Stanford cancelling on-campus education definitely feels like a major bellwether. It's hard to think of any school better positioned to make it work. Not just because of its wealth and elite status, but because the climate is so aggressively warm and non-rainy, and the spacious campus absolutely has the space (though perhaps not the seating/tables, at least initially) to accommodate all-outdoor classes and activities.
Stanford and a number of the well positioned universities can weather the storm, which is why the are cancelling in person after hoping not to. https://www.profgalloway.com/uss-university
As with everything related to the pandemic, it kills the smaller competitors making those who will survive, schools like Stanford, Harvard, businesses like apple and google, have an even greater market dominance than before.
Apple and Google would be happy to have everybody in the world as their customer.
Stanford and Harvard, while offering some non-selective continuing ed / MOOC programs that leverage their name, are not looking to increase their enrollment for traditional degrees. Their exclusivity is part of their appeal.
Not everyone, most classes are still online, and if you want you can not take any in person classes, even for lower tuition. Many of my friends are opting to stay home next semester.
Another interesting detail is the mandatory twice-a-week testing for anybody who will be on campus (and of course, mandatory facemasks). If you're going to have people on campus that's probably the safest way to do it
Sucks because students are signing leases, moving crap, buying meal plans, etc, right now.
This is the whole reason schools want students back. They’re desperate to recover some of this cash flow. They have huge budgets and vast numbers of administrative staff to pay. Without the revenue from residence leases and meal plans, they’re in real trouble.
The value offered by colleges is not just an education. It is 4 years of living away from home experiencing whatever floats your boat ( frats, independence, parties, sports, friends, etc... ). There is virtually no demand for online only classes above a 5k/year price point.
There is a similar situation with private schools. Some of the demand comes from the fact that it is also a babysitting service, forced social group, networking opportunity for parents.
I've come to the conclusion that this is what most parents and students are looking for...a [relatively] safe place to finish growing up. The degree is only part of the equation.
I feel this is the consequence of the American style no responsibilities system. Why on earth should an 18 year old high school senior need a hall-pass to go to the restroom?
Signed a Swede who spent an exchange year in Texan upper middle class suburban public high school.
When I tell people that Finnish middle schools don’t have bells and the kids just go places when they need to they look at me in disbelief. Kids live up to the expectations they are given. The patronizing nature of the American education system is one of the reasons why people here have such a hard time taking personal responsibility for things in my opinion.
Same in Sweden, essentially starting in second grade for me.
Thinking back on it I now see how thought out it was. The clock facing the school yard which everything depended on. In second and third grade every time it was PE, shop class or something requiring a different place than the homeroom it was scheduled so the teacher would bring the class if necessary, later just letting us go. Fourth and fifth it could be right after a break trusting us to get there on our own.
Then starting sixth grade we were essentially on our own. The first class started anywhere between from 8 to 10 in the assigned room. During breaks we could go anywhere, the only limit being to get back in time. Sometimes having gaps in the schedule leading to some time to kill. Often going the public library, or playing something, or hanging out in the school building or buying coke and mentos because kids....
Then choosing high school and field of study based on interests all over town getting there using public transportation, which every student that had to travel longer than a couple of kilometers is given a pass for which is valid during school hours.
Also getting the government stipend of ~$100 every month having to learn manage your own money.
Wow, this was a trip down memory lane.
One thing I vividly remember is feeling like a child again when starting American high school. A contrasting memory which stands out is during lunch getting in a friend's truck sneaking out to buy fast food for lunch and "stealthily" avoiding the parking lot monitors to not get into trouble. Wtf.
It is 4 years of living away from home experiencing whatever floats your boat ( frats, independence, parties, sports, friends, etc... )
I’m in university right now. I just finished a term of online classes. I’ve definitely witnessed those benefits being enjoyed by other students but I haven’t had the time to enjoy them myself; my program is simply too difficult for that. The most I’ve enjoyed is going out for drinks with friends once a week, and maybe the occasional meal out on another night.
The ones joining frats, partying constantly, playing sports and all that must have trivial classes. Either that or they’re already so rich and privileged that they can afford to fail courses and keep going.
