I have two kids. Kid 1 attends an Ivy that shut down in mid-March. Clearly, they aren't getting the full Ivy experience, but I'm OK with that in an emergency.
Kid 2 is a high school senior planning to go away this fall to a relatively expensive public school in a different state.
Suppose we are still on some form of lockdown (maybe softer, maybe not) this fall. What would you do? Should Kid 1 continue taking distance courses from the Ivy, from somewhere else, or take a semester off? (They don't really accept transfer courses.) Should Kid 2 matriculate or stay home? How should we start planning?
Quote from: pgher on April 13, 2020, 08:56:41 AM
I have two kids. Kid 1 attends an Ivy that shut down in mid-March. Clearly, they aren't getting the full Ivy experience, but I'm OK with that in an emergency.
Kid 2 is a high school senior planning to go away this fall to a relatively expensive public school in a different state.
Suppose we are still on some form of lockdown (maybe softer, maybe not) this fall. What would you do? Should Kid 1 continue taking distance courses from the Ivy, from somewhere else, or take a semester off? (They don't really accept transfer courses.) Should Kid 2 matriculate or stay home? How should we start planning?
I would tend to say that if the schools reopen, they should go, assuming they want to. I'm sure other people come at this from a different perspective, but I think I'm mostly going to have to follow the guidance coming from state and private institutions. I don't feel well equipped from a mental health perspective to try to decide how to balance risks like this.
Obviously this doesn't apply if your kids have a medical condition that puts them at elevated risk. Generally, college aged kids have a very low risk of getting really sick from this, so it is mostly not about their health I suppose the other exception would be if the decision to reopen seems completely unjustified and reckless.
Quote from: pgher on April 13, 2020, 08:56:41 AM
I have two kids. Kid 1 attends an Ivy that shut down in mid-March. Clearly, they aren't getting the full Ivy experience, but I'm OK with that in an emergency.
Kid 2 is a high school senior planning to go away this fall to a relatively expensive public school in a different state.
Suppose we are still on some form of lockdown (maybe softer, maybe not) this fall. What would you do? Should Kid 1 continue taking distance courses from the Ivy, from somewhere else, or take a semester off? (They don't really accept transfer courses.) Should Kid 2 matriculate or stay home? How should we start planning?
If the kids are academically solid, so doing things remotely isn't likely to be a problem, I'd say try to have them proceed because otherwise the time is pretty much wasted waiting. If the change is likely to throw them off, then delaying may be worthwhile.
I think that I understand what the OP is saying about not getting the whole experience.
I think that the Mark Twain quote is, "I never let schoolin interfere with my education" In the case of the Ivy, it is not the 'schoolin' that is lacking, but the 'education' that goes with it.
I think that I would bite the bullet and delay a decision until more information is available. I would hope that the fall is better and even if it is not, Spring probably will be, and if is probably better to keep moving forward with the expectation that it will be better soon enough.
There may still be some opportunities to socialize with others at these places, so when things to return closer to normal, they will still have some relations to pick up.
Quote from: clean on April 13, 2020, 09:58:42 AM
I think that I understand what the OP is saying about not getting the whole experience.
I think that the Mark Twain quote is, "I never let schoolin interfere with my education" In the case of the Ivy, it is not the 'schoolin' that is lacking, but the 'education' that goes with it.
I think that I would bite the bullet and delay a decision until more information is available. I would hope that the fall is better and even if it is not, Spring probably will be, and if is probably better to keep moving forward with the expectation that it will be better soon enough.
There may still be some opportunities to socialize with others at these places, so when things to return closer to normal, they will still have some relations to pick up.
Just the one caveat here; if a lot of people defer starting until things get better, things could be a bit crowded when that happens.
QuoteI think that I would bite the bullet and delay a decision until more information is available. I would hope that the fall is better and even if it is not, Spring probably will be, and if is probably better to keep moving forward with the expectation that it will be better soon enough.
In case my message was confusing, I was trying to say 'Defer making a decision' about the fall... not delay going in the Fall. It is only April, and there is a lot more time for more/better information to come in before you need to finally decide what the best decision would be.
I'd ask them both to switch to a local CC or other school with reliable, established online programs. They can transfer to another school after lockdown, and even if not all of the credits transfer, they'll have been learning. It's pretty awful that the Ivy doesn't accept any transfer credits.
The Ivy doesn't take transfer credits because it doesn't have to.
I like the idea of well-designed online CC courses for both children if campuses are still closed in the fall semester. Kid 1 can get a good foundation for more advanced courses upon return to the Ivy (I'm assuming Kid 1 can make up some hardship story and get a leave of absence, or whatever it might be called, so you don't have to pay the Ivy tuition for the semester). Kid 2 gets what he/she would be getting at the out-of-state public but for far less money -- but you want the credits to transfer.
Both Kid 1 and Kid 2 stay busy and somewhat on track academically.
Quote from: spork on April 14, 2020, 06:15:47 PM
The Ivy doesn't take transfer credits because it doesn't have to.
Exactly. Not uncommon among top-end colleges, public or private. Well, maybe others "take" credit but don't let it count towards your major.
Quote
I like the idea of well-designed online CC courses for both children if campuses are still closed in the fall semester. Kid 1 can get a good foundation for more advanced courses upon return to the Ivy (I'm assuming Kid 1 can make up some hardship story and get a leave of absence, or whatever it might be called, so you don't have to pay the Ivy tuition for the semester). Kid 2 gets what he/she would be getting at the out-of-state public but for far less money -- but you want the credits to transfer.
Both Kid 1 and Kid 2 stay busy and somewhat on track academically.
That's probably the most reasonable contingency plan. Possibly, they could take classes at my university. Kid 1 might balk at taking any classes that won't count for anything, but maybe if they're different courses so they don't displace anything.
Right now, it's just contingency planning, but better to think about it in April than in August.
Quote from: spork on April 14, 2020, 06:15:47 PM
The Ivy doesn't take transfer credits because it doesn't have to.
I like the idea of well-designed online CC courses for both children if campuses are still closed in the fall semester. Kid 1 can get a good foundation for more advanced courses upon return to the Ivy (I'm assuming Kid 1 can make up some hardship story and get a leave of absence, or whatever it might be called, so you don't have to pay the Ivy tuition for the semester). Kid 2 gets what he/she would be getting at the out-of-state public but for far less money -- but you want the credits to transfer.
I guess I would think more about the drawbacks for your kids of all of the disruption involved in switching schools. Online classes aren't ideal, but taking online classes at the same place you are going to eventually going to be taking in person classes would provide important continuity. For Kid 1, it might be worth thinking about all the ways that the Ivy is likely to have the resources to keep students engaged. Also, kid 1 already has all these relationships at the school with professors and other students. It is a lot easier to maintain those relationships through a weird semester online than to take classes somewhere else where you don't know anybody and there isn't going to be much chance to change that.
For kid 2, a lot of that might still apply, although it would depend a lot on what drew them to the flagship. If it was about a particular program, you'd want to think about that. If there are basic foundational courses they could take that they would take regardless, that's one thing, but you'd want to think about that.
I'm also curious what they think and how they'd feel about it. As someone who really values stability, I can tell you that as a college student I would have wanted as few moving pieces and changes as possible during a stressful time. Your kids might be different, but I'd try to get a good sense of what they want to do.
Quote from: pgher on April 14, 2020, 07:32:56 PM
Quote from: spork on April 14, 2020, 06:15:47 PM
The Ivy doesn't take transfer credits because it doesn't have to.
Exactly. Not uncommon among top-end colleges, public or private. Well, maybe others "take" credit but don't let it count towards your major.
One recurring discussion in many circles is the estimated 40% loss of credits upon transfer (to be fair, that's usually about a semester's worth) (https://www.studentclearinghouse.org/nscblog/the-challenge-of-transferring-college-credits/)
The research tends to show that people who end up going to a name-brand institution usually don't save money by getting their general education credits met at a community college or via dual credits because of transfer loss. Even AP credit is becoming less common at the elite institutions now that "everyone" has it, not just those coming from the top of the top high schools. AP courses and test scores still indicate that one is prepared for the name-brand education, but it's not an overall cost savings to the college bill.
One reason to not take transfer credit is the name-brand institution is relying heavily on its networking and socialization functions to have nearly everyone graduate in a timely manner and be a successful alum. The education itself is only part of the equation. Building the relationships with one's fellow students and acquiring the mindsets, mannerisms, and behaviors that one associates with that brand is important both to the graduates so they meet expectations of those out in the world and to the university's brand as people experience it.
Too many disappointed employers by not getting the type of person they expect and the university's name is no longer nearly as valuable on a diploma.
Those same social reasons are cited by students and parents for why taking a gap year and doing something else is a better use of time/resources than dropping down a couple tiers to focus on the education more cheaply. An accredited nursing/social work/education/engineering program is probably fine from nearly anywhere. However, when you're banking on the social network and/or the brand-name, then a gap year is pretty reasonable as a trade-off.
When I was in college I was encouraged to take a few electives at a local CC to save money.
I didn't want to waste the time.
I worried about taking these electives only to find out that they didn't actually transfer, in the fine print, in the way I needed them to, and end up delaying graduation.
At least if I took classes at my home institution it was clear. Requirement X can be filled by these classes. Check the box. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I agree that it is probably too early to figure out what will happen in the fall.
That being said, the first thing I would do is to ask your kids what they want. Do they want to return/start school if it is only online? Or would they prefer to wait? I am not sure, to be honest, what I would choose in their situation.
Then, I would see what are the options at each school. Are they allowing students to defer/take time off until the school actually reopens? Would this entail and financial or other costs?
If you (plural) decide that delaying is the preferred choice, and if that is possible, then I would try to figure out what to do instead. As long as it does not involve sitting at home doing nothing, there are many options, depending again on how opened up the world is in fall. They could take classes at a CC or local school, including yours. (I am not sure whether taking an online class at your CC would be worse than at Harvard. Harvard is Harvard, but the local CC might actually have better teachers with more online experience.) But they could get a job, volunteer, or do something else productive with their time. Even if the time is "lost" in terms of academic credits, they might gain some useful experience out of it.
