The popular press is reporting that a student is suing my university due to the change in mode of instruction this spring. I understand wanting a refund when services are not delivered, but in this case, faculty worked very hard to transition their courses for remote learning. Even requests for refunds on dormitory fees are a little specious, since most students were not able to move out of the dorms after the stay-at-home orders came into effect. So even if they are not living there, no one else can move in either (their stuff is still there). On the other hand, I am in agreement that students should be partially refunded for any meal-plan points they have remaining, since they did not have the opportunity to use them for the second half of the semester.
What is happening at your institutions? I am fortunate that my university will be abe to weather these storms, but I find it rude (but not surprising!) that students would sue under the present circumstances.
I have not heard of this happening to my employer, which issued prorated refunds on room and board to any student who requested one. (The campus closed and dorms emptied as of 5:00 pm on the Friday before spring break was scheduled to begin.) The university also extended the course withdrawal deadline until the end of the semester and instituted a pass/fail grading option. All of these measures were fundamentally intended to minimize lawsuits and negative publicity.
I will guess that the student who is suing your university has mediocre grades but delusions of attending Harvard Medical School a similar fantasy, plus wealthy snowplow parents.
Everybody's going to lose this one. The students were inconvenienced and lost some amount of educational quality and money. The faculty were inconvenienced and many of them will lose employment and/or money. The college will lose money and have to navigate a whole new set of problems, and could even close for good. Maybe the attorneys will win. Everyone else is going to hurt, no matter what.
Quote from: mahagonny on May 09, 2020, 09:43:50 AM
Everybody's going to lose this one. The students were inconvenienced and lost some amount of educational quality and money. The faculty were inconvenienced and many of them will lose employment and/or money. The college will lose money and have to navigate a whole new set of problems, and could even close for good. Maybe the attorneys will win. Everyone else is going to hurt, no matter what.
Agreed.
While many faculty members have made heroic efforts for no additional pay, students who paid for in-person lab courses, studio time, rehearsal time, or similar experiences did not get what they paid for.
The students who paid for several hours a week doing group problem-solving in fancy learning labs capped at 18 students with one faculty member and possibly a learning assistant or three didn't get what they paid for. With half a term under the good conditions, they would acutely feel the transition to a much lesser experience.
Quote from: spork on May 09, 2020, 09:35:55 AM
[...] The university also extended the course withdrawal deadline until the end of the semester and instituted a pass/fail grading option. All of these measures were fundamentally intended to minimize lawsuits and negative publicity.
[...]
My school did these things as well. It does not appear to have stopped the lawsuits, however.
Quote from: arcturus on May 09, 2020, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: spork on May 09, 2020, 09:35:55 AM
[...] The university also extended the course withdrawal deadline until the end of the semester and instituted a pass/fail grading option. All of these measures were fundamentally intended to minimize lawsuits and negative publicity.
[...]
My school did these things as well. It does not appear to have stopped the lawsuits, however.
Did they keep money that had been collected for housing and dining, that was never used? Are they planning to charge full tuition and fees for online classes in the immediate future? If so, they're going to be competing with schools that make concessions. Good luck with that.
And actually, switching to pass/fail grading is by no means restitution. It's more slippage. Chances are no one was going to fail them anyway. Who wants complaints about your grading at a time like this?
Students don't see us like we see ourselves. When we say we are in favor of free college education, we don't mean the students and taxpayers deserve a break. We mean we want a steady availability of students and revenue to keep our livelihood flush.
Quote from: mahagonny on May 09, 2020, 10:10:33 AM
Students don't see us like we see ourselves. When we say we are in favor of free college education, we don't mean the students and taxpayers deserve a break. We mean we want a steady availability of students and revenue to keep our livelihood flush.
Ding, ding, ding! Although very few would admit to agreeing with that statement. Many like to think that they are more woke than they really are.
Sounds like it could be the sort of thing that sounds absolutely frivolous on the face of it but which, when investigated, actually involves a serious harm. Like the McDonald's coffee lady, who was actually quite seriously burned by her coffee.
Quote from: TreadingLife on May 09, 2020, 05:34:19 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on May 09, 2020, 10:10:33 AM
Students don't see us like we see ourselves. When we say we are in favor of free college education, we don't mean the students and taxpayers deserve a break. We mean we want a steady availability of students and revenue to keep our livelihood flush.
Ding, ding, ding! Although very few would admit to agreeing with that statement. Many like to think that they are more woke than they really are.
At your service. Already unpopular. Why not enjoy it?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 09, 2020, 05:39:52 PM
Sounds like it could be the sort of thing that sounds absolutely frivolous on the face of it but which, when investigated, actually involves a serious harm. Like the McDonald's coffee lady, who was actually quite seriously burned by her coffee.
Meh, probably not. The thing about lawsuits is that anyone can sue someone. You just need to find a lawyer who thinks it seems worth a shot. There are a lot of lawyers and plenty of them are not very good at their jobs. It seems like these are mostly attempts to sue based on breach of contract. I'd guess that a lot of these suits are going to get tossed just because it is going to be very hard for someone to show clear damages. Did you get your credits? Did you take classes? Ok, what do you want money for? It seems like these parents and students are trying to claim that the suspension of normal parts of the college experience is a breach of contract. That seems like it would also be a tough sell. It's a bummer that you didn't get to go to the spring formal and the basketball game, but that doesn't the college promised you those things and didn't deliver.
The stuff with people attempting to argue that they received substandard classes is even less likely to go anywhere. Courts aren't going to decide that you get some money back because your chemistry lab didn't involve making things bubble in person. They don't want to get involved in trying to make pedagogical decisions.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to guess most of these cases are losers and are going to be unceremoniously tossed. For schools refusing to refund room and board, that might be different, because there's a much clearer argument that you paid for something and didn't get it.
Quote from: Caracal on May 10, 2020, 05:15:45 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to guess most of these cases are losers and are going to be unceremoniously tossed. For schools refusing to refund room and board, that might be different, because there's a much clearer argument that you paid for something and didn't get it.
This is it. The school can also argue that the diploma itself is still worth whatever value it had when the student enrolled. It's hard to quantify what they're claiming to have lost.
Quote from: TreadingLife on May 09, 2020, 05:34:19 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on May 09, 2020, 10:10:33 AM
Students don't see us like we see ourselves. When we say we are in favor of free college education, we don't mean the students and taxpayers deserve a break. We mean we want a steady availability of students and revenue to keep our livelihood flush.
Ding, ding, ding! Although very few would admit to agreeing with that statement. Many like to think that they are more woke than they really are.
I agree. I have better pension, benefits, etc. than most people, but those are all
using tax money which other people have to
contribute. Especially now with covid-related job losses, it's s bit humbling to be protected more than most people.
Quote from: Caracal on January 13, 1975, 10:01:34 PMThe stuff with people attempting to argue that they received substandard classes is even less likely to go anywhere. Courts aren't going to decide that you get some money back because your chemistry lab didn't involve making things bubble in person. They don't want to get involved in trying to make pedagogical decisions.
That's the argument regarding general education classes to check a science requirement. People who need to be proficient at certain techniques can show damages, because they will have to retake classes. Lecture may have been fine, but not actual lab to practice techniques.
Likewise students who were supposed to have performance-based courses in theatre or art like sculpture really didn't get what they paid for and can prove damages.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 10, 2020, 05:48:17 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 10, 2020, 05:15:45 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to guess most of these cases are losers and are going to be unceremoniously tossed. For schools refusing to refund room and board, that might be different, because there's a much clearer argument that you paid for something and didn't get it.
This is it. The school can also argue that the diploma itself is still worth whatever value it had when the student enrolled. It's hard to quantify what they're claiming to have lost.
They've been doing this for years already. Does that count? Not too many years ago it was rare when someone could manage to get all the way to PhD.
I envision some making the argument 'if online instruction has the same value as being on campus then the college need to stop showing us photos of the campus and using them to advertise.' Whether that would work legally I don't know, but it shows that higher ed is a business and deserves to be treated no differently from any business. If you hired someone to put in a swimming pool and he gave you an above-ground pool, he could't say 'what are you complaining about? You're still wet aren't you?'
I remember having multiple conversations a few years ago regarding having online chemistry and physics degrees. Those discussions indicated significant difficulties in moving the whole program online.
This morning, a quick search indicates almost no chemistry ot physics degrees being fully online. I can find a few programs for finishing a degree online with many transfer credits. I can find some science teaching degrees that will send well-designed kits to students' houses. The BS engineering degrees online are mostly electrical and computer engineering-again with kits shipped to enrolled students.
Virtual-only labs appear to still be more in the idea phase than widespread practice.
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 06:25:26 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 13, 1975, 10:01:34 PMThe stuff with people attempting to argue that they received substandard classes is even less likely to go anywhere. Courts aren't going to decide that you get some money back because your chemistry lab didn't involve making things bubble in person. They don't want to get involved in trying to make pedagogical decisions.
That's the argument regarding general education classes to check a science requirement. People who need to be proficient at certain techniques can show damages, because they will have to retake classes. Lecture may have been fine, but not actual lab to practice techniques.