> The ones joining frats, partying constantly, playing sports and all that must have trivial classes. Either that or they’re already so rich and privileged that they can afford to fail courses and keep going.
You'd be surprised. Unless you're with someone 24/7 you actually don't know what else they are doing. I knew a girl in college who you might think partied all the time. I mean, she was always out and about, so makes sense. Except, the few people who knew her better got to see her literally study for 24 straight hours by sleeping 15-20 minutes here and there, slam a diet mountain dew on the way to class and ace the test. These were non-trivial classes, and she graduated with a 4.0 by the way.
Was this a healthy way to go through college? I don't think so. It certainly was not how I did it. But it did show me a level of effort around studying/working I didn't think was possible, and also that what people do in private will surprise you.
>The ones joining frats, partying constantly, playing sports and all that must have trivial classes. Either that or they’re already so rich and privileged that they can afford to fail courses and keep going.
I disagree completely. Some people are just inhumanly capable of balancing everything. One of the smartest people I met while in school was in a sorority and partied hard. She was also extremely successful academically and is currently attending medical school.
I also had my share of fun, but I would never have been able to keep up with her. Fortunately my academic ambitions don't go much farther than my BS in comp. sci.
Just because you can't manage the balancing act doesn't mean no one else can.
I disagree completely. Some people are just inhumanly capable of balancing everything. One of the smartest people I met while in school was in a sorority and partied hard. She was also extremely successful academically and is currently attending medical school.
She’s the exception that proves the rule. I met at least half a dozen people in first year who partied only moderately and have since flunked out of the school. They’ve moved to other schools with less demanding programs and tried to put their lives back together.
I also met someone who studied for an entire term to pass the MCAT and got into medical school. She seemed like the type of person who really knew how to balance her life though. Not a crazy partier but someone with close friendships.
I think both you and she are near opposite ends of a fairly normal distribution. Yes, she's an outlier (not as much as you seem to think though), but your description of your experience is as well.
When I was in college from 2002 to 2006, the thing I heard about sororities was that joining one usually helped a GPAs, and they were really good about keeping an archive of old exams and notes.
> The ones joining frats, partying constantly, playing sports and all that must have trivial classes.
Not true at all. Perhaps they may not end up with the best GPA but they'll do good enough to get a useful degree while having a strong network. It may not have been the healthiest lifestyle for the time being, but they made it out fine.
Source: A large part of my college social circle who ended up in fruitful STEM/consulting/medicine careers.
If someone didn’t have to commute or work a lot of hours in a part time job, they should have more than enough time to do those things while studying enough. Or maybe they prefer to hit the gym, there are lots of options.
You don't have to be in a frat to have the "college experience", but you should explore interests outside of your direct course of study and meet new people. I think you will regret it if you just keep your nose down the whole time, whether or not its right you are paying for much more than classes. Given a second chance I would follow this advice :)
> The ones joining frats, partying constantly, playing sports and all that must have trivial classes. Either that or they’re already so rich and privileged that they can afford to fail courses and keep going.
I don't know why you're assuming this, but I'm a little insulted. I was an NCAA athlete and a common refrain I always heard was that the most valuable skill you get from it is incredible time management. I didn't kill time on sites like HN or reddit or facebook (the only social network at the time). We partied a decent amount too. About half of the particular people I played and partied with now have doctorates from world class institutions. Nearly all of us have STEM degrees.
this reminds me of the scene in the movie Booksmart where the nerdy girls who did nothing but study and work towards their academic dreams found out all the "dumb" party kids also got into top tier schools while also having fun.
It's staggering to me how much people will publicly support government subsidized partying and friend making. At least in the past it felt like people pretended it was about education.
I attended a private college. Not only did I have to live on campus for all four years, but additionally, they forced you to purchase the meal plan. I made most of my meals myself; nonetheless, I had no choice but to pay for the meal plan.
>I fully expect a notable outbreak in some college to start a wave of media, followed by all the universities sending everyone back home again.