In terms of Ivy transfer credits: a long time ago I taught an intro course for the summer session of a local public university. It was an R1, but a public school with much lower costs and admission requirements than the Ivy about 1.5 miles away. A student from said Ivy took my class (it was not her major) with the idea of saving thousands of dollars. For what it is worth, the text book was written by a member of the Ivy's faculty who had, several decades ago, taught for the school I was teaching for. The amount of paperwork I had to fill out, including my own CV and syllabus, for the student to get credit was absurd. Every two months or so, the student would email me asking for some other document or letter requested by the department or the registrar at the Ivy. When I stopped teaching as an adjunct at the school, I still don't think she had got credit.
I figured that it was a combination of the Ivy not wanting to lose money, conceit about its own prestige, and, to be honest, the fact that a summer course taught by an adjunct at a public university is not the same quality as a regular course at an Ivy, even one taught by a grad student. I know this because several colleagues had been TAs at said Ivy, and the amount and quality of work required for an intro class is quite different.
The other question is whether the university will even allow them to defer. In this strange time, it's possible they are trying to build an entering class now and keep them, as a way to make sure they meet their enrollment targets.
If they go online at the university they hope to attend, they will be in class (however it's offered) with other students in the same boat, and begin building contacts and community for when things open up again.
Here is another thing to worry about. Suppose the schools pretend that life is going back to normal and students move into dormitories in August. Then the second wave of the virus hits in October and students are then asked to vacate their rooms within a week. How long can this game be played without wreaking havoc on students and family budgets?
Quote from: polly_mer on April 15, 2020, 05:28:45 AM
The research tends to show that people who end up going to a name-brand institution usually don't save money by getting their general education credits met at a community college or via dual credits because of transfer loss. Even AP credit is becoming less common at the elite institutions now that "everyone" has it, not just those coming from the top of the top high schools. AP courses and test scores still indicate that one is prepared for the name-brand education, but it's not an overall cost savings to the college bill.
One reason to not take transfer credit is the name-brand institution is relying heavily on its networking and socialization functions to have nearly everyone graduate in a timely manner and be a successful alum. The education itself is only part of the equation. Building the relationships with one's fellow students and acquiring the mindsets, mannerisms, and behaviors that one associates with that brand is important both to the graduates so they meet expectations of those out in the world and to the university's brand as people experience it.
Too many disappointed employers by not getting the type of person they expect and the university's name is no longer nearly as valuable on a diploma.
Those same social reasons are cited by students and parents for why taking a gap year and doing something else is a better use of time/resources than dropping down a couple tiers to focus on the education more cheaply. An accredited nursing/social work/education/engineering program is probably fine from nearly anywhere. However, when you're banking on the social network and/or the brand-name, then a gap year is pretty reasonable as a trade-off.
Well done walking the line where this could be seen as satire or dead serious advice, and be both very effectively.
On the serious side, the socialization that is so critical in the first semester is not going to be done effectively online. The value proposition will change. The first semester on campus will be different from the first semester of college.
Quote from: Hibush on April 15, 2020, 11:47:10 AM
On the serious side, the socialization that is so critical in the first semester is not going to be done effectively online. The value proposition will change. The first semester on campus will be different from the first semester of college.
Exactly. I don't know about this particular college, but most have some sort of activities during the days or week leading up to the start of the semester for incoming freshmen. I don't know how that could be replicated, nor the less formal networking that happens in the weeks and months to follow.
Quote from: Anselm on April 15, 2020, 11:35:32 AM
Here is another thing to worry about. Suppose the schools pretend that life is going back to normal and students move into dormitories in August. Then the second wave of the virus hits in October and students are then asked to vacate their rooms within a week. How long can this game be played without wreaking havoc on students and family budgets?
It isn't likely to be the same situation. The hope is that you have systems in place to detect local outbreaks and try to bring them under control before they spread everywhere. If schools reopened, I'm not sure it would even make sense to send students home if there was an outbreak in the local area. It seems like the last thing you would want to do from a public health perspective is take a bunch of kids from an area where there were a bunch of cases, put them on planes and disperse them around the country.
Most undergraduates attend college within 50 miles of home. They aren't getting on planes. Many live with parents or other family members while taking classes on campus, live independently from family members in accommodations close to campus, or drive to their parents' home on weekends.
Quote from: spork on April 15, 2020, 05:16:52 PM
Most undergraduates attend college within 50 miles of home. They aren't getting on planes. Many live with parents or other family members while taking classes on campus, live independently from family members in accommodations close to campus, or drive to their parents' home on weekends.
Fair points. I was mostly just addressing the previous post as it related to pgher's kids' situation.
Quote from: Caracal on April 15, 2020, 03:31:27 PM
Quote from: Anselm on April 15, 2020, 11:35:32 AM
Here is another thing to worry about. Suppose the schools pretend that life is going back to normal and students move into dormitories in August. Then the second wave of the virus hits in October and students are then asked to vacate their rooms within a week. How long can this game be played without wreaking havoc on students and family budgets?
It isn't likely to be the same situation. The hope is that you have systems in place to detect local outbreaks and try to bring them under control before they spread everywhere. If schools reopened, I'm not sure it would even make sense to send students home if there was an outbreak in the local area. It seems like the last thing you would want to do from a public health perspective is take a bunch of kids from an area where there were a bunch of cases, put them on planes and disperse them around the country.
Right--when Kid 1's school shut down, they sent people from a locus of some disease activity (including at least one professor) to the farthest points on the globe. Didn't make any sense to me, but I'm glad to have my kid safe at home, for now.
I guess this is the sort of thing I worry about. Suppose both kids go off to college. Both campuses close at various times, though of course not in sync. Kid 2 is going to school someplace where I have friends who could provide refuge, but Kid 1 is not.
Kid 1 is trying to figure out what to do this summer. My advice was whatever it is, plan for it to last until January.
Like it or not, the quality of the Ivy courses is not comparable to any CC's.
And, like it or not, this pandemic has been a disaster for American education , especially k12. Many kids will essentially need to repeat this year, once schools open back up, or risk becoming a lost generation.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 15, 2020, 10:08:42 PM
Like it or not, the quality of the Ivy courses is not comparable to any CC's.
And, like it or not, this pandemic has been a disaster for American education , especially k12. Many kids will essentially need to repeat this year, once schools open back up, or risk becoming a lost generation.
That's an extremely silly take. Do you actually believe that education works like this? There's a ton of repetition and relearning of skills all the time.
Quote from: Anselm on April 15, 2020, 11:35:32 AM
Here is another thing to worry about. Suppose the schools pretend that life is going back to normal and students move into dormitories in August. Then the second wave of the virus hits in October and students are then asked to vacate their rooms within a week. How long can this game be played without wreaking havoc on students and family budgets?
We are a large public university with many out-of-state students. We recruit from lots of private and prep schools by touting our college experience. My chair has told us to proceed as if the above were the case -- for fall classes, plan for F2F classes, but make sure all assignments can go online when we inevitably have to close campus again to another round of quarantines.
Quote from: Caracal on April 16, 2020, 04:35:22 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 15, 2020, 10:08:42 PM
Like it or not, the quality of the Ivy courses is not comparable to any CC's.
And, like it or not, this pandemic has been a disaster for American education , especially k12. Many kids will essentially need to repeat this year, once schools open back up, or risk becoming a lost generation.
That's an extremely silly take. Do you actually believe that education works like this? There's a ton of repetition and relearning of skills all the time.
Repetition is extremely important for learning. Missing a couple months of repetition now that we've finally gotten to the new stuff means that the fall needs to start from roughly January instead of being able to reinforce what is typically taught in April and May.
I have a sixth grader and I am sighing very heavily about the fact that they aren't learning new material this semester in any classes. Repetition is important, but we also need to get new material so we can start on the repetition on that to have it sink in.
Some areas of knowledge are cumulative so that missing repetition now means having to make it up later. That's not the case in, say, literature in the same way that it is in, say, math or foreign language. One can learn math and foreign languages at any age, but they are easier when one is younger and they require substantial practice to remain proficient.
Skipping practice for whatever reason puts one at risk of doing something else instead and not remaining at a useful enough proficiency to resume easily instead of starting over, which is harder and much more frustrating.
Go ask your math colleagues about what happens over just the summer between high school and college, let alone students who take off several years with no practice to keep their skills fresh.
Quote from: RatGuy on April 16, 2020, 05:14:46 AM
We are a large public university with many out-of-state students. We recruit from lots of private and prep schools by touting our college experience. My chair has told us to proceed as if the above were the case -- for fall classes, plan for F2F classes, but make sure all assignments can go online when we inevitably have to close campus again to another round of quarantines.
I get the sense that lots of people are dealing with the uncertainty of all of this by locking in on pessimistic scenarios. It isn't going to help and is just another way of pretending we understand what will happen. Sure, preparing to the extent we can is good. If we go back in the Fall, and I'm teaching in person classes, I'll certainly think about ways to design courses so they could be switched online if necessary. But, there's just no way to know if there will be a second wave, because we are in the midst of the first wave.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 16, 2020, 05:58:33 AM
Some areas of knowledge are cumulative so that missing repetition now means having to make it up later. That's not the case in, say, literature in the same way that it is in, say, math or foreign language. One can learn math and foreign languages at any age, but they are easier when one is younger and they require substantial practice to remain proficient.
Skipping practice for whatever reason puts one at risk of doing something else instead and not remaining at a useful enough proficiency to resume easily instead of starting over, which is harder and much more frustrating.