Likewise students who were supposed to have performance-based courses in theatre or art like sculpture really didn't get what they paid for and can prove damages.
It doesn't work that way. You can't get damages just because something might have been better for you and it didn't happen. You have to show that someone was actually in breach of their contract with you. The problem with suing a University for breach of contract is that the contract is implied. There's not some detailed list of things a school promises to provide a student with in return for tuition. That implied contract is still enforceable, but the bar is really high. For example, a student might be able to sue for breach of contract if they successfully completed all the requirements for graduation and the school refused to let them graduate for no valid reason. However, courts have pretty consistently held that they don't want to get into second guessing universities on decisions about matters of curriculum and other academic matters.
To take an example that seems applicable, a court held that when a University decided to eliminate a dental school, current dental students couldn't sue for breach of contract since the school had acted in good faith, given reasonable notice, and had made efforts to provide assistance to students who wanted to transfer to other schools. Basically, courts have only been willing to consider breach of contract suits when someone can show that a school acted in bad faith.
Quote from: Caracal on May 10, 2020, 05:15:45 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 09, 2020, 05:39:52 PM
Sounds like it could be the sort of thing that sounds absolutely frivolous on the face of it but which, when investigated, actually involves a serious harm. Like the McDonald's coffee lady, who was actually quite seriously burned by her coffee.
Meh, probably not. The thing about lawsuits is that anyone can sue someone. You just need to find a lawyer who thinks it seems worth a shot. There are a lot of lawyers and plenty of them are not very good at their jobs. It seems like these are mostly attempts to sue based on breach of contract. I'd guess that a lot of these suits are going to get tossed just because it is going to be very hard for someone to show clear damages. Did you get your credits? Did you take classes? Ok, what do you want money for? It seems like these parents and students are trying to claim that the suspension of normal parts of the college experience is a breach of contract. That seems like it would also be a tough sell. It's a bummer that you didn't get to go to the spring formal and the basketball game, but that doesn't the college promised you those things and didn't deliver.
The stuff with people attempting to argue that they received substandard classes is even less likely to go anywhere. Courts aren't going to decide that you get some money back because your chemistry lab didn't involve making things bubble in person. They don't want to get involved in trying to make pedagogical decisions.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to guess most of these cases are losers and are going to be unceremoniously tossed. For schools refusing to refund room and board, that might be different, because there's a much clearer argument that you paid for something and didn't get it.
I don't disagree, but I can imagine a perfectly legitimate suit being brought, for example, by someone with disabilities which were not, or not properly, accommodated during the transition. Sometimes, as in the McDonald's case, a lawsuit which seems quintessentially American (read: frivolous) is actually about a pretty serious problem. So while my initial reaction is also to dismiss it entirely, I want to keep that reaction in check a little.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2020, 12:04:50 PM
[
I don't disagree, but I can imagine a perfectly legitimate suit being brought, for example, by someone with disabilities which were not, or not properly, accommodated during the transition. Sometimes, as in the McDonald's case, a lawsuit which seems quintessentially American (read: frivolous) is actually about a pretty serious problem. So while my initial reaction is also to dismiss it entirely, I want to keep that reaction in check a little.
Sure, but that is different because the ADA is a specific law that allows people to sue if someone isn't complying with it. That's really different from just suing on the basis that you didn't get what you paid for.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2020, 12:04:50 PM
I don't disagree, but I can imagine a perfectly legitimate suit being brought, for example, by someone with disabilities which were not, or not properly, accommodated during the transition.
That's because suits like that are valid (and are filed) during normal times. A more general "I didn't get the kind of teaching I wanted" wouldn't fly under normal circumstances, that's why it's not going to fly now.
To be clear, I'm not disputing any of that.
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 06:25:26 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 13, 1975, 10:01:34 PMThe stuff with people attempting to argue that they received substandard classes is even less likely to go anywhere. Courts aren't going to decide that you get some money back because your chemistry lab didn't involve making things bubble in person. They don't want to get involved in trying to make pedagogical decisions.
That's the argument regarding general education classes to check a science requirement. People who need to be proficient at certain techniques can show damages, because they will have to retake classes. Lecture may have been fine, but not actual lab to practice techniques.
Likewise students who were supposed to have performance-based courses in theatre or art like sculpture really didn't get what they paid for and can prove damages.
Professional associations (e.g., ACS) have said that online labs are valid for fulfilling accreditation, which will make it nearly impossible to show damages.
Including fully online-labs for the summer and fall.
Quote from: eigen on May 10, 2020, 02:58:49 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 06:25:26 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 13, 1975, 10:01:34 PMThe stuff with people attempting to argue that they received substandard classes is even less likely to go anywhere. Courts aren't going to decide that you get some money back because your chemistry lab didn't involve making things bubble in person. They don't want to get involved in trying to make pedagogical decisions.
That's the argument regarding general education classes to check a science requirement. People who need to be proficient at certain techniques can show damages, because they will have to retake classes. Lecture may have been fine, but not actual lab to practice techniques.
Likewise students who were supposed to have performance-based courses in theatre or art like sculpture really didn't get what they paid for and can prove damages.
Professional associations (e.g., ACS) have said that online labs are valid for fulfilling accreditation, which will make it nearly impossible to show damages.
Including fully online-labs for the summer and fall.
Do you have a link to ACS flat out stating that with zero caveats?
I ask because that was definitely not the conclusion a few years ago when I was involved with teaching discussions at meetings hosted by ACS, APS, and AAPT. That's certainly not what I gathered from trying to find fully online undergraduate programs in chemistry, physics, and engineering and finding almost none.
Doing a web search right now indicates that the first online biochemistry degree program was in 2019. Even early-online adopter Oregon State had only a chemistry minor in 2019 because of the American Chemical Society's recommendation against virtual laboratories. (https://cen.acs.org/education/undergraduate-education/First-ever-online-biochemistry-degree/97/i1)
The places with online courses tends to send kits to students' houses, not just fully virtual. (https://cen.acs.org/education/undergraduate-education/First-ever-online-biochemistry-degree/97/i1) I'm betting no kits were sent this spring and that few kits will be sent for the newly online lab courses this summer.
Even the ASU biochemistry degree has a summer bootcamp for two semesters of organic chemistry labs, not fully virtual.
I have an email from the head of the Committee on Professional Training.
The only caveat is that the move online has to be due to COVID-19, and that all courses have to have moved online, not just select courses.
So it's not blanket, but all of the situations I've seen meet the two caveats.
Since we're talking about damages from courses moving online due to this, and the professional organization has OK'd virtual labs during this time, that makes it hard for students to argue that they aren't going to be equivalent.
::edit:: I realize you were perhaps taking my comment more broadly, rather than during this particular time. I was discussing it in the context of these lawsuits.
Quote from: eigen on May 10, 2020, 04:22:27 PM
I have an email from the head of the Committee on Professional Training.
The only caveat is that the move online has to be due to COVID-19, and that all courses have to have moved online, not just select courses.
That reads more to me like ACS not yanking anyone's accreditation this year for being out of compliance with the ACS requirements.
That's distinct in my mind from endorsing fully-online labs as being adequate for teaching the skills one expects chemists (and related others) to have as a result of taking specific lab courses.
I wouldn't bet my university lawsuit defense on a pure accreditation matter versus the educational value, especially for spring when people were scrambling instead of fall when perhaps people have managed to put together equivalent kits or scheduled highly accelerated in-person labs to make up the skills.
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 04:28:43 PM
Quote from: eigen on May 10, 2020, 04:22:27 PM
I have an email from the head of the Committee on Professional Training.
The only caveat is that the move online has to be due to COVID-19, and that all courses have to have moved online, not just select courses.
That reads more to me like ACS not yanking anyone's accreditation this year for being out of compliance with the ACS requirements.
That's distinct in my mind from endorsing fully-online labs as being adequate for teaching the skills one expects chemists (and related others) to have as a result of taking specific lab courses.
I wouldn't bet my university lawsuit defense on a pure accreditation matter versus the educational value, especially for spring when people were scrambling instead of fall when perhaps people have managed to put together equivalent kits or scheduled highly accelerated in-person labs to make up the skills.
But these lawsuits are about the spring semester.
Let me do another shot at this:
Having ACS documents indicating that no department will lose ACS accreditation for putting labs online in the spring/summer/fall of 2020 is great for departments.
However, protecting ACS accreditation has nothing to do with quality of labs that were put online with short notice. Thus, suing for fraud/breach of contract because the spring labs didn't cover what they were supposed to cover seems reasonable to me, especially with ACS on record for the past decade about how most labs are not acceptable online.
The ACS backing on the educational aspects is likely to be stronger as time goes on. I am no longer heavily involved in the education discussion groups, but I assume that ACS/AAPT/APS/AICHE/ASME are working hard on how to best adjust for remote labs or accelerated labs with catch-up skill practice for the labs that were cut short in the spring.
