Could be that it gives then more time rob banks, too. But most the college students with which I am familiar aren’t really angling for opportunities to cheat, or rob banks.
The sorts of college students I mentioned above seem to have sincere and nuanced beliefs on how best to deal with covid. Their views may not line up with your views, but that doesn’t really seem to be much of a reason to assume some nefarious motive.
This article from the UPenn student newspaper is from October 2020. With classes online, a wave of cheating is ravaging Penn’s academics | The Daily Pennsylvanian
Thanks - just found their quote:
Of those that have reported their status, 84 percent of students said they’ve received at least one vaccine dose, the college said. Hope is still waiting on about 13 percent of the student body to report their status.
So in September, 75% (84% of the 87% who had reported) had (at least) one dose.
I’m not presenting this as an argument - just noting that this leaves some ambiguity about how many actually are fully vaccinated (at least 2 doses).
But a sizable minority are:
28% of those surveyed at Yale (As pandemic continues, cheating gains speed - Yale Daily News)
23% of freshmen at Harvard (The Harvard Crimson | Class of 2019 By the Numbers)
And note that half of those who cheated at Yale started doing so during the pandemic.
When those students who are prepared to cheat are able to silence any opposition, then the majority who want a return to normality (and don’t want cheating to happen) will lose out.
Good catch. I hadn’t read it as closely as you did. I’m sure that the fact that they did not impose a vaccine mandate was a reflection of the fact that there would’ve been resistance from some significant number of families and probably trustees.
I didn’t say no college student ever cheated or took the opportunity to cheat. I did question the logic of assuming that, if college students favor the option of online classes during high risk periods, then it must be because they are angling to cheat.
Yale professors could curtail such online cheating if they so chose. I assume that if they did, the opinions on covid remediation measures wouldn’t significant change.
Perhaps they shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place?
I know a lot of college students, and grad students as well. Every one of them says cheating increased substantially when school went online. They may deny doing it themselves, but they all seem to know classmates who did cheat while remote instruction occurred. It is disingenuous to think otherwise.
Vaccine skeptics like the college students you know are difficult, @mtmind. Those who simply don’t believe in the efficacy of the vaccine they received to protect them can choose to ignore the science, but the rest of us don’t have to cater to them. I read that now, a fully vaxxed and boosted adult under 65 has a miniscule chance of dying from covid, far less than his/her chance of dying in a car accident or from the flu. Putting the risk in perspective is important.
UMD 98.5% vaccination rate (booster required) for students and staff. Classes in-person from January 24, first day of the semester. Dining halls open. KN95 required in classes, any mask elsewhere indoors.
Glad my kid is having a good in-person experience.
Most the college students I know are not “vaccine skeptics” and they most certainly don’t ignore the science. They understand while the vaccine is great, it is not some magic bullet that relieves them of any responsibility for rational decision-making. While still very effective, the vaccines have a somewhat lessened effectiveness against Omicron, and so unfortunately covid is still legitimate cause of concern for those with heightened vulnerabilities. Whether or not they are personally in danger, they are concerned for those who are.
In other words, while you have made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe your children should have to “cater to” those with heightened vulnerabilities (including professors, family members, staff, and more vulnerable classmates), many students don’t share your perspective. To put it another way, their risk assessment is different than yours.
Most kids at at schools who returned to temporary online for a few weeks are sophisticated enough to understand the reasons behind the approach, even if you happen to disagree with it.
Putting risk in perspective is important. But so is putting the costs of avoiding the risk. And while you child (and my child) may have had bad experiences with longer term remote learning, the psychological cost of going online for a couple weeks while kids get back on campus and numbers settle was/is very, very low.
Under your theory, we will stay remote forever. Covid will be here for the rest of our lives. I sincerely wish you luck with that approach
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say a thing about remote learning. Most schools that went online this semester did so temporarily, with kids on campus, to get things stabilized, and most of those have now moved back to in-person learning or hopefully will be soon.
you mean like Polio?
And kids at UCs were disappointed but broadly accepting of remote classes in January. What’s unacceptable is the attempt to extend that further, especially as the criteria being cited could make it last indefinitely:
My son at Berkeley had an intro CS class with OVER 2000 kids. You read that right! So I’m sure UCLA has some that are over 1000.
Like the flu
He was actually fine with it, but I’m sure many would not be.
Thanks! That would explain the 18.7/1 student/instructor ratio vs 18/1 at UCLA 
How was that class for your kid? Sounds more like an open courseware class, but maybe it works for CS?
One of these days I’ll play around with the numbers on their CDSs because frankly they make no sense.
ETA: just saw your response!
that’s one expensive 2000 person class for any out of state students.
I’d argue this is true for in state students also, but what do I know? Not much.