Sure, it isn't ideal. And like all bad things I'm sure it will mostly just exacerbate existing inequalities. I was just disputing the idea that there's going to have a nationwide educational disaster because of a few months of acute disruption. In miniature, disruptions happen all the time. Families move, kids change schools, people have illnesses. Repetition is important for individual learning, but I strongly suspect we also do it because educational systems need some elasticity. You can't have seventh grade math come to a screeching halt because it turned out Dustin who was in California last year didn't learn how to solve simple equations for X because he was learning Geometry instead. *
*I have no idea if that is a good example or a terrible example
Quote from: Caracal on April 16, 2020, 06:54:19 AM
Sure, it isn't ideal. And like all bad things I'm sure it will mostly just exacerbate existing inequalities. I was just disputing the idea that there's going to have a nationwide educational disaster because of a few months of acute disruption. In miniature, disruptions happen all the time.
Not knowing how individual areas will deal with this, this is a bit of a guess, but:
Classes were normal up until about mid-March pretty much everywhere that I know of. The month of June for a lot of high schools (in Canada anyway) is mostly devoted to exams, which will probably be online in some format now. In elementary schools, the last week (or sometimes more) is parties, field trips, etc. (i.e. as little teaching as possible.)
So if the online efforts mostly consolidated things underway in March, then it's really about April/May that would have been lost, so about 2 months out of 10. (That's if NOTHING new got covered in any substantial way.)
Problematic? Yes, but it shouldn't come close to needing to repeat a year. (Of course, the students who were struggling already will have it worse, but that's always the case.)
Quote
Families move, kids change schools, people have illnesses. Repetition is important for individual learning, but I strongly suspect we also do it because educational systems need some elasticity. You can't have seventh grade math come to a screeching halt because it turned out Dustin who was in California last year didn't learn how to solve simple equations for X because he was learning Geometry instead. *
*I have no idea if that is a good example or a terrible example
The principle is a good one; since all areas don't cover topics in exactly the same order, then students transferring (especially during the year) will have to make up some, and it's not the end of the world. At least in this situation,
all of the students in a class will have the same gaps.
Quote from: Caracal on April 16, 2020, 06:54:19 AM
like all bad things I'm sure it will mostly just exacerbate existing inequalities.
Sure, but that's the big problem that worries K-12 teachers in the online discussions I'm reading. Missing the final quarter in one grade along with other big upheavals may be the final straw for some students and their families. I'm seeing a fair number of discussions worried very much about the discrepancies between the students who just had some extra summer vacation and those who may have been almost completely derailed for the next several years.
The kid who was keeping up in the good enough old district who moves to a good enough new district will probably be OK, even with multiple moves over the whole K-12.
However, there is concern in many areas because students who are in bad enough schools or fragile enough home situations just derail some point and never catch up. One of the key factors for life success in education books I've been reading is stability and access to sufficient resources that one acquires certain mindsets along with some specific skills. Spending enough time in precarious situations where investing in the future is obviously a losing strategy tends to be a huge problem later in life when the losing strategy is focusing purely on the immediate need like eating tomorrow and having rent by the end of the week. Some research indicates that moving from a failing school system to a good school system has far fewer benefits to the individual student if it occurs after about third grade.
The algebra versus geometry example is not appropriate here because, as a system, we don't care about individual students at all.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2020, 07:38:21 AM
At least in this situation, all of the students in a class will have the same gaps.
But it's not, if schools are doing as our local schools are doing so that students are supposed to be doing some work every day via remote methods. The problem is exactly what happens when we plan to move the entire second semester of sixth grade math to the first semester of seventh grade math and still deal with the fact that we have 30% of the class plowed through individual study enough to be ready to skip to algebra II (i.e, now they don't belong at all with their age cohort, but only for math), 20% of the class really needs to repeat all of sixth grade math (but only math, not the whole of sixth grade), and we were already stretching the limits on how many teachers we had in middle school because we've had a population boom and can't get math/science/language teachers to come this far out into the boonies.
Again, for the subjects that are truly cumulative and must be followed in a mostly prescribed order to be able to learn, the gap between
the haves (those who could access all the material, have support at home to keep learning, and is otherwise a pretty boring, early summer vacation)
and
the have nots (some combination of limited access to the materials, no academic support at home, real worries about food/rent/medicine/utilities/basic survival)
will widen and possibly not just a little bit.
Even if we just move the one semester, now we have students at key junctions who will be off-schedule by most of a semester for the rest of their time in school. That's not just getting back to normal by fall 2021 and will cause ripples for which the systems need to plan for several years. Every big shutdown we have will create a new ripple in that system. Eventually, from a systems viewpoint, one does focus on the majority of the students who could still succeed and sigh heavily as the other students get shafted because it's not a good use of resources to spread them too thin to address literally every individual student's unique needs.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 16, 2020, 10:09:11 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 16, 2020, 06:54:19 AM
like all bad things I'm sure it will mostly just exacerbate existing inequalities.
Sure, but that's the big problem that worries K-12 teachers in the online discussions I'm reading. Missing the final quarter in one grade along with other big upheavals may be the final straw for some students and their families. I'm seeing a fair number of discussions worried very much about the discrepancies between the students who just had some extra summer vacation and those who may have been almost completely derailed for the next several years.
The kid who was keeping up in the good enough old district who moves to a good enough new district will probably be OK, even with multiple moves over the whole K-12.
However, there is concern in many areas because students who are in bad enough schools or fragile enough home situations just derail some point and never catch up. One of the key factors for life success in education books I've been reading is stability and access to sufficient resources that one acquires certain mindsets along with some specific skills. Spending enough time in precarious situations where investing in the future is obviously a losing strategy tends to be a huge problem later in life when the losing strategy is focusing purely on the immediate need like eating tomorrow and having rent by the end of the week. Some research indicates that moving from a failing school system to a good school system has far fewer benefits to the individual student if it occurs after about third grade.
The algebra versus geometry example is not appropriate here because, as a system, we don't care about individual students at all.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2020, 07:38:21 AM
At least in this situation, all of the students in a class will have the same gaps.
But it's not, if schools are doing as our local schools are doing so that students are supposed to be doing some work every day via remote methods. The problem is exactly what happens when we plan to move the entire second semester of sixth grade math to the first semester of seventh grade math and still deal with the fact that we have 30% of the class plowed through individual study enough to be ready to skip to algebra II (i.e, now they don't belong at all with their age cohort, but only for math), 20% of the class really needs to repeat all of sixth grade math (but only math, not the whole of sixth grade), and we were already stretching the limits on how many teachers we had in middle school because we've had a population boom and can't get math/science/language teachers to come this far out into the boonies.
Again, for the subjects that are truly cumulative and must be followed in a mostly prescribed order to be able to learn, the gap between
the haves (those who could access all the material, have support at home to keep learning, and is otherwise a pretty boring, early summer vacation)
and
the have nots (some combination of limited access to the materials, no academic support at home, real worries about food/rent/medicine/utilities/basic survival)
will widen and possibly not just a little bit.
Even if we just move the one semester, now we have students at key junctions who will be off-schedule by most of a semester for the rest of their time in school. That's not just getting back to normal by fall 2021 and will cause ripples for which the systems need to plan for several years. Every big shutdown we have will create a new ripple in that system. Eventually, from a systems viewpoint, one does focus on the majority of the students who could still succeed and sigh heavily as the other students get shafted because it's not a good use of resources to spread them too thin to address literally every individual student's unique needs.
As some anecdata, Kid 2 is doing just fine (projecting straight A's), but has a friend-of-a-friend who has all D's and an F. He's the kind of kid who needs external motivation and structure, but he isn't getting it.
Quote from: pgher on April 16, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on April 16, 2020, 10:09:11 AM
Again, for the subjects that are truly cumulative and must be followed in a mostly prescribed order to be able to learn, the gap between
the haves (those who could access all the material, have support at home to keep learning, and is otherwise a pretty boring, early summer vacation)
and
the have nots (some combination of limited access to the materials, no academic support at home, real worries about food/rent/medicine/utilities/basic survival)
will widen and possibly not just a little bit.
Even if we just move the one semester, now we have students at key junctions who will be off-schedule by most of a semester for the rest of their time in school. That's not just getting back to normal by fall 2021 and will cause ripples for which the systems need to plan for several years. Every big shutdown we have will create a new ripple in that system. Eventually, from a systems viewpoint, one does focus on the majority of the students who could still succeed and sigh heavily as the other students get shafted because it's not a good use of resources to spread them too thin to address literally every individual student's unique needs.
As some anecdata, Kid 2 is doing just fine (projecting straight A's), but has a friend-of-a-friend who has all D's and an F. He's the kind of kid who needs external motivation and structure, but he isn't getting it.
At the risk of riding one of my hobby horses, this is why streaming is important. Pretending that all of the kids in one classroom are at the "same" level only requires some sort of disruption like this to make it glaringly apparent that the illusion of similarity is fragile and shatters easily.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2020, 12:16:37 PM
Quote from: pgher on April 16, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on April 16, 2020, 10:09:11 AM
Again, for the subjects that are truly cumulative and must be followed in a mostly prescribed order to be able to learn, the gap between
the haves (those who could access all the material, have support at home to keep learning, and is otherwise a pretty boring, early summer vacation)
and
the have nots (some combination of limited access to the materials, no academic support at home, real worries about food/rent/medicine/utilities/basic survival)
will widen and possibly not just a little bit.
Even if we just move the one semester, now we have students at key junctions who will be off-schedule by most of a semester for the rest of their time in school. That's not just getting back to normal by fall 2021 and will cause ripples for which the systems need to plan for several years. Every big shutdown we have will create a new ripple in that system. Eventually, from a systems viewpoint, one does focus on the majority of the students who could still succeed and sigh heavily as the other students get shafted because it's not a good use of resources to spread them too thin to address literally every individual student's unique needs.
As some anecdata, Kid 2 is doing just fine (projecting straight A's), but has a friend-of-a-friend who has all D's and an F. He's the kind of kid who needs external motivation and structure, but he isn't getting it.
At the risk of riding one of my hobby horses, this is why streaming is important. Pretending that all of the kids in one classroom are at the "same" level only requires some sort of disruption like this to make it glaringly apparent that the illusion of similarity is fragile and shatters easily.
marshwiggle: I can and have argued both sides of the streaming/tracking issue. However, literally no one pretends what you just stated.
