Re: schools like Harvard bringing back students to generate revenue: Pretty unlikely that revenue is driving HYPSM type schools to increase residential capacity. Take Harvard. Roughly 40 % on campus. Singles without increased charge. Significantly increased costs to improve safety and testing. And then add in that FA likely is funding room and board for more than half of those in residence. (And could save that money dollar for dollar if those students were at home and room and board, travel were taken off the top of the FA COA calculation). I doubt the revenue that’s left after all that, if any, does much to move Harvard decisions. The calculus is far different at publics and at expensive privates with less generous FA.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: I deleted a couple of posts. Please stay on topic.
If we expect parents of grade-school children to do paid work, even remotely, then we need their kids to go school. Childcare is work. Mothers (it’s usually mothers) can’t do their paid job effectively while also doing childcare.
I don’t actually believe that most kids were better off (in terms of their education) at home than at school. I believe most kids learned less.
It appears to me that some areas are prioritizing being able to go back to bars, indoor dining and amusement parks over being able to safely open schools. We have to pick one, and they’re picking bars over kids.
@circuitrider Harvard (and Bowdoin) invites freshman and then students who have home situations that make it near impossible to study from home. Yes, they all have singles. They did not, however, say that freshmen have to come to campus. They can take remote class or take a gap if they want. And they made the more expensive decision to only offer singles. Schools like Bates and Colby are allowing doubles. Seems HarvArd and Bowdoin can afford to make the decision to only do singles and some do not. It’s not that they have some better scientific info on the virus. They can just afford to be more conservative.
I don’t follow, can you elaborate what you mean?
Why would we do this? Our country is HUGE, the virus has already run its course (Maybe) in many places. We should not cancel elementary schools for the year, that’s insanity. We have to tackle this locality by locality and cancel for periods of time as needed. Young children need to be in school.
Agree!! Children need to be in school. We need to focus our resources on that. And sorry, states that screwed this up after seeing the hell their fellow americans went through in the northeast with lack of information and testing l, shouldn’t impact the states that are in better shape now. This is a local and regional issue now.
@homerdog wrote:
LOL. I’m suing you for whiplash from following your posts on Bowdoin. First, they couldn’t open fast enough or with enough freedom of interaction between close friends. Now, they’re just being conservative. Does that also go for professors wanting to teach remotely?
It is depressing, but the students are being honest…and they are right about the 2 week quarantine before school starts. It’s stupid, they are all going to party. I thought that from the minute UConn announced it. They should bring in a set number of students in phases and have them bring a negative Covid test within a day or 2 of move-in. Most of these kids are in state anyway, so the state or college (same thing) could have covered the tests. Then they can quantine when they arrive with a cohort that has also been tested for a few days in case they picked it up since testing (I know, I know, you can be asymptomatic). This is risk mitigation.
Testing is the only way to make this work.
Also, colleges should look the other way when there are outdoor tailgates in September - better than indoors. Again, mitigation.
Well, my thoughts have evolved over time. That’s allowed. I didn’t know how limited campus life would be when I wanted Bowdoin to open. Then, little by little we saw all of the rules that were happening at other schools and it was an adjustment thinking, hm, will this be bad or not as bad as it seems? We were still in that mode when Bowdoin decided to just have freshmen (and a few others) and were disappointed. After two more weeks, though, and after seeing how other small schools’ rules are shaping up and watching how the virus is doing, we’ve come around to think Bowdoin’s decision might actually be the best one for now. And, now, I’m thinking that the LACs that think they are going to have class might even have to change that decision. So, yes, a bit of whiplash but I’m just being honest.
[QUOTE=""]
the virus has already run its course (Maybe) in many places. <<<<<<<<
[/QUOTE]
Did you let the science and health people know that LOL? Have you seen the serology data so far? Even the good tests? Do you have some insight that we are all missing? Immunity? Correlates of protection?
What I have seen is that in all countries that were hit hard, and have reopened with restrictions- there have not been huge new outbreaks or a second wave. Feel free to point out a country that was hard hit, and had a huge reinfection. The Northeastern SEEMS to be on that same trajectory. We are being very careful, we reopened only after huge case declines and it’s now been 7 weeks and so far so good (MA, NY, CT, RI, NJ, NY).
In parts of states (SoCal) or other states AZ, FL, TX, that didn’t have huge outbreaks in March/April, they are having wave 1 now. There was already a large amount of infection at reopening in FL, AZ, and Texas and the cases have spiked quickly.
Edited to add: just checked Worldometer - countries that opened up before or at the same time as us in May: Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. All still doing great. MANY of these have opened schools already.
I talked to my son about that UConn survey and he agreed with all of it. Two points that really resonated with him: 1) people aren’t going to quarantine on arrival if they don’t feel sick because they are eager to see their friends that they haven’t seen since March when campuses were abruptly closed; and 2) people are going to do their best to hide minor symptoms because no one wants to be put in solitary confinement for two weeks because you have a cold.
He’s right. They should test symptomatic students and tell them they would just have to self quantine until results are back. This mitigates some Covid spread by encouraging students to not lie (or face 14 days of quarantine for no illness).
Well I’ll go one step further. I bet kids with mild systems won’t want to get tested at all. If they end up positive but don’t feel that sick, they don’t want to be in a room for 14 days. I bet schools that can’t test everyone on a regular basis aren’t going to catch cases unless those kids feel pretty darn sick. That’s when kids will get a test. Not all kids. Some will want to know but some will not. And then they will continue to be out and about.
How is that any different than what is happening today, at home? They are more likely to test at college than at home or in an apartment, surely
@homerdog S19’s schedule changed little by little, from all in-person to the current small bit in person. However, the dean of the business school has sent out an email, they are hoping to add more in-person as they get into things and see how it’s going. Probably a smart way to go, limited f2f at first, and add as appropriate, rather than the other way around.
All…do you have plans if your student gets sick? Not a “mild” (not sure any of this is mild) case, but very ill? As in really should have someone checking on him/her often, but not hospital-worthy? My H and are are discussing this. We are just over an hour away, and I think I would head over there, get a hotel room, and be on call. Doing nothing would drive me insane.
Feel free to point out a country that was hard hit, got infections way down, then re-opened without restrictions, testing and contact tracing.
@roycroftmom, I agree that students who have mild symptoms, yet don’t want to get tested because they want to be able to continue to go out and party even if it means infecting vulnerable people, will do so whether at home or at college. The difference is, at college they’ll have more contact with more people to infect, some of whom do not share their partying ways and are attempting to protect themselves and others.
The frat jerks who have big parties even when they’re sick will be jerks wherever they live. But their more careful classmates won’t be exposed to frat jerks unless college is in person.
That’s a very good point. The virus ties in to so many ancillary issues. It’s not just about the science, but so many things. Even without the poor communities issues, parents need a perceived safe place for their kids to be while they work. Essentially, they have to go back.