Chemists (and related others) are expected to have certain skills. Not obtaining those skills while still passing the class has led to occasional lawsuits in the past. I am intimately familiar with a non-science lawsuit in which the student successfully sued because she was demonstrably not prepared for the work that the program had explicitly stated as program outcomes.
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 04:47:38 PM
Chemists (and related others) are expected to have certain skills. Not obtaining those skills while still passing the class has led to occasional lawsuits in the past. I am intimately familiar with a non-science lawsuit in which the student successfully sued because she was demonstrably not prepared for the work that the program had explicitly stated as program outcomes.
Right, these sorts of breach of contract lawsuits have been more successful against trade schools, not because of any bias against trade schools, but because the sorts of implied or actual promises a trade school makes are much more concrete and specific. If you go to refrigerator repair school and they don't actually teach you how to fix a refrigerator, you probably have a pretty good case. To make a similar argument for breach of contract because classes were moved online, you'd probably have to show that whatever changes made deprived you of the ability to get some vital skill that was clearly part of the implied contract for the classes the student was taking, that no acceptable substitutes were offered, and that the school didn't take any action to make sure students could still acquire the skill despite the disruption. It would be a tough sell.
Quote from: Caracal on May 10, 2020, 07:04:05 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 04:47:38 PM
Chemists (and related others) are expected to have certain skills. Not obtaining those skills while still passing the class has led to occasional lawsuits in the past. I am intimately familiar with a non-science lawsuit in which the student successfully sued because she was demonstrably not prepared for the work that the program had explicitly stated as program outcomes.
Right, these sorts of breach of contract lawsuits have been more successful against trade schools, not because of any bias against trade schools, but because the sorts of implied or actual promises a trade school makes are much more concrete and specific. If you go to refrigerator repair school and they don't actually teach you how to fix a refrigerator, you probably have a pretty good case. To make a similar argument for breach of contract because classes were moved online, you'd probably have to show that whatever changes made deprived you of the ability to get some vital skill that was clearly part of the implied contract for the classes the student was taking, that no acceptable substitutes were offered, and that the school didn't take any action to make sure students could still acquire the skill despite the disruption. It would be a tough sell.
If it happens that way it's not a bias against trade schools, it's a bias in favor of tenure. They are exalted special people, and they will tell us how things are. Some of the same people who would argue against a refund because "whatever changes made deprived you of the ability to get some vital skill that was clearly part of the implied contract for the classes the student was taking doesn't cut" it have been campaigning against online teaching for years, for the reason that it won't be equal the live classroom. Remember the ridicule for "MOOCS?" Well, I'll take whatever comes. but if they're going to have to refund money, that means they need to offer the classroom for the future.
Quote from: mahagonny on May 10, 2020, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 10, 2020, 07:04:05 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 04:47:38 PM
Chemists (and related others) are expected to have certain skills. Not obtaining those skills while still passing the class has led to occasional lawsuits in the past. I am intimately familiar with a non-science lawsuit in which the student successfully sued because she was demonstrably not prepared for the work that the program had explicitly stated as program outcomes.
Right, these sorts of breach of contract lawsuits have been more successful against trade schools, not because of any bias against trade schools, but because the sorts of implied or actual promises a trade school makes are much more concrete and specific. If you go to refrigerator repair school and they don't actually teach you how to fix a refrigerator, you probably have a pretty good case. To make a similar argument for breach of contract because classes were moved online, you'd probably have to show that whatever changes made deprived you of the ability to get some vital skill that was clearly part of the implied contract for the classes the student was taking, that no acceptable substitutes were offered, and that the school didn't take any action to make sure students could still acquire the skill despite the disruption. It would be a tough sell.
Some of the same people who would argue against a refund because "whatever changes made deprived you of the ability to get some vital skill that was clearly part of the implied contract for the classes the student was taking doesn't cut" it have been campaigning against online teaching for years, for the reason that it won't be equal the live classroom. Remember the ridicule for "MOOCS?" Well, I'll take whatever comes. but if they're going to have to refund money, that means they need to offer the classroom for the future.
Not really sure what your point is. I'm not a big fan of online classes. There's nothing wrong with MOOCS in theory, I just found it silly that they were being promoted as some new breakthrough in education when they are basically just a high tech equivalent of going to the library.
These court cases are mostly going to be tossed out. Things not being what you would have preferred isn't the basis for a lawsuit
Quote from: Caracal on May 10, 2020, 07:36:10 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on May 10, 2020, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 10, 2020, 07:04:05 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 10, 2020, 04:47:38 PM
Chemists (and related others) are expected to have certain skills. Not obtaining those skills while still passing the class has led to occasional lawsuits in the past. I am intimately familiar with a non-science lawsuit in which the student successfully sued because she was demonstrably not prepared for the work that the program had explicitly stated as program outcomes.
Right, these sorts of breach of contract lawsuits have been more successful against trade schools, not because of any bias against trade schools, but because the sorts of implied or actual promises a trade school makes are much more concrete and specific. If you go to refrigerator repair school and they don't actually teach you how to fix a refrigerator, you probably have a pretty good case. To make a similar argument for breach of contract because classes were moved online, you'd probably have to show that whatever changes made deprived you of the ability to get some vital skill that was clearly part of the implied contract for the classes the student was taking, that no acceptable substitutes were offered, and that the school didn't take any action to make sure students could still acquire the skill despite the disruption. It would be a tough sell.
Some of the same people who would argue against a refund because "whatever changes made deprived you of the ability to get some vital skill that was clearly part of the implied contract for the classes the student was taking doesn't cut" it have been campaigning against online teaching for years, for the reason that it won't be equal the live classroom. Remember the ridicule for "MOOCS?" Well, I'll take whatever comes. but if they're going to have to refund money, that means they need to offer the classroom for the future.
Not really sure what your point is. I'm not a big fan of online classes. There's nothing wrong with MOOCS in theory, I just found it silly that they were being promoted as some new breakthrough in education when they are basically just a high tech equivalent of going to the library.
These court cases are mostly going to be tossed out. Things not being what you would have preferred isn't the basis for a lawsuit
I would think they would be tossed out in sympathy that the school had no choice but to send everyone home then did the best they could under the circumstances. But claiming there was no slippage in educational quality would not strengthen our hand in the long run. If we like being on campus that is.
The way administration looks at it of course is that their job is to find money to keep the place running, for the good of society, so once they've found that money, it can't conceivably be anyone else's. Some people would find that arrogant.
I don't see too many academics saying the trade schools offer something different from the university experience without saying they can't offer nearly as much.
Of course having to refund money could well be the last straw that breaks the camel's back and then the college goes out of business. But from the point of view of the consumer, as long as someone wants college, there will be one. I'm not taking sides just saying I understand why the lawsuits are coming. They're not crazy people.
I wonder if parents who have their progeny still in the K-12 system can make the same case of wanting some part of their municipal taxes back. And not just taxes, but since the parent was in no small way responsible for teaching, perhaps Mom should get some pro-rated amount of a teacher's salary.
In general, I find all of these arguments that "I did not get what I paid for" not to hold a lot of water.
If I go to a Stones concert, find out that Mick has laryngitis so Keif will handle all the vocals, I don't get my money back. I pay the same to go to a Grateful Dead concert as I ever did, even though John Meyer or Trey Anastasio in now way resemble Jerry Garcia either physically or musically.
My brother pre-paid a boat rental for a week's cruising in the Caribbean and found COVID-19 had affected his return flight. Which in turn necessitated he end his cruise early, I doubt he got his money back for the 4 days of sailing he missed out on.
Quote from: mahagonny on May 10, 2020, 07:45:38 PM
I would think they would be tossed out in sympathy that the school had no choice but to send everyone home then did the best they could under the circumstances. But claiming there was no slippage in educational quality would not strengthen our hand in the long run. If we like being on campus that is.
The way administration looks at it of course is that their job is to find money to keep the place running, for the good of society, so once they've found that money, it can't conceivably be anyone else's. Some people would find that arrogant.
I don't see too many academics saying the trade schools offer something different from the university experience without saying they can't offer nearly as much.
Of course having to refund money could well be the last straw that breaks the camel's back and then the college goes out of business. But from the point of view of the consumer, as long as someone wants college, there will be one. I'm not taking sides just saying I understand why the lawsuits are coming. They're not crazy people.
As a legal matter, I suspect most of them are deluded and getting bad advice from their lawyers. Of course there's been slippage in educational quality. But, thats not a legal standard for getting your money back due to breach of contract. I thought my teaching sort of sucked last spring. Does that mean everyone in that class should get a quarter of their tuition refunded?
Quote from: secundem_artem on May 10, 2020, 07:56:50 PM
I wonder if parents who have their progeny still in the K-12 system can make the same case of wanting some part of their municipal taxes back. And not just taxes, but since the parent was in no small way responsible for teaching, perhaps Mom should get some pro-rated amount of a teacher's salary.
This has been promoted all over social media for weeks. There is a not-small group of private citizens who believe that since "schools are closed", that they should get their property taxes refunded to them.