And yes, I know what literally means.
I'm really glad that wellkid is a high school sophomore this year, and not closer to college. His school district has just implemented pass/fail grades for all of spring semester, unless students request to opt out and receive letter grades (wellkid will not be opting out). If he had been planning on college in the fall, especially away from home, we would definitely be talking about gap year possibilities instead.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 16, 2020, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2020, 12:16:37 PM
At the risk of riding one of my hobby horses, this is why streaming is important. Pretending that all of the kids in one classroom are at the "same" level only requires some sort of disruption like this to make it glaringly apparent that the illusion of similarity is fragile and shatters easily.
marshwiggle: I can and have argued both sides of the streaming/tracking issue. However, literally no one pretends what you just stated.
And yes, I know what literally means.
Sometimes here because of enrollment issues, we get "split" classes; such as a "3/4" split where there are some of each grade in the class. If a 3/4 split has all good students, and a "regular" grade 4 class has good students and struggling students, the 3/4 split will probably still be easier to teach than the grade 4 class, because the students all learn
at a similar rate. That will be much more helpful in the long run that the *theoretical similarity of the students'
incoming knowledge base in the regular grade 4 class.
*(The similarity is "theoretical" because the weak students were probably struggling in earlier grades as well, so they won't actually have the same solid knowledge base as the better students in the same class.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2020, 01:51:18 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 16, 2020, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2020, 12:16:37 PM
At the risk of riding one of my hobby horses, this is why streaming is important. Pretending that all of the kids in one classroom are at the "same" level only requires some sort of disruption like this to make it glaringly apparent that the illusion of similarity is fragile and shatters easily.
marshwiggle: I can and have argued both sides of the streaming/tracking issue. However, literally no one pretends what you just stated.
And yes, I know what literally means.
Sometimes here because of enrollment issues, we get "split" classes; such as a "3/4" split where there are some of each grade in the class. If a 3/4 split has all good students, and a "regular" grade 4 class has good students and struggling students, the 3/4 split will probably still be easier to teach than the grade 4 class, because the students all learn at a similar rate. That will be much more helpful in the long run that the *theoretical similarity of the students' incoming knowledge base in the regular grade 4 class.
*(The similarity is "theoretical" because the weak students were probably struggling in earlier grades as well, so they won't actually have the same solid knowledge base as the better students in the same class.)
Could you maybe take this sidebar to the existing streaming thread (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=1226.0) instead of hijacking this thread about college this fall? Thanks.
Current word from our admin is that they expect to be able to make a decision about bring back student for fall (late August) in six to eight weeks (first half of June). The progression of the first wave of the epidemic won't be clear until then. There will also be some better estimates of infectivity, transmission routes and other factors that will determine whether we can institute effective isolation practices if we do bring students back.
That timeline is going to keep people working with two sets of plans for a while. Whatever parent's plan is for closed campuses in fall, those better be flexible also.
More on topic. polly mentioned elite institutions not accepting AP credit, and she is absolutely correct.
Many not quite elite but quite good flagships do. IU and Purdue, for example both accept quite a bit. Examples from calculus: a 4 or 5 on AP AB receives credit in the first math/science/engineering calc course, and a 4 or 5 on AP BC receives credit for the first two calc courses. Similar for many other content areas.
If a student is considering taking courses locally look for statewide articulation agreements. The first two calc courses at Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana can transfer as the first two calc courses at any state institution. When I evaluate credit from surrounding states I look at the statewide agreement there. For example, if OSU accepts calc from a CC in Ohio I will okay it also. That's a pretty common practice. Info like this is available to parents on state websites.
I am not sure how on topic this is, but it is my understanding that more and more elite colleges do not take AP credit, or do not take all classes, or do not take if for major credit. The justification is that sitting an exam and doing well, while nice, is not the equivalent of learning in their hallowed lecture hall. This may or may not be the case.
But I also think it is useful to look at AP credit like a gold coin. It has a nominal value and a real value. Yes, you can use your gold coin to buy a soda at the local store. But that's really not why people buy it. Similarly, yes, in many cases you can use AP credit to gain advanced standing at university. But for many people, the real reason they take AP courses and exams is to show that they have taken rigorous high school classes. This is especially true as fewer students take SAT Achievement Tests (which in my experience are often actually more difficult than AP exams). In this sense, if you want to go to Harvard, the AP credits help more BEFORE you go there than they do AFTER you get in.
CLEP exams have the same "nominal" value as AP exams, but do not have the same "real" value. Passing several CLEP exams will neither help you get into Harvard nor help you graduate sooner if you do get in.
Sometimes poly makes a great deal of sense, and this is one of those times. Obviously not every kid will be significantly harmed by this education interregnum, but it is and will increasingly devastate many, most of whom are sub middle class, black and brown, coming from less than Cleaverish family backgrounds, etc. I heard Harvard Ed Prof Paul Revell, former Mass. Ed secretary, interviewed recently, and he was imo vastly overoptimistic, simply not taking into account the fact that many middle class plus families, who often have a parent or now during the covid era perhaps two parents, at home to help with the impromptu online homeschooling efforts, and in any case have the tech access AND tech competence to meaningfully do such schooling, are nonetheless also augmenting their kids' Ed efforts now with enrolling them in various online tutoring and enrichment programs, all of which factors will more or less ensure that the overwhelming majority of kids in such families will ride out the school opening hiatus well enough--though even in these families there are plenty of kids who will be hurt by the lack of regular ftf access to teachers, special needs services professionals, etc, and who otherwise need more than average amounts of reteaching, reinforcement, and the like-- but for many if not most of kids in the other and much less advantaged cohort, this interregnum will indeed be educationally murderous, and will tremendously exacerbate the already shameful and scandalous inequalities of education and corresponding potential outcomes that sadly is a depressing and all but unique characteristic of the richest bleeping country in the world.
You all have a lot more pessimistic view than I do.
Grades 1-12 are basically 8 months each. I'm not counting what's typically part of June because it's often just tidying up and doing low-stakes funnish stuff. Okay, so say 8 months per school year — 96 months of education. 2 1/2 of those have been disrupted. I'm skeptical that this is going to derail anyone's education.
In addition, some school systems operate on a different calendar. At my place in the rural Midwest, the k-12 schools start at the beginning of August and are done in mid-May. So they're missing maybe 6 weeks. Assuming none of the students in either of these cases works online or learns anything from online teaching.
Online education is not always ideal, but there are thousands of students already enrolled in online-only schools, and they're learning. There are even some plusses. Less time spent commuting to school (in rural areas this alone can be 2-3 hours per day), walking around the school, buying drugs from other students (don't believe that doesn't happen). Easier to avoid bullies. Less classroom chaos. My kid, who has ADD, finds classroom work very distracting because of the noise level and student tumult, and struggles to finish things by the end of the class period. Online he can work at his own pace.
Of course the world is in a worrisome shape now. But I don't think we have to be apocalyptic about the dreadful loss of all the intensive student learning that would have been going on. In fact, my own college students seem to have gotten all the way through without paying attention even to basic things like the use of commas and how to construct thesis statements, and despite my ominous warnings, they go ahead out into the world and do just fine.
Quote from: Hegemony on April 16, 2020, 11:29:08 PM
You all have a lot more pessimistic view than I do.
Agree. Exacerbate existing inequalities? Sure, how could it not. That's a far cry from "devastate" or "murder." We've had this conversation in different contexts, but I think this is part of a tendency to overestimate the effects of education. The model that Poly and Kay seem to have is that education is this fragile bridge that leads kids out of poverty, but one break and they all plunge into the abyss. If just attending school was this efficacious then we would live in a very different, much less unequal country. Again I'm not arguing that more time off from school isn't going to have bad effects on already disadvantaged groups. It will, but if you wanted to try to ameliorate those effects, focusing only on the disruption of a few months of schooling misses the point. Start with providing more financial support for families in trouble, than think about subsidies for childcare, paid leave for hourly workers, housing programs and go down the line.
I'll be curious to see the aftermath of this year's AP exams, which will look quite different than those students and colleges are used to. AP Modern World History, for example, will consist of a single document-based essay question. Most students (including wellkid) will take the exam online, at home, in 45 minutes.
In addition, I think people may have an overly rosy view of the kind of education disadvantaged students are getting anyway. I'm not saying it's defensible, but it's the truth. I went to one of those high schools myself. It was an inner-city school in a very poverty-stricken area (think downtown Detroit). I have told this tale before, but it literally was the kind of place where not only were drugs sold openly in the classroom, but they were sold to the teacher. (Looking at you, Mr. M.) Many of the students were illiterate, and most of the teachers were not far off. No education was going on. It would have been a relief to have two months out of the hellhole.
I have a friend who recently retired from another school like that, in one of the poorest districts of the Bay Area. He idealistically tried to keep up quality for a while, until he even lost the plot. Many of his students spoke no or little English — they were often refugees from elsewhere, not even Spanish-speaking (where there were American bilingual kids who could help translate) but Cambodian and so on. There was no program to help them adjust. My friend was a math teacher. The math teacher in the room next door just showed movies to his students all day long while he played on the internet. No math taught at all. My friend tried to keep things going, then got so discouraged that he started taking a couple of days sick every week. I attempted to shame him out of this, whereupon he retired.
My point is that a lot of poor kids go to schools like this, and missing two months of schooling is not going to hinder their education at all, because they are warehoused, not taught. The problems go way, way beyond missing two months of school.
Caracal and hegemony both have good and true points and the deep inequalities in our k12 Ed system are wretched. That said, my point remains. Some public school districts are so awful that the kids aren't really missing anything during this interregnum, but most provide something, and the kids that most need that something, the families that are least equipped to offer any meaningful homeschooling alternative now, well they not getting that something that the school provides, and the longer the hiatus lasts, the more devastingly murderous the situation becomes
All of this is true (the corona situation is only going to perpetuate structual inequalities: the students from more affluent backgrounds are more likely to have good internet, have parents whose income isn't under threat, who will have access to whatever alternative opportunities emerge).