If you are referring to the USA, I disagree. Unless the local county health departments or states require schools to go virtual, I don't see it.
If a large public university experiences an outbreak, I don't think they will go virtual until someone dies. I do not think large private schools will go virtual unless the government requires it.
The USA has no centralized method of handling the pandemic, so each state is making their own rules and guidelines. We have professional sports teams playing outside bubbles and many college football programs are continuing.
Many school districts outside urban areas are opening and seeing outbreaks, but continue to stay open. As a country, we blew it and seem to have decided to go about this piecemeal.
US state universities have been very risk averse for more than 30 years now. Try to buy or even consume alcohol on campus these days. The story was very different before about 1990, when inebriated students wobbled about campus undeterred with drinks in hand.
When covid case counts mount on campus, there will be huge pressure from media and concerned parents to quash the threat instantly -- something impossible to do without extensive 24 hour PCR testing already being in place, which no school will have.
All it will take is images of one pretty cheerleader on a ventilator to instantly change policy for an entire region and all the schools therein. If enough parents lose faith, school will be out indefinitely.
"Along with student death, these triggers to campus closure include “significant actions” by the governor or other public officials, sharply diminished hospital capacity, testing shortages on campus and unmanageable, widespread clusters of cases."
>My experience has been that schools cave pretty fast in the face of media pressure.
Before now I would agree with you. From what has been reported schools in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Indiana are staying open after large outbreaks. These are elementary and high schools, so maybe it'll be different with universities.
This is my biggest concern. They’re going to charge students full price, force them on campus along with all the expense that entails, and once the bursar’s office is sufficiently flush send them all home again.
Considering every college in America takes federal student loan money this seems like a really easy place for the federal government to take decisive action to force a semester online and cap charges for the benefit of students and the federal budget.
It's absurd here in my state as well. We have peak number of cases in one of the biggest college towns, and students are moving in as we speak. I give it two or three weeks before we cancel everything again.
As an aside, equally scummy are universities that pulled the rug from under students very close to move in. My sister got kicked out of her housing by the university a few days before move in, and basically had to accept that she would be staying home for the fall, as rent prices near school nearly doubled overnight.
> as rent prices near school nearly doubled overnight.
Wait is that really what happened? I anticipated that rent prices would drop because most students would just go home and there wouldn't be a market for people wanting to live in the college part of town.
The kids likely don’t care. Their age group is largely unharmed by coronavirus, so the option to be near their friends, partying, and not living at home is probably pretty appealing.
I hate to be all like "to be fair" but wouldn't it have been even worse if they'd waited until after she moved there and then sent her home and made her move twice instead of canceling a move once?
Do you mean they're still having in-person classes required but are just not offering housing? That's definitely scummy, that's the kind of thing that would have changed people's admission acceptance decisions.
Some in person classes, yes. My sister luckily only has online ones. Regarding when, I think the obvious answer should have been to cancel in person classes back in may or June.. We knew covid was here to last even then.
Are you in Pennsylvania because that sounds exactly like my experience. I'm extremely thankful that I graduated long ago and don't have children or relatives having to deal with this.
If you are a freshman or sophomore and you have a modicum of self-discipline and motivation, it can be a great strategy. You know those core courses at which you want to excel but will suck up most your time? Do you realize how much easier they will be if you’ve already read the textbook twice over and listened to an online lecture course or two? Maybe even audited an actual online course from another university? Maybe found out what the assignments will be and did most of them. A C in the online audited course at a community college will lead to an A when you actually take it next year and with half the effort. If you get through as much of this year’s core course material as you can stand, keep on going with next year’s courses. "Finish" organic chem the first half-year? "Do" biochem the second. If you nail half the concepts before you take the course, you can focus on the other concepts during the course. Professors start noticing you because you did so well. You bring up advanced topics in conversations and get invited to work in the lab. You get a good rep and the benefit of the doubt. Bonus tip: find a professor whose support you’d like to have and read some of their recent papers or watch their presentations. Contact them with good questions about their work. Free time is an amazing ally if you use it right.
