Not sure that not feeling like going to work for no particular reason is really comparable to an at-risk professor preferring to teach on-line rather than endanger their life by teaching in-person.
And if by unanimous agreement by the faculty, you really mean that colleges can force many (but not all) faculty members to teach in person under threat of lost jobs, well then I guess we are in agreement there.
But to me it seems more honest and straightforward to say that while almost all faculty would prefer to teach in person, there are nonetheless some higher risk faculty members who would prefer to teach online while the risk remains high.
Depending on what you mean by “senior” I don’t believe this is accurate. Regardless, if any are allowed to take sabbaticals then your first statement about unanimity is inaccurate. And there are professors at in-person schools who have taught at least some of their classes online, depending on their risk. I assume this is done by arrangement with the administration.
Many places are getting more resistant to testing asymptomatic people. Perhaps these schools should just offer to do a rapid test on everyone as soon as they arrive on campus. That way families are not forced to jump through these testing hoops and limited outside testing resources are not “wasted” on people without symptoms.
So S21’s school has decided that testing needs to be done within 7 days of start of classes on monday. But you can return to campus when you were originally supposed to arrive, and can return to dorms without having uploaded the results. I understand why they have changed the rules (initially 72 hours before return and could not access dorms without a negative test uploaded) but this is basically the same as not requiring testing.
Amherst College not having nearly as many restrictions as other schools for January term, it seems. Given, a little less than half of students are on-campus, but not having similar problems to Williams and Colby. Out of 450 students to arrive on Sunday (about 300-400 students were already on-campus because they were international, were competing in winter sports, or have difficult home circumstances). 16 students tested positive upon arrival, which appears to have actually relieved them, because they stated in an email about January term arrival procedures that they thought it was “extremely likely” that at least 25 arriving students would test positive. They have 30 students in isolation (there were several students who tested positive right before the CDC announced changes in guidance, so they have to stay in isolation for 10 days; others only have to isolate for 5 days). However, they are not instituting any more restrictions, and never shut down in-person dining. Students who arrived Sunday were required to tested Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday, and not allowed to dine indoors until second negative test was received (which is today). They proceeded with the plan, and all J-Term students can now dine indoors. No restrictions on gatherings, but students expected to wear masks indoors. Wonder if, for spring semester (starting for February 2), they will follow Harvard and Dartmouth’s lead and just have students isolate in their rooms.
While they encouraged professors of classes that weren’t already online to shift J-Term classes to remote, some classes are still in-person, and are starting back up with in-person instruction tomorrow.
My student’s college just sent out their plan. They want everyone to sign up for a “Covid Check-In” this weekend before returning to their dorms. They have a Sign Up Genius form and are asking everyone to sign up to either Take a Test or Bring a Test. They are incentivizing you to Bring a Test by offering a $20 gift certificate to their market cafe to the student if you Bring a Test (obviously a negative test). The catch is they want the test result to be no more than 24 hours old. They’ll accept a time stamped photo of a home rapid antigen test, which is what we’ll do. If you choose to Take a Test and it’s positive, they’ll send you home unless travel is prohibitive. (Most students live within a day’s drive, although not our student.) Class will be in person, masks required.
However, pretesting also means that the student could get infected after the test, or could have been infected too soon before the test for the test (even PCR) to detect it.
Note that PCR testing, due to its typical delay in getting the result, increases the window of post-test infection. This delay makes PCR testing much less useful for pretesting before going to some place where one may expose others.
If they really want to stop students from spreading virus that they bring in, they would require rapid testing on arrival and the next four days (by which time pre-contagious infections are likely to become detectable by rapid testing, which tends to show positive results during the same time as one is contagious). If they want to try to reduce spread in general, they would have enough rapid tests so that each student can use one every time they go where they may expose others (eating in the dining hall, class, etc.).
I think some schools are having to walk back the requirements because it is too difficult for many people to find tests right now.
My son’s school gave us 10 days notice, sending an email out last week with students returning this weekend. They wanted students to upload results no more than 72 hrs of prior to coming to campus. After numerous complaints from parents about the inability to find home test kits or get appointments anywhere, today they sent a revised requirement - students who can’t upload results before arrival need to schedule a test once they arrive on campus. Of course this means some may end up having to quarantine as soon as they get back if they test positive (his school does have quarantine space on campus).
I am not at all debating the need to change it. The issue is that the current requirement is not an actual requirement. They would be better off doing random testing of students as they return. That would actually catch true positives before they come into the dorms and school.
Nope, no remote or hybrid allowed for anyone this year.Students can take academic leave; faculty LWOP if approved. I don’t believe anyone has availed themselves of that.
Not sure why this is surprising-they were hired to teach in person, per their contract.
To clarify, I am not talking about your kids’ college, but rather about faculties at at a variety of top institutions, including at HYPSM, because you claimed that all faculty at all these schools had unanimously agreed to all teach in person. While your original claim is still unsupported because it is obviously an overstatement, we’ve moved so far afield from that now its not worth continuing.
The college is doing testing on arrival. They are also requiring testing before arrival. I agree with what you’re saying but still have to abide by the college’s policies. Frustrating.
Very impressive. Hats off to Wyoming for arranging things that way – it’s always heartwarming when people just, without fuss, put the money where it ought to go and build seriously for the future. You’ve got a beautiful state, too.
D’s university has the negative test requirement but no guidance on what to do with it. There’s specific direction on where to upload booster info, but nothing on the test. No one in our very active parents’ group has asked about it. I have a feeling no one’s going to be checking (maybe due to the lack of tests). Some students are moving back in this upcoming weekend - D is going back mid-week next week. I guess she’ll bring a copy of her test in case anyone asks.
@CollegeNerd67 My son’s school is having people upload the results to the same medical portal where we uploaded all the other required medical info (vax records, etc). They are allowing home tests, which means photos of a home test result, so not exactly the most legitimate method for people who are dishonest. I was lucky to be able to get an appointment for my son locally. He got tested yesterday and we had his results via a portal within an hour (negative thankfully).
Yes! And I’m sure word has gotten around to the dishonest to only swab the nose, for the greatest chance for a negative test result. Swabbing the throat and then the nose is apparently showing more accuracy in picking up the virus.