To get back to the OP's issue though: isn't part of the question what the kid will be doing if they don't enrol in college? Sitting on their parents' couch and watching Netflix? Employment options for 18 year olds aren't likely to be great.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 17, 2020, 09:12:19 PM
Caracal and hegemony both have good and true points and the deep inequalities in our k12 Ed system are wretched. That said, my point remains. Some public school districts are so awful that the kids aren't really missing anything during this interregnum, but most provide something, and the kids that most need that something, the families that are least equipped to offer any meaningful homeschooling alternative now, well they not getting that something that the school provides, and the longer the hiatus lasts, the more devastingly murderous the situation becomes
I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same. The costs are also really high, to kids, but also to everyone else if people have no child care options. I'm not excited about the prospect of teaching online in the fall, but if my toddler is at daycare I'm sure I can do it. If he's not, I really don't think I could do a full load for a whole semester.
Some news yesterday. Kid 1's college is delaying the housing lottery, which was supposed to happen next week, to an indeterminate time in the future.
Kid 2's college sent a no-information letter indicating that they are planning to have classes this fall, but they don't know what form that will take.
So we wait and see.
I deeply want wellkid's high school to be open in the fall, both for his general well-being and because fall is the beginning of his IB diploma program. However, wellkid also lives with his elderly, immune-compromised grandmother, and, well, if this is still going around, I'm not interested in additional vectors coming into the house, either. No good answers here.
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/a-twenty-year-professor-on-starting-college-this-fall-dont-df3ea4024f70
This is a message to all high school seniors (and their parents). If you were planning to enroll in college next fall — don't.
No one knows whether colleges and universities will offer face-to-face instruction in the fall, or whether they will stay open if they do. No one knows whether dorms and cafeterias will reopen, or whether team sports will practice and play.
It's that simple. No one knows. Schools that decide to reopen may not be able to stay that way. A few may decide, soon, not even to try. Others may put off the decision for as long as possible — but you can make your decision now.
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:15:40 AM
I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.
Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.
In answer to that last question, there's today's article from the Guardian:
"Case of symptomatic nine-year-old suggests children may be less likely to pass on virus"
"A nine-year-old boy who contracted Covid-19 in Eastern France did not pass the virus on despite coming into contact with more than 170 people, according to research that suggests children may not be major spreaders of the virus. ... A report on the investigation published in Clinical Infectious Diseases describes how tests revealed the boy to be infected with Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, and also influenza and a common cold virus. While both of his siblings caught the latter infections, neither picked up the coronavirus.
"One child, co-infected with other respiratory viruses, attended three schools while symptomatic, but did not transmit the virus, suggesting potential different transmission dynamics in children," Kostas Danis, an epidemiologist at Public Health France told the French news agency AFP. The boy had only mild symptoms and when tested was found to have levels of virus that were barely detectable. The low level of infection is thought to explain why he did not infect other people.The researchers believe that since children typically have only mild symptoms, they may transmit the virus far less than infected adults. "Children might not be an important source of transmissions of this novel virus," they write. ..."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/boy-with-covid-19-did-not-transmit-disease-to-more-than-170-contacts
However, I see this is disputed by Prof Lars Schaade, vice president of the Robert Koch Institute, Germany's leading public health body:
"Despite reports this morning that children are not spreading the disease as much as had been thought, Schaade said intensive tracking showed children who had contracted the disease in Germany were found to have as much of the virus in their throats as adults, even if they often show no symptoms. He said the RKI believed children played a not-insignificant role in spreading the disease."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/apr/21/coronavirus-live-news-donald-trump-downplays-oil-price-crash-as-short-term-latest-updates
I also have a kid graduating highschool and who committed to a college for this fall. At the moment, our plan is to roll with it and see what the college plans for the fall and whether it seems safe etc.
But I'm frankly confused by the idea that everyone can just defer for a year. Many schools have an incoming class size that's limited by instructonal and housing capacity. If they let even a significant fraction of students defer, that's taking up slots for next year's freshman class. If large numbers of students decide just to opt out this year and reapply in 2021, they will be competing with all the other students who did that AND with all of next year's graduating seniors. The medium article claim that "if they let you in this year they probably will next year" seems unsupported (especially given that many schools are increasing their acceptances in anticipation of lower yields).
(all of this is made easier by the fact that my family unit has a lot of privileges and won't be risking our financial future by sending our kid to college next year, and that the fringelet is committed to a fairly selective school with a very robust endowment).
Quote from: onthefringe on April 21, 2020, 06:46:08 AM
I also have a kid graduating highschool and who committed to a college for this fall. At the moment, our plan is to roll with it and see what the college plans for the fall and whether it seems safe etc.
But I'm frankly confused by the idea that everyone can just defer for a year. Many schools have an incoming class size that's limited by instructonal and housing capacity. If they let even a significant fraction of students defer, that's taking up slots for next year's freshman class. If large numbers of students decide just to opt out this year and reapply in 2021, they will be competing with all the other students who did that AND with all of next year's graduating seniors. The medium article claim that "if they let you in this year they probably will next year" seems unsupported (especially given that many schools are increasing their acceptances in anticipation of lower yields).
If you want a recent historical example of something like this, Google "Ontario double cohort year". The high school curriculum in Ontario used to be 5 years long; when it changed to a 4 year curriculum like most other places, that meant that Fall 2003 had the last of the 5 year curriculum students starting university along with the first of the 4 year curriculum graduates.
One specific thing I remember about that year was that there were very few people who dropped courses once they were registered in them, probably because courses were that much harder to get into in the first place. Many others I talked to had a simlar experience.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 21, 2020, 04:17:48 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:15:40 AM
I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.
Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.
I'm reading the news Poly and I follow epidemiologists and others who have argued this. Could be wrong, but seems likely. I think one of the things you and others might not understand is that kids are big transmitters of the flu. Schools really drive its spread. If kids just transmit Covid at the same rate as everyone else, then that would make a big difference in terms of thinking about the costs and benefits of having schools reopen. Again, I think it is suggestive that I haven't seen evidence anywhere of big clusters related to k-12 schools. There could be lots of reasons for this. Since kids usually get much milder versions of Covid, it could be harder to see those clusters within larger community spread. Maybe other studies will find a whole bunch of cases among adults all linked by a schools or daycares. It sort of seems to me like someone would have noticed that already somewhere in the world though, and to my knowledge nobody has. Maybe that's totally wrong. And lower risk doesn't mean no risk, and people need to get a better handle on this before schools reopen in the fall. I'm not sending my toddler to go hang out with grandparents (as amazing as that would be) right now.
Quote from: Caracal on April 21, 2020, 07:18:33 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on April 21, 2020, 04:17:48 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:15:40 AM
I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.
Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.
I'm reading the news Poly and I follow epidemiologists and others who have argued this. Could be wrong, but seems likely. I think one of the things you and others might not understand is that kids are big transmitters of the flu. Schools really drive its spread. If kids just transmit Covid at the same rate as everyone else, then that would make a big difference in terms of thinking about the costs and benefits of having schools reopen. Again, I think it is suggestive that I haven't seen evidence anywhere of big clusters related to k-12 schools. There could be lots of reasons for this. Since kids usually get much milder versions of Covid, it could be harder to see those clusters within larger community spread. Maybe other studies will find a whole bunch of cases among adults all linked by a schools or daycares. It sort of seems to me like someone would have noticed that already somewhere in the world though, and to my knowledge nobody has. Maybe that's totally wrong. And lower risk doesn't mean no risk, and people need to get a better handle on this before schools reopen in the fall. I'm not sending my toddler to go hang out with grandparents (as amazing as that would be) right now.
Around here, it seems as if everyone is clamoring to open everything except the schools. While we haven't had images of protesting that have gone viral, there have been enough people angry with the lockdown that the mayor has said, "there won't be any repercussions for violating the governor's policy on isolation. Gyms, restaurants, retail outlets will likely be open next week, at the discretion of the managers. And given all that, those people sure as heck don't want their school-aged kids returning...because better safe than sorry when it's your kids.
Quote from: Caracal on April 21, 2020, 07:18:33 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on April 21, 2020, 04:17:48 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:15:40 AM
I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.
Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.
I'm reading the news Poly and I follow epidemiologists and others who have argued this.
Which news?
Which epidemiologists and do they actually know what they're doing or are they just "others who have argued this"? Arguing something is not the same as actually being a scientist in the relevant area with enough of the detailed knowledge to make good decisions. One of my "favorite" recent examples was a model that assumed kids don't transmit and then drew conclusions on the probable effect on reopening the schools based on that assumption.
The concern everywhere I've seen that has real scientists involved is indeed that little kids spread everything, even if they themselves aren't all that sick. It's a lovely thought that somehow people with the worst hygiene habits are somehow not going to be spreading a highly contagious disease, but that's not a science thought based on everything we know about other viruses and kids.
My employer is a science institution that includes real scientists whose bread and butter is exactly disease modeling for spreading and predicting outbreaks along with other scientists who do vaccines and other biological aspects. Our daily all-hands updates are likely much better sources of scientific information regarding disease-spread models and likely outcomes than whatever filtered-by-filtered-by-filtered headlines you're reading.
Epidemiology isn't my specialty, but my colleagues who are (close enough colleagues that I can call them up and say, "Hey, it's Polly. What's the real scoop on ...?) are much more trustworthy sources than your interpretation from "news" sources that you didn't even bother to name so we could judge their credibility.
Quote from: onthefringe on April 21, 2020, 06:46:08 AM
[. . .]
The medium article claim that "if they let you in this year they probably will next year" seems unsupported (especially given that many schools are increasing their acceptances in anticipation of lower yields).
[. . . ]
An example of just how little many faculty understand about the economics of operating a university.
Edited to add: And on the subject of children transmitting Covid-19, if they didn't, and there was evidence that they didn't, then nursing and retirement homes would be throwing open their doors to become day care facilities for pre-schoolers. Parents have first-hand experience with the disease-transmitting capabilities of small children who congregate in groups, as happens at schools.