It's mostly not people with children believing this. It's people who actually think that schools are totally closed. Like, no one is working at them, and students aren't enrolled in them.
The sheer level of idiocy that anyone could believe this is staggering.
Quote from: Caracal on May 11, 2020, 03:39:26 AM
As a legal matter, I suspect most of them are deluded and getting bad advice from their lawyers. Of course there's been slippage in educational quality. But, thats not a legal standard for getting your money back due to breach of contract. I thought my teaching sort of sucked last spring. Does that mean everyone in that class should get a quarter of their tuition refunded?
I don't know legal matters other than a handful of personal experiences. I'm sure you're right. I do try to delve into logic in my fashion.
Does that mean they are paying the lawyer by the hour? One third of nothing is nothing. So the contingency fee arrangement would dissuade lawyers from wanting the loser of a case. Unless the lawyer is desperate.
If you think your teaching was poor last spring and you are me, you likely lost your job at the end of that semester or received a letter of reprimand, stern meeting with the chair, letter of complaint from a handful of students or such. So there is at least one precedent for the students getting the impression they do or should have some control. People who have the real teaching jobs staffing classes with people like themselves is not the norm. It's just one piece of what goes on. And what school will call the norm as part of its advertising.
At the same time, if you think your teaching sucked, there should be times when it was also way better than usual. So things would even out. There's no evening out this time, just sacrifice. And the students/parents see how much money the government has doled out to the school. Money they and their children will help the government recoup in future taxes.
I don't know how it will play out, but I'd be totally amazed if there isn't a wave of lawsuits coming.
We look at the long running controversy over the cost of higher ed and see ourselves in the mirror with a look of concern. Students and parents don't necessarily see that. Some will see a bunch a people on the gravy train and then themselves, the chump who pays for it.
Quote from: Aster on May 11, 2020, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on May 10, 2020, 07:56:50 PM
I wonder if parents who have their progeny still in the K-12 system can make the same case of wanting some part of their municipal taxes back. And not just taxes, but since the parent was in no small way responsible for teaching, perhaps Mom should get some pro-rated amount of a teacher's salary.
This has been promoted all over social media for weeks. There is a not-small group of private citizens who believe that since "schools are closed", that they should get their property taxes refunded to them.
It's mostly not people with children believing this. It's people who actually think that schools are totally closed. Like, no one is working at them, and students aren't enrolled in them.
The sheer level of idiocy that anyone could believe this is staggering.
Well, some of them don't have children, so they've been funding schools so that they can have a better society, which no one ever really thanks them for. So using the very same theory that they have been instructed to accept, they aren't getting the full measure of what they paid for either. And they might be losing money at their employment because of the pandemic. So yeah, they are not happy.
Yeah, I also think that if we pay to see a movie and it's not that good, we should get our money back. For "Cats," they should pay us.
Or ... maybe it doesn't work that way.
Quote from: secundem_artem on May 10, 2020, 07:56:50 PM
If I go to a Stones concert, find out that Mick has laryngitis so Keif will handle all the vocals, I don't get my money back. I pay the same to go to a Grateful Dead concert as I ever did, even though John Meyer or Trey Anastasio in now way resemble Jerry Garcia either physically or musically.
My brother pre-paid a boat rental for a week's cruising in the Caribbean and found COVID-19 had affected his return flight. Which in turn necessitated he end his cruise early, I doubt he got his money back for the 4 days of sailing he missed out on.
Quote from: Hegemony on May 11, 2020, 03:54:22 PM
Yeah, I also think that if we pay to see a movie and it's not that good, we should get our money back. For "Cats," they should pay us.
Or ... maybe it doesn't work that way.
In my opinion if you spend a fortune to see "Cats" then you deserve to see "Cats." You should have figured out what it would be like.
But these are trivial examples, yours and Secundem Artem's compared with the impact of an education on the rest of someone's life.
Still, I will concede and thank you all for correcting me. These suits are probably going nowhere, no matter who each of may sympathize with. Explained in the Forbes article below.
'"It's really unusual to have a class action against a school," says Darcy Kirk, a professor who has taught higher ed law at UConn for 20 years. Courts tend to side with colleges. "They call it judicial deference toward academia."
"Most judges don't want to see their schools go under," says Boston University law professor Susan Koniak, who has given Congressional testimony on class actions.'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2020/05/05/will-lawsuits-help-college-students-get-coronavirus-refunds/#13c0b3ab71c4
Quote from: mahagonny on May 11, 2020, 07:08:27 PM
In my opinion if you spend a fortune to see "Cats" then you deserve to see "Cats." You should have figured out what it would be like.
But these are trivial examples, yours and Secundem Artem's compared with the impact of an education on the rest of someone's life.
Still, I will concede and thank you all for correcting me. These suits are probably going nowhere, no matter who each of may sympathize with. Explained in the Forbes article below.
'"It's really unusual to have a class action against a school," says Darcy Kirk, a professor who has taught higher ed law at UConn for 20 years. Courts tend to side with colleges. "They call it judicial deference toward academia."
"Most judges don't want to see their schools go under," says Boston University law professor Susan Koniak, who has given Congressional testimony on class actions.'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2020/05/05/will-lawsuits-help-college-students-get-coronavirus-refunds/#13c0b3ab71c4
I'm not a lawyer, but don't judgements against someone depend on either some sort of deceit or incompetence? Since all of the results of covid-19 were not forseeable before the last school term, any way that the education provided has been below expectations is not a result of institutional fraud or mismanagement. (If places are going virtual in the
Fall, then if the information given to students doesn't match reality, it may be a different story since by then there's time to
adjust the description of what's on offer.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 12, 2020, 05:20:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on May 11, 2020, 07:08:27 PM
In my opinion if you spend a fortune to see "Cats" then you deserve to see "Cats." You should have figured out what it would be like.
But these are trivial examples, yours and Secundem Artem's compared with the impact of an education on the rest of someone's life.
Still, I will concede and thank you all for correcting me. These suits are probably going nowhere, no matter who each of may sympathize with. Explained in the Forbes article below.
'"It's really unusual to have a class action against a school," says Darcy Kirk, a professor who has taught higher ed law at UConn for 20 years. Courts tend to side with colleges. "They call it judicial deference toward academia."
"Most judges don't want to see their schools go under," says Boston University law professor Susan Koniak, who has given Congressional testimony on class actions.'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2020/05/05/will-lawsuits-help-college-students-get-coronavirus-refunds/#13c0b3ab71c4
I'm not a lawyer, but don't judgements against someone depend on either some sort of deceit or incompetence? Since all of the results of covid-19 were not forseeable before the last school term, any way that the education provided has been below expectations is not a result of institutional fraud or mismanagement. (If places are going virtual in the Fall, then if the information given to students doesn't match reality, it may be a different story since by then there's time to adjust the description of what's on offer.)
Yes, from what I gather, courts have only really been willing to consider these sorts of suits when there's clear evidence of bad faith. I assume you would mostly establish that by showing that the school didn't follow the rules it had set up, didn't act in accordance with professional standards, knowingly lied to students etc.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 12, 2020, 05:20:05 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but don't judgements against someone depend on either some sort of deceit or incompetence? Since all of the results of covid-19 were not forseeable before the last school term, any way that the education provided has been below expectations is not a result of institutional fraud or mismanagement. (If places are going virtual in the Fall, then if the information given to students doesn't match reality, it may be a different story since by then there's time to adjust the description of what's on offer.)
My opinion, and I don't have a law degree either, is the bad faith would be when they won't use their assets to cover the losses.
Consider this: a catering company hires five people to serve food and wine at a wedding. They agree to $25/hour. They do the job and they never get paid. They call the boss and ask for the money. He says 'those people turned out to be a bunch of crooks. They don't want to pay up. You'll get your money if and when they pay.' The workers still have a claim against the catering company. They (Bill and his wife Flo) should have enough money in reserves to cover the occasional mishap. They know the business has risks. But they don't have an emergency fund to cover these situations. They have a new sports car instead.
Colleges have been warned about terrorism, for example. They have no business assuming the semester can be completed as planned. They have cash assets and things that could be sold to raise cash. They may even be able to buy insurance for it.
But this is just me. Laws don't have to seem fair to everyone.
Here's an article that discusses a lot of these issues:
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/ (https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/)
A sample from the article:
Quote
These lawsuits reveal very different arguments about what the value of a college degree is. One claim is that "the value of any degree issued on the basis of online or pass/fail classes will be diminished." This claim rests on the idea of job-market signaling in economics, in which the value of a degree comes from the positive signal that it communicates to an employer—for example, tenacity in sticking it out to obtain that education credential, or intrinsic intelligence in navigating the college maze.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 12, 2020, 11:43:09 AM
Here's an article that discusses a lot of these issues:
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/ (https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/)
A sample from the article:
Quote
These lawsuits reveal very different arguments about what the value of a college degree is. One claim is that "the value of any degree issued on the basis of online or pass/fail classes will be diminished." This claim rests on the idea of job-market signaling in economics, in which the value of a degree comes from the positive signal that it communicates to an employer—for example, tenacity in sticking it out to obtain that education credential, or intrinsic intelligence in navigating the college maze.
