{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0295159386068477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0059031877213695395, 'mean_word_length': 5.784, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Animal Use, Student Choice, and Nonanimal Alternatives at “America's Best” Undergraduate Colleges

Chairs at 262 prominent U.S. and Canadian colleges and universities (75% response rate) completed a questionnaire about animal use, student choice policies, and alternatives to the use of animals in undergraduate psychology education. Results indicated that a majority of institutions used animals in teaching, only a minority had choice policies within animal-based courses, and most schools used alternative learning methods, either as a substitute for or adjunct to live animal laboratories. In this article, I discuss the educational policy implications of practices in the undergraduate psychology animal-based curriculum at “America's best” colleges, especially the common practice of advising reluctant students away from animal course work.