Quote from: Anselm on April 20, 2020, 09:47:57 PM
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/a-twenty-year-professor-on-starting-college-this-fall-dont-df3ea4024f70
This is a message to all high school seniors (and their parents). If you were planning to enroll in college next fall — don't.
No one knows whether colleges and universities will offer face-to-face instruction in the fall, or whether they will stay open if they do. No one knows whether dorms and cafeterias will reopen, or whether team sports will practice and play.
It's that simple. No one knows. Schools that decide to reopen may not be able to stay that way. A few may decide, soon, not even to try. Others may put off the decision for as long as possible — but you can make your decision now.
I'll put that in the category of "people who seem to feel qualified to offer overly broad advice to everyone despite having no actual qualifications to do so." First of all, as someone pointed out somewhere upthread, a fairly small percentage of students go to the sort of colleges where the extracurricular activities are a big part of the draw. At my big regional state school about half of students are commuters, and even among most residential students, few think of the acacpello group or the sports teams as big parts of the experience. For most of my students the major things they are going to be concerned about are whether their ability to get credits they need to graduate in their major. They are more likely to be thinking in those terms.
Which actually goes into the point about the costs. My students all work. On one hand the bad economy could make it harder for some of them to pay for college, but I suspect a lot of them are likely to see it as a better idea to be taking a full load during a semester when their work opportunities might be limited. If they aren't going to be working, I suspect many are going to decide they need to figure out a way to maximize future earning by getting credits sooner. They certainly don't have the luxury of spending the year volunteering for no pay.
As for the rest, I find the article sort of offensively presumptuous in her surety about what students value and want. There's something a little weird about saying "colleges won't be back to normal in the fall" as if everything else will be. The alternatives she suggests all would have sounded pretty grim for me as an 18 year old.
The advice is geared at this very particular sort of student who has an extremely idealized view of "college" and is going to be devastated by anything else, but is also self motivated enough at eighteen to figure out how to hang out in their parents house without a lot of external structure. If it was me I would probably prefer just going ahead and committing to attending whatever version of college is going to be there in the Fall. Worst case scenario, all the classes are online and I stay home, but at least I'm busy and am working within a structure. Chances are that by Spring school is open and I can get out of my parent's basement, but I'd still feel better not putting everything on hold for a year even if it wasn't.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 21, 2020, 08:56:01 AM
]
Which news?
Which epidemiologists and do they actually know what they're doing or are they just "others who have argued this"? Arguing something is not the same as actually being a scientist in the relevant area with enough of the detailed knowledge to make good decisions. One of my "favorite" recent examples was a model that assumed kids don't transmit and then drew conclusions on the probable effect on reopening the schools based on that assumption.
Ok poly, have some links,
In fact, it is not a settled question at all.
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/16/21181025/coronavirus-covid-19-us-testing-pandemic
Here's the former director of the cdc saying its an unanswered question.
"We don't know the answers to other key questions that determine policy decisions. Can children, who don't seem to get severely ill with Covid-19, spread the disease?"
Here's the Director-General of health in New Zealand arguing
"Children and teenagers tend to have low coronavirus infection rates, and don't tend to pass it on to adults, the Director-General of Health says. The article has others saying they want to see more studies on that, which is reasonable, but again, this isn't some fringe belief.
In that Guardian story Hegemony posted, you see again a lot of uncertainty about the role of children. Obviously the one case of that kid is suggestive, but it is just one person. The broader argument I was making about it not being clear kids play a particularly important role in transmission is the one made here.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/apr/06/school-closures-have-little-impact-on-spread-of-coronavirus-study
"We know from previous studies that school closures are likely to have the greatest effect if the virus has low transmissibility and attack rates are higher in children. This is the opposite of Covid-19," said thereview's lead author, Prof Russell Viner, of UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health."
I'm not claiming this is definitive or that the answer is clear, but its not some absurd conclusion as you seem to think based on...."working in the same building as people who study diseases?"
Also, your tone continues to be incredibly unpleasant, offensive and inappropriate for a forum that is supposed to be professional in nature. I had a particularly noxious post of yours removed from these boards a few weeks ago, but I'm inclined to just stop responding entirely to you at this point.
Sister-in-law texted photo of "TigerTown Bound Class of '24" yard sign that Clemson's Alumni Association mailed to nephew. Anyone know if such yard signs are a tradition? Or is this a new tactic to encourage enrollment?
I've never seen such, but I've been away from the area a long time.
Quote from: Vkw10 on April 21, 2020, 04:42:44 PM
Sister-in-law texted photo of "TigerTown Bound Class of '24" yard sign that Clemson's Alumni Association mailed to nephew. Anyone know if such yard signs are a tradition? Or is this a new tactic to encourage enrollment?
I've never seen such, but I've been away from the area a long time.
A neighbor on another street had a sign like that in the front yard--it was for a college in KY. Also there are signs for graduates of two local high schools.
We have yard signs in our neighborhood announcing who is graduating from high school. Not so much where they are headed. But I like the sentiment behind these.
On topic: What would students do if they aren't in college? Well, if colleges aren't really open for f2f, then likely not much of anything else is open for f2f and so a gap year of reading, family time, and just hanging out is what most of us will be doing anyway if we have the luxury of food, shelter, and basic needs being met.
Since I'm here and my professionalism has been questioned, I'm going to do science discussion for those who want to actually learn instead of immediately dismiss anything that contradicts their world view.
After leaving Super Dinky, I have been working in the area of VVUQ of scientific computational models. The overly simplified explanation of VVUQ in this context is:
Verification: is the computer code right?
Validation: How good is the model compared to any sort of experimental or other relevant data out in the world?
Uncertainty Quantification: What kind of error bars do we have to put on the inputs to the models to have good estimates on uncertainty on the outputs? How do we get the information to put either type of error bars on the relevant input/outputs, especially when we can't run the experiments with control on enough of the variables?
I don't just "work in the same building as people who study diseases". I have had extended discussions for all the time since I left Super Dinky on what goes into models, what assumptions are made, and what do people do when they can't run standard experiments that control for all the variables. Some of those conversations have exactly been on spread of disease and how one gets a handle on predicting how bad something will be based on information other than direct testing. Waiting for direct testing often means waiting until the problem is really bad and impossible to ignore. More useful all around are the constant monitoring of public big data to see certain patterns to have local health officials intervene before the problem is obvious to the casual observer.
A very common problem discussed regularly in scientific circles is the huge disconnect between what the peer-reviewed scientific article actually states with all the caveats and what is reported in the popular media. The full-text of
The Lancet article from
The Guardian is publicly available so we can discuss the actual text, not the filtered media report.
The abstract itself leads to some immediate questions.
Quote
In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 107 countries had implemented national school closures by March 18, 2020. It is unknown whether school measures are effective in coronavirus outbreaks (eg, due to severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review by searching three electronic databases to identify what is known about the effectiveness of school closures and other school social distancing practices during coronavirus outbreaks. We included 16 of 616 identified articles. School closures were deployed rapidly across mainland China and Hong Kong for COVID-19. However, there are no data on the relative contribution of school closures to transmission control. Data from the SARS outbreak in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore suggest that school closures did not contribute to the control of the epidemic. Modelling studies of SARS produced conflicting results. Recent modelling studies of COVID-19 predict that school closures alone would prevent only 2–4% of deaths, much less than other social distancing interventions. Policy makers need to be aware of the equivocal evidence when considering school closures for COVID-19, and that combinations of social distancing measures should be considered. Other less disruptive social distancing interventions in schools require further consideration if restrictive social distancing policies are implemented for long periods.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30095-X/fulltext
This is a study of studies that only included a tiny fraction of the articles available (16 of 616). Why so few articles included? What happened to the others and why are they not relevant?
No COVID-19 data related to school closures go into the modeling of the effect of closing schools on the spread of COVID-19. From a simulation validation viewpoint, that's a big red flag on credibility for the model for the stated purpose. Where they have data on SARS, the models don't align with the data, which again calls into question the validity of the models for this specific purpose.
In plain English, the statement that goes into
The Guardian headline is purely based on models that have not been validated for this purpose, even using the SARS data (again, it's not good that the model results don't match the data we have).
Moving on to the meat of the article, the introduction relies heavily on influenza studies that show closing the schools matters if the closing happens early enough. However, for an article in a medical journal, there's a lot of editorializing about economic effects in the introduction.
Regarding error bars on relevant inputs,
Quote
However, in the COVID-19 pandemic thus far, children appear to form a much lower proportion of cases than expected from their population, although evidence for this is mixed and some data suggest that children might be as likely to be infected as adults but largely remain asymptomatic or have a mild form of the disease [26]
From an uncertainty on the model inputs view, one might wonder if the lack of observed transmission from children to the general population is more a lack of knowledge of who is sick than not physically transmitting through children. The higher-than-expected asymptomatic rates of infection will be a contributing factor to the uncertainty in transmission rates, particularly for children.
There's a whole paragraph of explanation on why we don't have data on COVID-19 school-related infection rates, including the fact that the schools closed very early in many places. As one of my VVUQ colleagues is fond of saying, not having the information to put an error bar on an input should not then default to a guess on the value of the input with an error bar of zero.
In the methods section, the statement appears "We did not attempt to rate the quality of included studies in this Review." Again, from a VVUQ standpoint, one generally tries to get the best data available, not just any old data.
In the results section, we find out that all the published articles regard the 2003 SARS outbreak, a preprint looked at other non-epidemic coronaviruses, and only 6 studies actually studied COVID-19, none of which have yet been published. The studies that are actually relevant (school closures due to the current COVID-19 epidemic)
Quote
No data are available on the effectiveness of school closure as there was little variation in timing of closures (closures were reportedly applied in all Chinese cities uniformly and without delay) and school closures were part of a broad range of quarantine and social distancing measures. Both of these studies concluded that the overall package of quarantine and social distancing was effective in reducing the epidemic in mainland China,41, 42 although the relative contribution of school closures was not assessed.