If persisting in college during spring 2020 (and possibly beyond) doesn't demonstrate tenacity and intrinsic intelligence in navigating the Zoom/Google Meet/Microsoft Team/Skype/Etc and Canvas/Blackboard/Moodle maze, I don't know what does.
Two more interesting quotes from that article:
"Zoom University isn't worth 50K a year."
[Online education is often understood as] "a lesser product given to people who are of lower social class."
This has got to be an awful year for any student with expectations of college that went beyond taking all-online classes to start with, or just commuting to campus to spend time in some bland classroom. It's no wonder a lot of them are disappointed, and angry, and feel like they haven't gotten what they signed up for. I don't see how a reasonable person could fail to understand that colleges aren't at fault for getting swept up by circumstances beyond their control, but I understand where the underlying disappointment and frustration comes from.
Quote from: apl68 on May 12, 2020, 12:39:06 PM
Two more interesting quotes from that article:
"Zoom University isn't worth 50K a year."
[Online education is often understood as] "a lesser product given to people who are of lower social class."
This has got to be an awful year for any student with expectations of college that went beyond taking all-online classes to start with, or just commuting to campus to spend time in some bland classroom. It's no wonder a lot of them are disappointed, and angry, and feel like they haven't gotten what they signed up for. I don't see how a reasonable person could fail to understand that colleges aren't at fault for getting swept up by circumstances beyond their control, but I understand where the underlying disappointment and frustration comes from.
They're not at fault that a pandemic has hit. But there are stupid things that go on. For example, they put up new buildings while neglecting to maintain the old ones which causes unnecessary cost and waste. They hire too many provosts. They make their survival everyone's problem by building up to a size 'too big to fail.' Etc.
Also, it's not merely whether they're at fault or how much. It's the lay of the land -- that some were going to close anyway, and because of this, just sooner. So for what purpose would I get so concerned that they're having some legal trouble? Seems cold, I guess, but hey -- my friends are losing their employment after ten years of spotless student eval's, some of them.
Quote from: apl68 on May 12, 2020, 12:39:06 PM
Two more interesting quotes from that article:
"Zoom University isn't worth 50K a year."
[Online education is often understood as] "a lesser product given to people who are of lower social class."
I don't see how a reasonable person could fail to understand that colleges aren't at fault for getting swept up by circumstances beyond their control, but I understand where the underlying disappointment and frustration comes from.
The key is that many people think that this situation, and its resulting disruptions, only applies to them. Feeling disappointed is natural. Realizing you aren't the only one being affected requires maturity. Many are lacking in the latter category.
Some of our students were shocked when we asked them to pack up their dorm rooms on short notice. Sure, it was an inconvenience, but had they not done that, they still wouldn't have their stuff now. And it wasn't like we were the only college moving students off campus on short notice. But there was plenty of opinion on how inconvenienced they felt. Yeah, get at the back of the line, kid. We are all inconvenienced. From the person trying to buy groceries, to the person in the unemployment line, down to the loved ones not able to be by the bedside of their dying loved ones. We are all doing the best we can. If you can't see that, you are seriously lacking in humanity, and no amount of money or in-person classes can fix that.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 12, 2020, 11:43:09 AM
Here's an article that discusses a lot of these issues:
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/ (https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/)
A sample from the article:
Quote
These lawsuits reveal very different arguments about what the value of a college degree is. One claim is that "the value of any degree issued on the basis of online or pass/fail classes will be diminished." This claim rests on the idea of job-market signaling in economics, in which the value of a degree comes from the positive signal that it communicates to an employer—for example, tenacity in sticking it out to obtain that education credential, or intrinsic intelligence in navigating the college maze.
Yeah.
The present predicament affects everybody, not just a college or two. Hence, the move to on-line will penalize [or not] everybody equally. Thus, relative prestige remains unaffected, and that is what signalling is all about, relative position. And colleges have made sure that GPA's remain unaffected, so that such signalling also remains unchanged.
More tangibly, what is impaired by going on-line is the consumption experience. No sports. No booze ups. No goofing off. I doubt anybody would sue on these grounds, though. :-)
Thus, I believe the present pandemic will have a near zero
permanent affect on higher education. The sector will get smaller, but that has been trend. Nothing to do with the virus.
Quote from: TreadingLife on May 12, 2020, 02:51:00 PM
The key is that many people think that this situation, and its resulting disruptions, only applies to them. Feeling disappointed is natural. Realizing you aren't the only one being affected requires maturity. Many are lacking in the latter category.
Some of our students were shocked when we asked them to pack up their dorm rooms on short notice. Sure, it was an inconvenience, but had they not done that, they still wouldn't have their stuff now. And it wasn't like we were the only college moving students off campus on short notice. But there was plenty of opinion on how inconvenienced they felt. Yeah, get at the back of the line, kid. We are all inconvenienced. From the person trying to buy groceries, to the person in the unemployment line, down to the loved ones not able to be by the bedside of their dying loved ones. We are all doing the best we can. If you can't see that, you are seriously lacking in humanity, and no amount of money or in-person classes can fix that.
+1 Also
so much whining about losing out on traditional commencement -- high school and college levels. Disappointing, yes. As bad as lots of other COVID burdens and misery people are enduring? Not even close.
Quote from: dismalist on May 12, 2020, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 12, 2020, 11:43:09 AM
Here's an article that discusses a lot of these issues:
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/ (https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/)
A sample from the article:
Quote
These lawsuits reveal very different arguments about what the value of a college degree is. One claim is that "the value of any degree issued on the basis of online or pass/fail classes will be diminished." This claim rests on the idea of job-market signaling in economics, in which the value of a degree comes from the positive signal that it communicates to an employer—for example, tenacity in sticking it out to obtain that education credential, or intrinsic intelligence in navigating the college maze.
Yeah.
The present predicament affects everybody, not just a college or two. Hence, the move to on-line will penalize [or not] everybody equally. Thus, relative prestige remains unaffected, and that is what signalling is all about, relative position. And colleges have made sure that GPA's remain unaffected, so that such signalling also remains unchanged.
More tangibly, what is impaired by going on-line is the consumption experience. No sports. No booze ups. No goofing off. I doubt anybody would sue on these grounds, though. :-)
Thus, I believe the present pandemic will have a near zero permanent affect on higher education. The sector will get smaller, but that has been trend. Nothing to do with the virus.
CSU goes to on-line in Fall.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-cal-state-university-system-moves-toward-virtual-learning-for-fall-2020/
It's gonna be a take it or leave it proposition.
Let's see what happens.
Quote from: dismalist on May 12, 2020, 07:08:30 PM
CSU goes to on-line in Fall.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-cal-state-university-system-moves-toward-virtual-learning-for-fall-2020/
It's gonna be a take it or leave it proposition.
Let's see what happens.
It is a weird and complicated decision to have to make. The problem is that you're trying to understand what the situation will be like in four months in the face of an evolving, and impossible to predict, crisis. Deciding to move everything online in the Fall is an irreversible decision. The other decision, to announce the intention to have in person classes is reversible, but comes with its own costs. My University has announced that the plan is to open, and they've started working on a plan.
I worry mostly that we aren't going to get any clear answers on what the trigger is for additional decisions. What sort of local spike in cases would trigger us to move online before or during the semester? What about transmission linked to the school? I worry that without clearly communicated protocols you could have a lot of panic among faculty and students.
Quote from: Caracal on May 13, 2020, 06:21:34 AM
Quote from: dismalist on May 12, 2020, 07:08:30 PM
CSU goes to on-line in Fall.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-cal-state-university-system-moves-toward-virtual-learning-for-fall-2020/
It's gonna be a take it or leave it proposition.
Let's see what happens.
It is a weird and complicated decision to have to make. The problem is that you're trying to understand what the situation will be like in four months in the face of an evolving, and impossible to predict, crisis. Deciding to move everything online in the Fall is an irreversible decision. The other decision, to announce the intention to have in person classes is reversible, but comes with its own costs. My University has announced that the plan is to open, and they've started working on a plan.
I worry mostly that we aren't going to get any clear answers on what the trigger is for additional decisions. What sort of local spike in cases would trigger us to move online before or during the semester? What about transmission linked to the school? I worry that without clearly communicated protocols you could have a lot of panic among faculty and students.
The problem with assuming you'll be in person, and waiting to see if you'll need to be online, is that it delays prepping for the latter. I do labs for several courses, so virtualizing those is a LOT of work; I have to be on that already because if the university waits until July to decide we're going to be online it would be a nightmare to try and get everything done starting then. (If things got a lot better so that face to face was possible, it would be much easier to "switch" to the old way in that scenario.)
Quote from: Cheerful on May 12, 2020, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: TreadingLife on May 12, 2020, 02:51:00 PM
The key is that many people think that this situation, and its resulting disruptions, only applies to them. Feeling disappointed is natural. Realizing you aren't the only one being affected requires maturity. Many are lacking in the latter category.
