanding of an unsafe world. Therefore, there is the desire for their dorms to be replacement homes and not places to experience intellectual growth.

    Every college discussion about community values, social climate and behavior should include recognition of the developmental importance of student autonomy and self-regulation, of the necessary tension between safety and self-discovery.

    On a recent spring morning. Susan Alexander, a retired government intelligence analyst, left her Maryland home, climbed into her Volkswagen Passat and drove about three miles to pick up two strangers. She battled rush-hour traffic on the Capital Beltway and George Washington Memorial Parkway before dropping them off at Reagan National Airport. She didn't earn a cent for her trouble, and that was the point.

    Alexander is a member of the Silver Spring Time Bank-one of more than 100 such exchanges around the world trying to build community by exchanging time credits for services instead of dollars and cents. "I have time," she said. "I like giving the gift of time to other people."

    In Alexander's case, passengers Mary and Al Liepold were grateful for the ride, but it wasn't charity. Mary, a retired writer and editor for nonprofit organizations, used time credits she banked for editing work and baking. Senior citizens who don't drive, the Liepolds cashed in their credits to catch a flight to Montreal for a five-day vacation.

    Without money changing hands or shifting between virtual accounts, the airport drop-off was more like a coffee party than a taxi ride. Driver and passengers chatted about projects they've completed for the time bank, and no one raised an eyebrow when Mary said she likes "to avoid the conventional economy."

    "The beauty of this is that you make friends," Mary Liepold said. "You don't just get services."

    The Silver Spring Time Bank formed in 2015 and has about 300 members, said co-founder Mary Murphy. Last year, she said, l,000 hours were exchanged for basic home repairs, dog walking, cooking and tailoring, among other services, without the exchange of money. "You get to save that money that you would have spent," she said. "You get to meet somebody else in your community and get to know that person. That's a bonus that's part of an exchange."

    A deal performed partly to make friends would seem to go against classical economics and one of Benjamin Franklin's most memorable sayings: "Time is money." To those at the forefront of modem time-banking, that is the appeal.

    Nature calms our stressed-out soul. Nature is the best medicine, but new research is showing how little time we need to set aside to harvest the benefits.

    In one new study, researchers tried to find the most effective "dose" (药剂) of nature within the context of normal daily life. As more doctors prescribe (开药方) nature experiences for stress relief and other health benefits — sometimes referred to as a "nature pill"— the study's authors hoped to make the details of these treatments clear.

    "We know that spending time in nature reduces stress, but until now it is unclear how much is enough, how often to do it, or even what kind of nature experience will benefit us," says lead author MaryCarol Hunter in a statement. "Our study shows that for the greatest payoff, in terms of efficiently lowering levels of the stress hormone cortisone (压力荷尔蒙激素), you should spend 20 to 30 minutes sitting or walking in a place that provides you with a sense of nature."

    A nature pill can be a low-cost, low-risk way to curb the negative effects of urbanization and indoor lifestyle. To find the most efficient dosage, Hunter and her co-authors asked 36 city citizens to have nature experiences of at least 10 minutes three times per week over eight weeks.

    Every two weeks, the researchers collected saliva (唾液) samples to measure levels of the stress hormone cortisone, both before and after the participants took a nature pill. The data showed that just a 20-minute nature experience was enough to significantly reduce cortisone levels. The effect was more efficient between 20 and 30 minutes, after which benefits continued to increase but at a slower rate.

    That fits with the findings of another recent study, which found that spending 20 minutes in an urban park can make you happier, no matter whether you use that time to exercise.

    For this study, 94 adults visited 3 urban parks in Mountain Brook, Alabama, completing a questionnaire about their subjective well-being before and after their visit. An accelerometer (加速计) tracked their physical activity.

    A visit lasting 20 to 25 minutes showed the best results, with a roughly 64% increase in the participants' self-reported well-being, even if they didn't move a great deal in the park. That last point is particularly positive, since it means anyone can benefit from visiting a nearby park, whatever his or her age or physical ability.

    "There is increasing pressure on green space within urban settings," said a UAB professor Gavin Jenkins. "Planners and developers look to replace green space with residential (住宅的) and commercial property. The challenge facing cities is that there is increasing evidence about the value of city parks but we continue to see the disappearance of these spaces."

Some people often wonder whether they are fighting a battle with their genes to maintain a healthy weight. In fact, researchers have provided plenty of evidence that people are born with tendencies to be lighter or heavier. For example, studies of identical twins have revealed great similarity in their overall weight. Part of this similarity may be explained by the finding that some people are born to burn a lot of calories just through ordinary day-to-day activities while others are not. Those who are not are more at risk for weight gain.

Researchers have discovered some of the actual genetic mechanisms (机制) that may make some individuals more likely to be obese. For example, a gene has been found that appears to control signals to the brain that enough fat has been stored in the body in the course of a meal—so the individual should stop eating. The gene influences the production of leptin (瘦蛋白), which keeps appetite under control. If leptin doesn't work well, it is likely that individuals will continue to eat. Thus the gene that controls leptin appears to have a critical influence on the potential for obesity.

The confirmation that leptin plays a role in weight control has encouraged researchers to identify and understand other weight-related genes. Recent attention has focused on a gene called GAD2. GAD2 helps control the amount of the neurotransmitter (神经递质) GABA. In general, when more GABA is available, appetite is increased. For that reason, people who have a form of GAD2 that allows more GABA to be available may be at risk for overeating. You can see that GAD2 is not directly an obesity gene. Rather it has an indirect influence on obesity through its direct influence on GABA.

Genetic research holds out the promise of innovative solutions to obesity. Researchers hope that an understanding of the link between genus and weight control will enable them to provide new drug treatments. Nonetheless, even the most optimistic researchers provide a warning: "Innovative drugs will be effective only when they are used along with lifestyle changes."