Quote
Preprint studies of actions in Hong Kong related to COVID-19 noted that a 4-week school closure was initiated across the city on Feb 1, 2020, approximately 1 week after the first cases were identified in Hong Kong. School closures were implemented at the same time as a number of other stringent social distancing measures, with school closures extended initially to March, 2020, then to April, 2020.12, 44 Collectively, these measures were considered to have reduced the R below 1, controlling the spread of the outbreak.12 As in mainland China, no data were available from either paper on the effect of school closures separate from other measures. Cowling and colleagues12 noted that the social distancing measures implemented during the COVID-19 outbreak reduced community transmission by 44%, which was much greater than the estimated 10–15% reduction in influenza transmission conferred by school closures implemented alone during the 2009 pandemic in Hong Kong.44
The results of the studies that matter don't support the bare notion that school closures have minimal effect on transmission, although it is true that school closures were not studied separately from other aspects of simply closing the whole nation.
The paragraph that gets details ignored in The Guardian article is
Quote
Only one study examined the effect of school closures separately to other social distancing measures. In a non-peer-reviewed but widely cited report from an established group, Ferguson and colleagues31 modelled the estimated effects of a range of different social distancing measures and combinations of measures. They used UK population and schools data together with data on transmission dynamics reported from the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. Using data from previous influenza outbreaks, they assumed that per-capita contacts within schools were double those in households, workplaces, or the community, and that, overall, approximately a third of transmission occurred in schools. They modelled a scenario in which all schools and 25% of universities were closed and where the effect on non-school social contacts was an increase of 50% in household contact rates for families with children and a 25% increase in community contacts during the closure. They concluded that school closure as an isolated measure was predicted to reduce total deaths by around 2–4% during a COVID-19 outbreak in the UK, whereas single measures such as case isolation would be more effective, and a combination of measures would be the most effective. The authors concluded that school closure is predicted to be insufficient to mitigate (never mind suppress) the COVID-19 pandemic in isolation, which is in contrast to seasonal influenza epidemics where children are the key drivers of transmission.31
From a layperson standpoint, this seems to be an argument against using school closures in isolation with no other actions taken. The VVUQ question is how good is mixing the Wuhan COVID-19 parameters with influenza parameters? Is the model itself set up for UK behaviors with some unknown mixture of Chinese behaviors that influenced the output? Yes, reported total death reduction is a relatively small range, but is that truly reflective of propagating the total uncertainty of the inputs or is that another case where when one doesn't know the uncertainty, one just puts in zero?
In other words, yeah, an article published in a reputable medical outlet was reported and discussed in a reputable news outlet, but the science involved is not really what the news would have the casual reader believe. I see no scientific evidence supporting opening K-12 schools because they will be fine and not contribute greatly to overall deaths, but I see some evidence that a group motived by worry about economic decisions did something resembling science to support their predetermined view.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 22, 2020, 06:07:21 AM
Quote
Only one study examined the effect of school closures separately to other social distancing measures. In a non-peer-reviewed but widely cited report from an established group, Ferguson and colleagues31 modelled the estimated effects of a range of different social distancing measures and combinations of measures. They used UK population and schools data together with data on transmission dynamics reported from the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. Using data from previous influenza outbreaks, they assumed that per-capita contacts within schools were double those in households, workplaces, or the community, and that, overall, approximately a third of transmission occurred in schools. They modelled a scenario in which all schools and 25% of universities were closed and where the effect on non-school social contacts was an increase of 50% in household contact rates for families with children and a 25% increase in community contacts during the closure. They concluded that school closure as an isolated measure was predicted to reduce total deaths by around 2–4% during a COVID-19 outbreak in the UK, whereas single measures such as case isolation would be more effective, and a combination of measures would be the most effective.
The 2-4% of deaths being single teachers who live alone and have no social contacts, so the only vector they have for getting infected is from students. Seriously, school closures as an
isolated measure is ridiculous. And similarly, allowing schools to open as an
isolated measure is also ridiculous unless kids are basically immune. Even if kids have an infection rate WAY below that of adults, becuase they have
so much interaction with
so many other students at school, simple math dictates that they would represent a major disease transmission vector.
(If you know the "two people with the same birthday" game, you know that it only takes about 26 people for a greater than 50% chance that two will have the same birthday, even though in principle any particular person has only 1/365 chance of being born on a partciular date. So, even if there's only a 1% chance of any interaction passing on the virus, with the number of interactions that happen in a day a lot of transmission will occur.)
Quote from: spork on April 21, 2020, 09:39:15 AM
Edited to add: And on the subject of children transmitting Covid-19, if they didn't, and there was evidence that they didn't, then nursing and retirement homes would be throwing open their doors to become day care facilities for pre-schoolers. Parents have first-hand experience with the disease-transmitting capabilities of small children who congregate in groups, as happens at schools.
I looked at this more and hadn't realized how different this was from the flu in terms of transmission as well as severity and the implications of that. On average, the flu has an R of 1.3. Someone, correct me if this is imprecise, but that is how many people on average an infected person is going to transmit the disease too. That isn't actually all that infectious and suggests that you aren't really aren't all that likely to get the flu from people who aren't putting their hands all over your face, blowing snot in your direction or hanging around your house all day with their germs. You can see why kids contribute so much to flu outbreaks. If you just closed the schools for three weeks whenever the flu got widespread, you'd bring numbers way down without doing anything else.
COVID is, unfortunately, way more transmissible. The R is perhaps 2.3 or even higher. That's bad, obviously, but it also really changes the approach towards kids and schools even if it turns out that kids are as effective as transmitting the virus as adults (which they may not be) Since the virus has so many other ways it can effectively be transmitted, school contact isn't as big a part of the overall picture. That's why that Lancet article is estimating that closing schools might reduce overall mortality by only 2-4 percent overall.
15 Fall Scenarios (https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/learning-innovation/15-fall-scenarios)
I suppose what we need to do (as a family) is discuss some large fraction of these 15 scenarios to be prepared for whatever gets announced.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 22, 2020, 06:07:21 AM
[. . .]
As one of my VVUQ colleagues is fond of saying, not having the information to put an error bar on an input should not then default to a guess on the value of the input with an error bar of zero.
[. . .]
Or, sort of rephrased, the principle of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- which is how I got my PhD, because my dissertation committee was oblivious to it.
That study published by
The Lancet is trash.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 22, 2020, 06:07:21 AM
From a layperson standpoint, this seems to be an argument against using school closures in isolation with no other actions taken.
In other words, yeah, an article published in a reputable medical outlet was reported and discussed in a reputable news outlet, but the science involved is not really what the news would have the casual reader believe. I see no scientific evidence supporting opening K-12 schools because they will be fine and not contribute greatly to overall deaths, but I see some evidence that a group motived by worry about economic decisions did something resembling science to support their predetermined view.
Well sure, I think the original choice made almost everywhere to close schools made sense. You're trying to rapidly drive down transmission rates. The question after that becomes how do you balance trying to keep transmission rates down with other costs. The explanation on modeling is helpful. I think you're right that one of the problems with modeling is that it can look to non experts like a sort of magic, when it is obviously a bunch of decisions about what to factor in and what not to that can all be questioned. I'm not sure how fair it is to complain that they are relying on lots of studies of spread of other things besides Covid-19. How could they not be. There have been decades of studies on the transmission of flu, and this is a new disease that showed up five months ago, you aren't going to have enough data to model anything without taking those previous models and adjusting them based on the known characteristics of this new respiratory infection. My understanding is that most of the models being used to inform decisions are based on flu models. I know that the influential one by Neil Ferguson who is quoted in the Guardian article is.
For the actual questions, the point is that it actually contested and complicated. There are good reasons to think that schools aren't going to have the same outsized impact they do in the transmission of flu. From there it gets into questions of what those impacts are, which involves a lot of unknowns. I'd point out that you started this off questioning the very idea that there was any reason to doubt that schools and kids weren't a big source of transmissions and claiming that that I must be reading unreliable sources and now you are discussing the modeling assumptions of an article in the Lancet. Next time, maybe you could just write "I hadn't seen that, could you send me a link on the reporting of that?" I find your perspective on this stuff helpful, just not the tone.
Quote from: Caracal on April 22, 2020, 07:38:11 AM
For the actual questions, the point is that it actually contested and complicated. There are good reasons to think that schools aren't going to have the same outsized impact they do in the transmission of flu.
But closing down schools an an
isolated measure isn't even possible
logistically. Who's going to care for those kids at home? Who are they going to interact with in that time that they're not at school?
The point is, it's not even really rational to try and consider the
transmission of disease within schools unless you can include consideration of
all of the social changes resulting from kids being out of school.
Trying to isolate variables in a model is highly misleading without understanding how interconnected all of the variables are in practice.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 22, 2020, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 22, 2020, 07:38:11 AM
For the actual questions, the point is that it actually contested and complicated. There are good reasons to think that schools aren't going to have the same outsized impact they do in the transmission of flu.
But closing down schools an an isolated measure isn't even possible logistically. Who's going to care for those kids at home? Who are they going to interact with in that time that they're not at school?
The point is, it's not even really rational to try and consider the transmission of disease within schools unless you can include consideration of all of the social changes resulting from kids being out of school.
Trying to isolate variables in a model is highly misleading without understanding how interconnected all of the variables are in practice.
Not sure I really get the point. Obviously closing down schools without doing anything else wouldn't have made much sense. And if I understand you right, I agree that closing them helped to shut down lots of other contacts, for example between and among parents and teachers. For that reason, I can't imagine you would see a scenario in which schools reopened but nothing else did. But, obviously it matters how much kids transmit at school and where that fits within the overall picture of transmission in terms of trying to figure out how to move to a new normal.
If kids are a big driver of overall transmission than schools could really only be reopened if you had very aggressive testing and contact tracing and even then you might need to make major changes to avoid big outbreaks showing up really quickly. If it turns out that kids actually don't transmit the virus as efficiently as adults, or if the larger dynamics mean that schools are low on the list of places where you get a lot of spreading, then you could reopen schools with more limited precautions.