No, I’m not an Asian tiger mom...wrong gender, wrong ethnicity.
And do what? Get a job? go traveling? This would be a fucking awful time to take a gap year, the fact that this seems to be the prevailing solution on here is indicative of just how out of touch some of the readership is.
>Sucks because students are signing leases, moving crap, buying meal plans, etc, right now. Aside from the obvious safety issues.
Follow the money.
The colleges are getting paid regardless. The local landlords, businesses, etc. that usually get to skim easy money off college students don't. The colleges have to walk the line between screwing the students by giving them all covid (bad press -> less money) and pissing off the locals, who will just use their voting power to use the local government to take money (less favorable regulator environment -> less money) from the colleges if the colleges don't let them skim enough gravy.
My theory is that the semester will be shut down just in time for nobody to get their money back (where students otherwise would have taken a gap year or something). Maybe I'm just cynical.
Leases seem like the worst aspect of this, at least a return flight is only half a month's rent (one would hope).
I agree that you are correct about this, even here in Boston we've just got so many colleges that even if the one I work at has no problems Boston in general seems likely to have a big enough uptick that it will impact everyone. That's a lot of students traveling here by plane all at once and even if they're quarantining when they arrive I bet their parents aren't...
I'm convinced I nearly died during my first semester. Swine flu, pneumonia and a throat infection all in the course of a month. Anyone who thinks this won't spread through a college doesn't have a clue.
Yup, both of my kids are in college, at different schools, and pretty much everybody fully expects that school will last for a couple weeks, then they'll send everybody home. The savvy ones are signing up for exclusively online courses.
You have no reason to believe that their son wants to be there in person. The son may share their parents' safety concerns
And claiming that coronavirus poses "no danger" is simply untrue. You can claim that the danger is over-stated, but young adults can and do get COVID-19
True, but while infected with mild (or no) symptoms, they may also unknowingly spread it to university employees, townsfolk, or their parents while visiting for the weekend.
So even assuming that the personal danger is acceptable (which isn't a given; 300 deaths sounds like a horrible and avoidable tragedy to me) death figures among healthy 20-somethings don't capture the full risk of keeping a university open.
"So even assuming that the personal danger is acceptable (which isn't a given; 300 deaths sounds like a horrible and avoidable tragedy to me) death figures among healthy 20-somethings don't capture the full risk of keeping a university open."
Well now you're shifting the goalposts.
The comment was that the students are at risk. Someone shows you that they're not at risk, and you pivot to danger to "townsfolk".
Here's the thing: those students don't just disappear, and they don't stop interacting with other college-aged students, townsfolk and employees simply because they're not at school. And if you want to protect parents, shipping their kids off to live on their own seems like a better way to do that than to have those kids living at home.
(As far as "avoidable tragedies" go: during the same period that those 300 kids died of covid, literally thousands died of all other causes. More died of accidents than died of Covid. I think it's time to admit that your sense of concern is mis-calibrated.)
> The comment was that the students are at risk. Someone shows you that they're not at risk, and you pivot to danger to "townsfolk".
Assuming they're not stupid, evil, or politically conservative, the students are probably concerned about the risk of spreading the illness and the attendant harm that could cause, as well as what it could do to themselves.
This argument seems strange to me. Only 300 people have died because of the policies that were put in place. Relaxing those policies will increase that number.
Now there could be debate about whether that new number is "acceptable" or not. But we shouldn't use the success of the quarantine-like policies to argue that quarantine-like policies are unnecessary.
"Only 300 people have died because of the policies that were put in place. Relaxing those policies will increase that number."
This is an assumption, and it's a bad one. The paucity of deaths in young people is true around the world, regardless of lockdown policy. Sweden, for example, does not have a higher proportion of young people dying.
Yes, it is an assumption. Unfortunately, this situation is unprecedented, so everything we do has to be an educated guess. I would also note that you followed it up with an assumption of your own ;)
It is well established that physical distancing limits the spread of virus transmitted via respiratory droplets. If you refute that, I would require significant peer-reviewed literature on your side. https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/inf...