Some of our students were shocked when we asked them to pack up their dorm rooms on short notice. Sure, it was an inconvenience, but had they not done that, they still wouldn't have their stuff now. And it wasn't like we were the only college moving students off campus on short notice. But there was plenty of opinion on how inconvenienced they felt. Yeah, get at the back of the line, kid. We are all inconvenienced. From the person trying to buy groceries, to the person in the unemployment line, down to the loved ones not able to be by the bedside of their dying loved ones. We are all doing the best we can. If you can't see that, you are seriously lacking in humanity, and no amount of money or in-person classes can fix that.
+1 Also so much whining about losing out on traditional commencement -- high school and college levels. Disappointing, yes. As bad as lots of other COVID burdens and misery people are enduring? Not even close.
Having to deal with an historic-level pandemic situation is going to be a rough wake-up call to maturity. As disappointing as it is that so many of the students are no farther along in the maturing process than they are already, I don't envy them having to face all of this at their stage of life.
Quote from: apl68 on May 13, 2020, 07:30:33 AM
Having to deal with an historic-level pandemic situation is going to be a rough wake-up call to maturity. As disappointing as it is that so many of the students are no farther along in the maturing process than they are already, I don't envy them having to face all of this at their stage of life.
How the greatest generation became great.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 07:18:19 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 13, 2020, 06:21:34 AM
Quote from: dismalist on May 12, 2020, 07:08:30 PM
CSU goes to on-line in Fall.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-cal-state-university-system-moves-toward-virtual-learning-for-fall-2020/
It's gonna be a take it or leave it proposition.
Let's see what happens.
It is a weird and complicated decision to have to make. The problem is that you're trying to understand what the situation will be like in four months in the face of an evolving, and impossible to predict, crisis. Deciding to move everything online in the Fall is an irreversible decision. The other decision, to announce the intention to have in person classes is reversible, but comes with its own costs. My University has announced that the plan is to open, and they've started working on a plan.
I worry mostly that we aren't going to get any clear answers on what the trigger is for additional decisions. What sort of local spike in cases would trigger us to move online before or during the semester? What about transmission linked to the school? I worry that without clearly communicated protocols you could have a lot of panic among faculty and students.
The problem with assuming you'll be in person, and waiting to see if you'll need to be online, is that it delays prepping for the latter. I do labs for several courses, so virtualizing those is a LOT of work; I have to be on that already because if the university waits until July to decide we're going to be online it would be a nightmare to try and get everything done starting then. (If things got a lot better so that face to face was possible, it would be much easier to "switch" to the old way in that scenario.)
From the standpoint of professors, you're right, but not from the larger standpoint of the school. My school is rolling out their plan for classes in the fall, and there are an enormous number of moving parts. How can you ensure adequate space in classrooms? Some faculty and students are going to need to be online, but you have to figure out how to match up those needs. That's before you get into dealing with dorms and student life. All that planning has to happen now. You couldn't just wake up in late July and decide, "oh, actually things seem fine, lets do in person classes."
Quote from: dismalist on May 12, 2020, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 12, 2020, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 12, 2020, 11:43:09 AM
Here's an article that discusses a lot of these issues:
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/ (https://www.salon.com/2020/05/09/as-elite-colleges-go-remote-students-revolt-against-the-state-of-higher-ed/)
A sample from the article:
Quote
These lawsuits reveal very different arguments about what the value of a college degree is. One claim is that "the value of any degree issued on the basis of online or pass/fail classes will be diminished." This claim rests on the idea of job-market signaling in economics, in which the value of a degree comes from the positive signal that it communicates to an employer—for example, tenacity in sticking it out to obtain that education credential, or intrinsic intelligence in navigating the college maze.
Yeah.
The present predicament affects everybody, not just a college or two. Hence, the move to on-line will penalize [or not] everybody equally. Thus, relative prestige remains unaffected, and that is what signalling is all about, relative position. And colleges have made sure that GPA's remain unaffected, so that such signalling also remains unchanged.
More tangibly, what is impaired by going on-line is the consumption experience. No sports. No booze ups. No goofing off. I doubt anybody would sue on these grounds, though. :-)
Thus, I believe the present pandemic will have a near zero permanent affect on higher education. The sector will get smaller, but that has been trend. Nothing to do with the virus.
CSU goes to on-line in Fall.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-cal-state-university-system-moves-toward-virtual-learning-for-fall-2020/
It's gonna be a take it or leave it proposition.
Let's see what happens.
As the article notes, there will be "limited exceptions". I've already heard through the grapevine about one campus, and I expect there will be others.
In Canada, Memorial University made a similar announcement: blanket rule with petitions for exceptions: https://www.mun.ca/covid19/news.php?id=13316&type=news (https://www.mun.ca/covid19/news.php?id=13316&type=news)
I suspect that this pattern will become the new normal.
Random thoughts:
1)WRT refunds for stuff bought but not received, who really thinks that Uni X can toss Kid out of dorm, and dining hall, when kid has paid for these things, and not give him his money back, irrespective of why Uni had to do this? And this is a classist problem here, as, like it or not, many college kids who had paid for these things, plus, of course, the accompanying access to ftf classes there, are really not equipped to become online students living and eating elsewhere (esp if they did not get a r-and-b refund to potentially use to secure alternative living and eating arrangements). Some kids would in any case, even if they can move back in on short notice with parents, not have computer a/o online access to even potentially participate at all, let alone just effectively, in online classes, something that they emphatically did not sign up for.
2) Giving refunds for ftf classes that suddenly morphed into online ones is more dicey, however, a) like it or not, some classes so converted just will not be anything resembling the same in ed quality, some so deficient therein as to really make them insufficient on the face of things, and not legitimately worthy of being given academic credit for said course-- indeed, some of these will simply not have been able to provide the student the minimum amount of course content, effectively taught, practiced, and evaluated, to justify the students' being assessed as having taken the class, esp if it is in a professional program, and it will be even dangerous for society to allow that to be done. Indeed, some such students will probably end up having to repeat classes and/or take more time than would otherwise have been expected to complete their degree programs, and they should not have to be the ones to pay for that extra time (BTW, this is also essentially going to happen to thousands, if not millions, of k12 kids who are just not getting anything resembling the sort of eductations this spring that they would have been able to get sans coronavirus, and society is more or less ignoring this reality/ hoping it will go away/ engaging in classist, my kid is not in this situation, etc., magical thinking.) b) bad faith is really not the issue-- in what other context in our law, does someone who takes money to give a person x, and then fails to provide x, *irrespective of the reason why x was not delivered*, get to keep the customer's money? If I lay down fifteen bucks to see the 7:30 showing of Rambo XXVII at the local cineplex, and said odeon does not actually let me see said epic at that time, it has to give me my money back.
3)We will have to consider, further, another related thing that has reared its ugly head in this case, namely, that the enormously expensive product known as a college course is more often than it should be not really worth what it is charged for, in the sense that the course product itself is not really, even if operated exactly as the uni catalog states, really an adequate academic treatment of the supposed course content, even if the student gets an A and does everything exactly the way the professor dictates. There are, IOW, many courses and even whole degree programs, heck even some whole colleges, that are more or less fraudulent in many cases, and this does not even include the mostly largely fraudulent online colleges and online programs attached to brick-and-mortar schools (who among us, for instance, would ever hire a person with an online 'PhD' for a professor position, essentially in any field whatsoever?) We do not really have to like this, indeed, we really should not like it, but to deny it is disingenuous and professional malpractice.
This will be The Big Year for both local community colleges and predatory online for-profit institutions, that's for dang sure.
And the 1-3 years *after that* will be known as "The Great Course Retakening", "The Matriculation Crisis", or the beginning of the "Seven Year Bachelor's Degree Era". Hee hee.
Lawyers gotta eat too.
One more thing-- even *when* a school could refuse a refund, in many/ most cases, the optics of doing so, esp when the kid is, say, a minority first-gen college kid who is trying to work his way through school, are likely to be really, really bad (and all the more so if the school is not some Super Dinky-esque school that was circling the drain before the Coronacrisis). Consider the current discussions between the MLB owners (full of greedy scumbags and lesser rascals, for the *most part*), and the enormously powerful players' union, regarding when and how, and on what financial terms, to reopen the sport-- no one seriously thinks players will or should get full pay for 162 games, when many fewer will end up being played, and those that will be played likely be played sans fans, meaning no tickets, wieners, and brewskis sold, etc.), but the union is apparently playing pretty strong hardball (no pun intended) as yet. Anyone who knows the history of the conflicts between said union and the aforementioned set of mostly dirtbag owners (think Miami Marlins, Pittsburgh Pirates, Baltimore Orioles, etc) is likely to have generally adopted a mostly strongly pro-players attitude in any such conflicts, *before now*, but if the players overreach here, well...
Quote from: Aster on May 14, 2020, 12:08:26 AM
This will be The Big Year for both local community colleges and predatory online for-profit institutions, that's for dang sure.
And the 1-3 years *after that* will be known as "The Great Course Retakening", "The Matriculation Crisis", or the beginning of the "Seven Year Bachelor's Degree Era". Hee hee.
