This paper is a brief review and editorial apparently directed toward an audience of college health administrators and counselors. The review covers the history of MDMA, information about its pharmacological and subjective effects, research findings concerning undergraduate ecstasy use, and concludes with recommendations that college health administrators devise their own ecstasy-use prevention plans. Strong points of this review are its coverage of the history of MDMA, its presentation of data from a recent survey of college students who used ecstasy (Strote et al. 2002), and an attempt to describe some of the subjective effects. Its weakest section is the discussion of MDMA neurotoxicity, wherein the authors erroneously assert that the majority of studies in non-human animals have found impaired learning and memory after MDMA. In fact, except for findings from a few studies (e.g. Marston et al. 1999; Mechan et al. 2002), most rodent and non-human primate studies have failed to find impaired learning or memory after even demonstrably neurotoxic MDMA regimens except in developmental studies (for example Broening et al. 2001; Williams et al. 2003). The authors state that MDMA has not been found to be addictive, yet case studies (Jansen 1999) and surveys of users (e.g. Cottler et al. 2001; Topp et al. 1999) indicate the presence of MDMA abuse or dependence. The authors do not offer supporting references concerning statements that unspecified "myths" about ecstasy that are found on internet sites fuel continued use. The authors note that only two universities have developed prevention programs for ecstasy use, with one school implementing a harm reduction program and the other a social norms-based program. Suggestions for reducing ecstasy use at university campuses are offered, but no empirical basis for these findings is offered. Overall, the review is an uneven effort focused specifically on the concerns of college healthcare workers.