It is also irrefutable that contracting COVID-19 carries risk - especially for high-risk individuals with comorbidities (yes, even young people)
Combined, I don't see how you can come up with a hypothesis where getting people together would somehow be equally as safe as keeping people apart.
Again, this is just one aspect that policy makers have to consider. There is also the economy, mental health, etc. I think having those discussions is very interesting - how much should we protect our health vs our way of life? There are very valid arguments against continuing the shut-down.
But acknowledging that social practices directly impact virus transmission is a necessary step to have meaningful discussion.
> It is well established that physical distancing limits the spread of virus transmitted via respiratory droplets. If you refute that, I would require significant peer-reviewed literature on your side.
The study you provided does not support your claim that physical distancing works as it is implemented in the US (6 feet of separation).
> We found that the evidence base for current guidelines is sparse, and the available data do not support the 1- to 2-meter (≈3–6 feet) rule of spatial separation. Of 10 studies on horizontal droplet distance, 8 showed droplets travel more than 2 meters (≈6 feet), in some cases up to 8 meters (≈26 feet).
It's also likely Covid is spread by aerosols. There needs to be more research but it is very likely based on the details of superspreader events.
500 children die of influenza in the US each year. COVID is far less of a threat to young people. We have to make tradeoffs and having kids in college and not at home with parents and grandparents is a good solution
The CDC estimates total deaths from influenza in 2019 was 34,200.[0]
173,000 people have died in the USA this year from Covid 19 and the toll is rising.[1] that’s more than the total number of cases (22,000) in Australia. We got 10% the population of the USA and 0.2% of the deaths.
With all due respect, the USA has the worst Covid 19 rates in the entire fucking world. It is a travesty. You guys can say what you like, but your plan is literally killing people.
And specifically to your point: Do you think kids teach themselves? Kids are part of families, kids are taught by adults, kids catch busses driven by adults, kids meals are cooked by adults. The death rate of kids is irrelevant. Since kids can still spread the disease, they should be isolated like everyone else.
You have the highest absolute death rate and the 8th highest rate per capita. Do you realise your list is literally the list of worst hit countries in the world?
Look a bit further down... Australia 17.2, Vietnam 0.26, Thailand 0.84, New Zealand 4.5. Indonesia, with a comparable population to the USA but far more densely populated - and far poorer - is just 23.9.
The USA, richest country in the world, reserve currency of the world, has the 8th worse death rate in the whole world. That is vile. Meanwhile, your moron in chief is pointing to New Zealand and saying it’s out of control there because they had an “outbreak” of 9 cases. 9!
That’s roughly how many new cases the USA has every 18 seconds.
There is no excuse for what’s happened in the USA.
Was he obese? I only ask because many of the younger patients have comorbities that make them vulnerable to many diseases. And vaccines don't work as well for the obese either.
> I fully expect a notable outbreak in some college to start a wave of media noise, followed by all the universities sending everyone back home again.
I'd be surprised if that happened. Stanford's in a heavily populated part of California. It might make sense for them, based on the student population (mostly rich or at least well off) and location. My university has plans to keep students in campus housing even if we're forced to go 100% online, and I think from a public health perspective, that's a good thing. You don't want college students moving around if you have an outbreak. And once they're home, they're definitely not going to all just sit in the basement - they'll still be going to bars and parties. That would be a disaster. And the only place that there's hope they'll be tested or interact with others that are tested is on campus.
> My son's state university is forcing students to return in person.
That's horrible. As much as possible, we're accommodating students that feel safer online. About the only way I could see someone being forced to return is if their remaining credits were a lab science class. The worst thing you can possibly do is increase the density on campus. Everyone here is encouraged to work off campus as much as possible. Many of our courses are online or hybrid, where you reserve the in-person interactions for the parts where it delivers real value over the alternative. It's that 20% where face to face matters, not the other 80%.
I fully expect a notable outbreak in some college to start a wave of media noise, followed by all the universities sending everyone back home again.
Sucks because students are signing leases, moving crap, buying meal plans, etc, right now. Aside from the obvious safety issues.