Lawyers gotta eat too.
I said something very similar to my Chair and to my Academic Dean, and they passed it up the line to the Provost. We should be reducing the numbers in online, writing-intensive courses. But we are not, mostly because of financial distress. Many of those students will fail, retaking in the Spring. Assuming that they come back at all. I'm not going to push (I like my job), but I'm going to make sure that it gets on the agenda of the next assessment, enrollment management, and retention meetings.
Random responses to various posts:
Those of you saying that full and immediate reimbursements for services not provided might want to get on the phone with an airline, a hotel, or a major sports franchise. Even pre-paid insurance doesn't cover everything, and many industries are trying flexible repayments. I think my college went with credit applied towards future housing & meal plans; whether or not some people ever can collect is another matter, but you can see the logic: sunk costs might be a consideration for people who might otherwise jump ship. Also, I'm not sure how our contract with our major food service company works, and what we might have been able to claw back. I'm also not super interested in them laying off a lot of their staff -- I like them, and they work really hard.
I have public school age kids, live in the suburbs, and have a Facebook account. People absolutely are calling for property tax refunds, as well as many other concessions. As Kay and others have pointed out, one penny that has dropped is the recognition that schools do a lot more than lesson plans. (The Mayor of NYC made this argument, probably longer than he should have in the face of a pandemic; he was right on the principle if not the limit case.) I can set up ABC Mouse or Khan Academy videos myself; what I cannot do is replicate table talk or an impromptu game of Calvin Ball. Persistent squawking has increased the number of Google Chatroom sessions, but the people complaining won't be satisfied, because it cannot address their real concerns. One of them is my point above -- class sizes are too big for this kind of delivery, which is why the Privates (more resources, fewer students) look like they're doing a better job.
One thing that many Colleges and Universities are going to resist, hard, is the premise that online/distance course delivery is inferior to face-to-face instruction. I've sat on our Curriculum Committee for years, and one thing that we refuse to write into any catalog description is the method of delivery, unless the course is so specific that it can only be taught one way. (Study abroad, specific labs, or another specific location.) The reason is that we've argued for decades to our accreditors that the content and learning outcomes are identical in any method of course delivery, which affects both our internal courses and those transferred across a much larger system. Any intimation that this axiom is false is going to ripple out, potentially bringing down the whole curricular edifice. Some institutions may move the other way, refusing to offer or give credit for online courses; they are going to have a challenging fall, but will remain as niche residential experience places if and when such things are possible.
Quote from: kaysixteen on May 13, 2020, 11:16:43 PM
If I lay down fifteen bucks to see the 7:30 showing of Rambo XXVII at the local cineplex, and said odeon does not actually let me see said epic at that time, it has to give me my money back.
To be fair, part of this is just good business. Assuming the average moviegoer will see several in a year, it's in the theatre's best interest to refund
so the person comes back. In the case of post-secondary education, typically a person only does it once, so it's not so comparable.
One other factor is that for people who started the academic year last Fall, and the lockdown affected maybe
25% of the Winter term, then at most that works out to about a 12.5% refund.
Forgoing the
potential revenue in the Fall with everything virtual is a much bigger deal.
Some of my colleagues are trying to get a partial refund on their $375 parking tags. I think their endeavor will be less successful than similar attempts to get refunds for campus gym memberships.
I just don't understand how everything can be online. Sure, lecture, writing intensive, and discussion based-classes can be adopted. But how do you replicate organic chemistry lab at home? How can you replicate a biochemistry lab--people don't have PCR machines, biosafety hoods, and Western Blot imagers in their spare bedroom. How do you replicate studio experiences for the arts, internships, or research experience in labs? Some things have got to be in person and you cannot delay them indefinitely because people need to graduate and some things are sequential. Here at large middling public U we are doing distance learning where possible, some exceptions where needed, and splitting the fall and spring semesters into 2 8-week terms (in case of a new lock down, I guess), with some exceptions to the 8-week as well--with lots of exceptions in graduate and professional programs. Of course the information we are getting is haphazard and continually changing.
If I were a student going into a lab science or health care field without real actual in-person lab instruction, I would feel a bit cheated. For example, new health professional students here starting this summer are now taking gross anatomy as a virtual class. TO me this does not prepare our future doctors and other health care professionals as well as actual interaction with the cadavers--so are they being cheated, is the public being cheated? BUT, we all are being cheated out of a normal life experience right now by the covid19. It is a new paradigm with few answers, it seems.
No disrespect intended to the people who posted in this thread, but the possibility of student lawsuits over an "inferior" education is really far down on the list of immediate worries for universities right now. And it's pretty easy for a university's legal counsel to respond to an extortion attempt with a letter that says, effectively, "Go ahead, sue, we have far deeper pockets than you do and we will drive you into bankruptcy. In the end you might win a refund that's the equivalent of a semester or two of tuition, but your legal costs will far exceed that amount. In the process you won't be getting a diploma from this university, and we'll broadcast your name far and wide so that you don't get accepted into any other university either."
Quote from: bio-nonymous on May 14, 2020, 10:08:29 AM
I just don't understand how everything can be online. Sure, lecture, writing intensive, and discussion based-classes can be adopted. But how do you replicate organic chemistry lab at home? How can you replicate a biochemistry lab--people don't have PCR machines, biosafety hoods, and Western Blot imagers in their spare bedroom. How do you replicate studio experiences for the arts, internships, or research experience in labs? Some things have got to be in person and you cannot delay them indefinitely because people need to graduate and some things are sequential. Here at large middling public U we are doing distance learning where possible, some exceptions where needed, and splitting the fall and spring semesters into 2 8-week terms (in case of a new lock down, I guess), with some exceptions to the 8-week as well--with lots of exceptions in graduate and professional programs. Of course the information we are getting is haphazard and continually changing.
If I were a student going into a lab science or health care field without real actual in-person lab instruction, I would feel a bit cheated. For example, new health professional students here starting this summer are now taking gross anatomy as a virtual class. TO me this does not prepare our future doctors and other health care professionals as well as actual interaction with the cadavers--so are they being cheated, is the public being cheated? BUT, we all are being cheated out of a normal life experience right now by the covid19. It is a new paradigm with few answers, it seems.
The answer is simple. You don't. You can't.
This summer is a partial write off for much of Higher Education. The Fall semester will also probably be a partial write-off for Higher Education. It's not just the emergency remote formatting for courses. It's also the enormous distraction, stress, and difficulties on the student's end. They're not going to be learning well, no matter what professors are doing.
But the alternative right now is emergency remote delivery, or no course at all. We are in an emergency. Bad options are the only options. Just get students through the term, as best as possible.
Like 30-ish% of polled professors in a recent survey, I dropped academic standards in all Spring 2020 courses waaaaay down. Easier exams. Smaller exams. Easier homework. Longer deadlines. Did it help? A little. But at the end of the day, overall course averages were still below normal. Bimodal grade distributions were very sharp. Students either made A's, or they made F's. Not too much in between. Student engagement is not going to be good until this is all over and campuses are reopened and normal classes/normal college life resumes.
For folks concerned about weird liability or for not teaching adequately or whatever, the recommendations are that for all emergency remote format courses, syllabi have big and bold disclaimers placed onto them. The waiver from the Department of Education can even be directly pasted in. I have a big red "Pandemic" disclaimer on all of my courses, stating that the course is not in a normal format, some services are just not available to students, and that some learning outcomes will be alternatively presented and evaluated in "nontraditional formats".
If students feel "cheated" about enrolling in a remote class of any kind, they are free to not enroll. They may even be free to get a refund.
Quote from: Aster on May 14, 2020, 03:21:34 PM
If students feel "cheated" about enrolling in a remote class of any kind, they are free to not enroll. They may even be free to get a refund.
Well, if they enroll in a class that's
identified as being remote before they sign up, there's no reason for a refund.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 14, 2020, 04:18:01 PM
Quote from: Aster on May 14, 2020, 03:21:34 PM
If students feel "cheated" about enrolling in a remote class of any kind, they are free to not enroll. They may even be free to get a refund.
Well, if they enroll in a class that's identified as being remote before they sign up, there's no reason for a refund.
Sure but where schools have already offered the online version at a lower tuition rate, they have provided a clear basis for not being entitled to the full amount for the Spring 2020 semester. And even if you haven't done that it is common practice, something with which to calibrate.
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2020, 03:39:40 AM
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Is there evidence to support this assertion?
Quote from: writingprof on May 15, 2020, 07:11:31 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2020, 03:39:40 AM
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Is there evidence to support this assertion?
It is complicated at my school because individual online courses are charged an additional fee (precisely for the reasons Hegemony states), but online-only degrees have lower tuition than the residential programs. So, online courses for residential students are more expensive.
Quote from: arcturus on May 15, 2020, 07:19:07 AM
Quote from: writingprof on May 15, 2020, 07:11:31 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2020, 03:39:40 AM
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Is there evidence to support this assertion?