Quote from: Caracal on April 22, 2020, 08:39:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 22, 2020, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 22, 2020, 07:38:11 AM
For the actual questions, the point is that it actually contested and complicated. There are good reasons to think that schools aren't going to have the same outsized impact they do in the transmission of flu.
But closing down schools an an isolated measure isn't even possible logistically. Who's going to care for those kids at home? Who are they going to interact with in that time that they're not at school?
The point is, it's not even really rational to try and consider the transmission of disease within schools unless you can include consideration of all of the social changes resulting from kids being out of school.
Trying to isolate variables in a model is highly misleading without understanding how interconnected all of the variables are in practice.
Not sure I really get the point. Obviously closing down schools without doing anything else wouldn't have made much sense. And if I understand you right, I agree that closing them helped to shut down lots of other contacts, for example between and among parents and teachers. For that reason, I can't imagine you would see a scenario in which schools reopened but nothing else did. But, obviously it matters how much kids transmit at school and where that fits within the overall picture of transmission in terms of trying to figure out how to move to a new normal.
I'll be a bit more blunt. Of all of the current disruptions, kids being out of school is a big one. Parents are on the hook for their education and supervision 24/7, even when they're having to work from home. So if if were possible to have kids back in school, that would make a lot of people happy. And it's tempting to consider since kids are under-represented in covid-19 cases needing serious medical intervention. So this is one of those cases where there is a lot of incentive to misuse statistics to tell people what they want to hear.
Quote
If kids are a big driver of overall transmission than schools could really only be reopened if you had very aggressive testing and contact tracing and even then you might need to make major changes to avoid big outbreaks showing up really quickly. If it turns out that kids actually don't transmit the virus as efficiently as adults, or if the larger dynamics mean that schools are low on the list of places where you get a lot of spreading, then you could reopen schools with more limited precautions.
But even if kids transmit the virus at a much lower rate than adults, because they have so many close interactions with other students at school, it still winds up being a big problem. (If a kid has a transmission rate that is 1/10 of the adult transmission rate, but has 10x as many interactions in a day, then it's no help.) And the kids are the bridge between adults (parens, grandparents, teachers). So again, even if a kid's transmission rate is 1/10 that of an adult, a teacher has 20 or 30 students in a class, so the probability of the teacher getting infected is high.
So talking about the rate of kids infecting each other is such a tiny part of the issue with kids being in or out of school that it's disingenuous to talk about it in isolation.
Quote from: pgher on April 22, 2020, 07:22:09 AM
15 Fall Scenarios (https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/learning-innovation/15-fall-scenarios)
I suppose what we need to do (as a family) is discuss some large fraction of these 15 scenarios to be prepared for whatever gets announced.
Tough decisions for your family, especially your graduating high school senior. I think I read that he(she) will be attending a large public university out of state. My guess is those schools will be a mixture of virtual and in-person classes in the Fall. I'd be concerned about the housing. Large dorms, students coming and going, are a bad mixture. My daughter is 2 years away from college but if a vaccine isn't available then, and this virus is still hanging around stubbornly, I would definitely try and find an apartment off campus for her.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 22, 2020, 09:06:00 AM
But even if kids transmit the virus at a much lower rate than adults, because they have so many close interactions with other students at school, it still winds up being a big problem. (If a kid has a transmission rate that is 1/10 of the adult transmission rate, but has 10x as many interactions in a day, then it's no help.) And the kids are the bridge between adults (parens, grandparents, teachers). So again, even if a kid's transmission rate is 1/10 that of an adult, a teacher has 20 or 30 students in a class, so the probability of the teacher getting infected is high.
Right now at this precise moment, when we have lots of cases, and don't have any systems set up to figure out how many and where they are, you can't have schools reopen or really do much safely. But that's the point, none of this is sustainable. You have to get things down to a level where you can manage risks. But managing risks will mean having to deal with them too. That's why I find this so confusing "If a kid has a transmission rate that is 1/10 of the adult transmission rate, but has 10x as many interactions in a day, then it's no help." No help to what? These are imaginary numbers but that would mean that children going to school posed less risk than me having three people over to my house for dinner. That would be pretty important to know if you were trying to make decisions on what to allow in a month.
Quote from: Caracal on April 22, 2020, 10:56:10 AM
Right now at this precise moment, when we have lots of cases, and don't have any systems set up to figure out how many and where they are, you can't have schools reopen or really do much safely. But that's the point, none of this is sustainable. You have to get things down to a level where you can manage risks. But managing risks will mean having to deal with them too. That's why I find this so confusing "If a kid has a transmission rate that is 1/10 of the adult transmission rate, but has 10x as many interactions in a day, then it's no help." No help to what? These are imaginary numbers but that would mean that children going to school posed less risk than me having three people over to my house for dinner. That would be pretty important to know if you were trying to make decisions on what to allow in a month.
Only if you're planning to have 3 people for dinner
5 days a week until a vaccine is found.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 22, 2020, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 22, 2020, 10:56:10 AM
Right now at this precise moment, when we have lots of cases, and don't have any systems set up to figure out how many and where they are, you can't have schools reopen or really do much safely. But that's the point, none of this is sustainable. You have to get things down to a level where you can manage risks. But managing risks will mean having to deal with them too. That's why I find this so confusing "If a kid has a transmission rate that is 1/10 of the adult transmission rate, but has 10x as many interactions in a day, then it's no help." No help to what? These are imaginary numbers but that would mean that children going to school posed less risk than me having three people over to my house for dinner. That would be pretty important to know if you were trying to make decisions on what to allow in a month.
Only if you're planning to have 3 people for dinner 5 days a week until a vaccine is found.
Or go into an office and have contact with three people.
Two perspectives: community college (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/what-we-know-and-dont-know) and Ivy League (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opinion/coronavirus-colleges-universities.html). Best guess right now is that Kid 1's classes will go forward, as they are mostly upper-level, smaller classes (as opposed to massive lectures).
Quote from: pgher on April 27, 2020, 06:22:10 AM
Two perspectives: community college (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/what-we-know-and-dont-know) and Ivy League (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opinion/coronavirus-colleges-universities.html). Best guess right now is that Kid 1's classes will go forward, as they are mostly upper-level, smaller classes (as opposed to massive lectures).
I've already commented on Paxson's editorial on another thread, but I'll do so again here: it's surprisingly dumb.
A much more astute analysis: https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/04/27/some-parents-wont-pay-or-are-unsure-about-children-enrolling-online (https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/04/27/some-parents-wont-pay-or-are-unsure-about-children-enrolling-online).
Quote from: spork on April 27, 2020, 06:50:05 AM
Quote from: pgher on April 27, 2020, 06:22:10 AM
Two perspectives: community college (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/what-we-know-and-dont-know) and Ivy League (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opinion/coronavirus-colleges-universities.html). Best guess right now is that Kid 1's classes will go forward, as they are mostly upper-level, smaller classes (as opposed to massive lectures).
I've already commented on Paxson's editorial on another thread, but I'll do so again here: it's surprisingly dumb.
A much more astute analysis: https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/04/27/some-parents-wont-pay-or-are-unsure-about-children-enrolling-online (https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/04/27/some-parents-wont-pay-or-are-unsure-about-children-enrolling-online).
Care to elaborate, or is this just an insult forum at this point? I saw what you wrote on the other thread and it wasn't particularly enlightening either. I think one of the things things that sometimes gets exposed by this crisis is just a lack of imagination. It was obviously hard to imagine what is happening now would happen, but right now I see a lot of people having a hard time imagining modified futures. It is easier to just imagine no future, either for universities or the world in general. The advocates of it imagine themselves as hardened realists, but it strikes me as mostly a form of paralyzation. What kind of long term adaptations are possible? Likely? How effective will they be? I'm not sure, but given the state of flux things are in, these kinds of confident predictions about what is and isn't possible strike me as naive, in a strange sort of way.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 21, 2020, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 21, 2020, 07:18:33 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on April 21, 2020, 04:17:48 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:15:40 AM
I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.
Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.
I'm reading the news Poly and I follow epidemiologists and others who have argued this.
Which news?
Which epidemiologists and do they actually know what they're doing or are they just "others who have argued this"? Arguing something is not the same as actually being a scientist in the relevant area with enough of the detailed knowledge to make good decisions. One of my "favorite" recent examples was a model that assumed kids don't transmit and then drew conclusions on the probable effect on reopening the schools based on that assumption.
The concern everywhere I've seen that has real scientists involved is indeed that little kids spread everything, even if they themselves aren't all that sick. It's a lovely thought that somehow people with the worst hygiene habits are somehow not going to be spreading a highly contagious disease, but that's not a science thought based on everything we know about other viruses and kids.
My employer is a science institution that includes real scientists whose bread and butter is exactly disease modeling for spreading and predicting outbreaks along with other scientists who do vaccines and other biological aspects. Our daily all-hands updates are likely much better sources of scientific information regarding disease-spread models and likely outcomes than whatever filtered-by-filtered-by-filtered headlines you're reading.
Epidemiology isn't my specialty, but my colleagues who are (close enough colleagues that I can call them up and say, "Hey, it's Polly. What's the real scoop on ...?) are much more trustworthy sources than your interpretation from "news" sources that you didn't even bother to name so we could judge their credibility.
https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1257392347010215947
Just putting this update here. I'd sort of like to imagine this could be a reminder that sometimes when you make categorical claims based on the belief that everyone else is dumber and less savvy than you, you can look kind of like a fool, but alas, I assume we'll just get a lot of text.
Are colleges allowing accepted students to all defer if they want? Where I teach they are still not sure if the academic year will have a delayed start.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 07, 2020, 12:07:20 PM
Are colleges allowing accepted students to all defer if they want? Where I teach they are still not sure if the academic year will have a delayed start.
Unless "delayed" could be for
several months, it's kind of pointless. From any estimates I've heard, a vaccine is still a year (at least) away (we won't talk about producing and distributing millions of doses), and herd immunity would take a similar time without following Sweden, so even a
few weeks delay would be very disruptive but have no obvious benefit.