Picture two 20-year-olds. One is a full-time college student and the other is a full-time waiter. Both go out one night to drink and have a good time.

If the underage student is caught drinking by the campus police, he’ll most likely get a free ride home in the college’s drunk van, while the imbibing underage waiter is more likely to be charged with a misdemeanor. If, the next morning, the waiter fails to show up to work or confuses orders, he cannot expect to remain employed long.

But the hung over university student who sleeps through his classes and turns in incoherent assignments faces a sunnier prospect: Thanks to grade inflation, A-range grades constitute an astounding 79 percent of all grades given at Harvard and Yale, with other universities not too far behind.

Universities don’t openly describe students as children, but that is how they treat them. This was highlighted in the spring, when so many pro-Palestinian student protesters — most of them legal adults — faced minimal consequences for even flagrant violations of their universities’ policies. (Some were arrested — but those charges were often dropped.) American universities’ relative generosity to their students may seem appealing, especially in contrast to the plight of our imaginary waiter, but it has a dark side, in the form of increased control of student life.

If universities today won’t hold students responsible for their bad behavior, they also won’t leave them alone when they do nothing wrong. Administrators send out position statements after major national and international political events to convey the approved response, micromanage campus parties and social events, dictate scripts for sexual interactions, extract allegiance to boutique theories of power and herd undergraduates into mandatory dormitories where their daily lives can be more comprehensively monitored and shaped. This is increasingly true across institutions — public and private, small and large — but the more elite the school, the more acute the problem.

A result of this combination of increased lenience and increased control is a kind of simulacrum of adult independence that in reality infantilizes students and protects them from responsibility — for both their good choices and their bad ones. On one hand, there is almost no chance that a Stanford student will face serious consequences for underage drinking at a party. The first three violations of the school’s alcohol policy result in consequences no more severe than mandated participation in an in-house educational program. On the other hand, under rules requiring extensive monitoring and an elaborate registration process for social gatherings, finding a party to attend in the first place at Stanford might be even more difficult than being punished for drinking at one.