It is complicated at my school because individual online courses are charged an additional fee (precisely for the reasons Hegemony states), but online-only degrees have lower tuition than the residential programs. So, online courses for residential students are more expensive.
One of my schools is discounting the summer semester's tuition. I'm getting a small amount of work out of it. I think they are wise to do this. Enrollment is lower than usual.
If it were my other school (I'm referring now to the state university), I wouldn't assume the reasons stated to the public are exactly the true reasons. For just about any decision. State bureaucracies have a lot of things going on behind the scenes that are not transparent, and spin doctors.
Quote from: arcturus on May 15, 2020, 07:19:07 AM
Quote from: writingprof on May 15, 2020, 07:11:31 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2020, 03:39:40 AM
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Is there evidence to support this assertion?
It is complicated at my school because individual online courses are charged an additional fee (precisely for the reasons Hegemony states), but online-only degrees have lower tuition than the residential programs. So, online courses for residential students are more expensive.
I've seen articles that indicate that this is widespread. Hence the widespread perception that online education is cheaper and also worth less than face-to-face. If that's one's perception of online education (correct or not), then it would be easy to feel cheated by an unexpected move to online, and entitled to some kind of pro-rated partial refund.
Quote from: apl68 on May 15, 2020, 07:57:12 AM
Quote from: arcturus on May 15, 2020, 07:19:07 AM
Quote from: writingprof on May 15, 2020, 07:11:31 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2020, 03:39:40 AM
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Is there evidence to support this assertion?
It is complicated at my school because individual online courses are charged an additional fee (precisely for the reasons Hegemony states), but online-only degrees have lower tuition than the residential programs. So, online courses for residential students are more expensive.
I've seen articles that indicate that this is widespread. Hence the widespread perception that online education is cheaper and also worth less than face-to-face. If that's one's perception of online education (correct or not), then it would be easy to feel cheated by an unexpected move to online, and entitled to some kind of pro-rated partial refund.
This argument isn't likely to work. Online only programs are specific and separate programs and they generally have their own curricula. They usually aren't just the same classes and requirements in an online format.
Quote from: spork on May 14, 2020, 01:49:46 PM
No disrespect intended to the people who posted in this thread, but the possibility of student lawsuits over an "inferior" education is really far down on the list of immediate worries for universities right now. And it's pretty easy for a university's legal counsel to respond to an extortion attempt with a letter that says, effectively, "Go ahead, sue, we have far deeper pockets than you do and we will drive you into bankruptcy. In the end you might win a refund that's the equivalent of a semester or two of tuition, but your legal costs will far exceed that amount. In the process you won't be getting a diploma from this university, and we'll broadcast your name far and wide so that you don't get accepted into any other university either."
You're missing the class action suit aspect. Yeah, if Jamil sues Super Dinky as an individual, even Super Dinky will likely be able to outlast him, especially if his primary argument is he preferred his face-to-face history class to what Professor Jenkins cobbled together with no notice.
However, Super Dinky saying "Jamil filed suit during the corona virus online transition" is really not going to prevent Jamil from getting in anywhere else. Super Dinky just doesn't have that power, even under normal times with people who were charged with felonies.
The class action suit filed against NYU by the performing arts students seems to have more legs to me. (https://patch.com/new-york/west-village/nyu-latest-nyc-school-sued-coronavirus-tuition-refund) Objecting that they did not get the performance part seems reasonable, especially at the huge prices that NYU charges. Eventually, NYU and some of these other places will need students again who are willing to pay an absurd amount in tuition.
Harvard can probably kick people in the shins literally every day and still have a big line around the block of people who will sign up for that.
Other institutions do not. NYU's 28% acceptance rate means they do reject people. However, at least in the circles I run, NYU is regarded as absurdly expensive for what you get. A good state school is a better use of tuition money. Even other institutions in NYC are better bang for the buck. If the creatives don't actually get to use the facilities or do the networking, I can't imagine that people will keep paying through the nose for NYU.
Quote from: writingprof on May 15, 2020, 07:11:31 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2020, 03:39:40 AM
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Is there evidence to support this assertion?
Tuition for our online graduate and degree completion courses is 40% of list price of tuition for full-time, first-time undergraduates -- to be competitive with other institutions. And we have full-time, first-time undergraduates who take summer online courses from community colleges for far less what they get charged for our on-campus, fall/spring equivalents, then they transfer the credits back here, which means we lose the tuition revenue, because we don't offer summer online courses to this student population. A very stupid system that our revolving door of administrators has been quite happy to perpetuate.
Quote from: spork on May 14, 2020, 01:49:46 PM
No disrespect intended to the people who posted in this thread, but the possibility of student lawsuits over an "inferior" education is really far down on the list of immediate worries for universities right now. And it's pretty easy for a university's legal counsel to respond to an extortion attempt with a letter that says, effectively, "Go ahead, sue, we have far deeper pockets than you do and we will drive you into bankruptcy. In the end you might win a refund that's the equivalent of a semester or two of tuition, but your legal costs will far exceed that amount. In the process you won't be getting a diploma from this university, and we'll broadcast your name far and wide so that you don't get accepted into any other university either."
All this time I had been envisioning someone suing for a refund of say, 1/4 of the tuition for spring 2020. The calculation would be the latter half of the semester was only half as valuable as what was charged. Which would not be an extortion attempt, just restitution. That's what my comments were based on. Not opportunism, just seeking a fair outcome. Perhaps there is more of a 'you against me' atmosphere than I was aware of. At the same time, (laying cards on the table) I do not deny attributing an anti-labor component to the development of adjunctification. And where higher ed regards its workforce as an enemy, it might not be long before it does likewise with its customers.
A 1/4 refund would be claiming you got nothing for that half of the spring semester. And that's not true. Diminished perhaps...I'll give you that.
Quote from: waterboy on May 16, 2020, 05:25:20 AM
A 1/4 refund would be claiming you got nothing for that half of the spring semester. And that's not true. Diminished perhaps...I'll give you that.
Well, OK, someone, arbitrator, judge, could arrive at some computation. The point is restitution as opposed to opportunism or extortion (plaintiff trying to get money for the hardships suffered as a result of the pandemic, which is beyond the school's control) or overcharging (getting the full charge without delivering the advertised product.)
Quote from: polly_mer on May 15, 2020, 10:32:12 AM
[. . .]
The class action suit filed against NYU by the performing arts students seems to have more legs to me. (https://patch.com/new-york/west-village/nyu-latest-nyc-school-sued-coronavirus-tuition-refund)
[. . . ]
I read the article. First thing I noticed, which I should have expected, was "art student's mom." Actually, a musical theater student, so I'll guess stage mom. Probably with a residence near Fifth Avenue.
Yes, NYU is a rip-off that the East Coast equivalents of Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli put their children into. I'm sure there are plenty of NYC law firms happy to file class action lawsuits on behalf of such clients. And if NYU's legal counsel is anywhere near as expensive, the university will have layers of umbrella insurance, and the lawyers from those insurance companies will join in to defend NYU if a judge allows the lawsuit to proceed. Given the participants, I don't see this as a scenario with much chance of becoming a widespread phenomenon. Even my employer offers (as an agent of an insurer) voluntary tuition refund insurance in the event of "serious illness or accident." If the educational product was so valuable to the art student's mom, then she ought to have taken out some insurance on the ability of her daughter to complete it in the manner by which it had originally been advertised.
And if I was running the admissions office of, for example, Columbia, Barnard, or USC, I'd be checking any applicant named Rynasko against a list.
Quote from: mahagonny on May 16, 2020, 06:03:27 AM
Well, OK, someone, arbitrator, judge, could arrive at some computation. The point is restitution as opposed to opportunism or extortion (plaintiff trying to get money for the hardships suffered as a result of the pandemic, which is beyond the school's control) or overcharging (getting the full charge without delivering the advertised product.)
This is somewhere in between very cynical and very naive. Functionally, college education actually doesn't work with a model where the school has to provide the "advertised product." To the extent that students, parents and the college view it that way, it's corrosive. The naive part, I think, is believing that things will improve if you adopt the idea that it is.
But, really, none of it actually works that way on any level. Do students get a partial refund because the iconic quad depicted on the brochures with students sunbathing on a nice day gets renovated and is a giant hole for a year? Do they get a refund if their dreams of becoming a doctor are dashed by failing the p-chem course? What if they can't get into the class of the superstar professor? If their history class is different than they always thought it would be?
Quote from: Caracal on May 17, 2020, 04:43:45 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on May 16, 2020, 06:03:27 AM
Well, OK, someone, arbitrator, judge, could arrive at some computation. The point is restitution as opposed to opportunism or extortion (plaintiff trying to get money for the hardships suffered as a result of the pandemic, which is beyond the school's control) or overcharging (getting the full charge without delivering the advertised product.)
This is somewhere in between very cynical and very naive. Functionally, college education actually doesn't work with a model where the school has to provide the "advertised product." To the extent that students, parents and the college view it that way, it's corrosive. The naive part, I think, is believing that things will improve if you adopt the idea that it is.
But, really, none of it actually works that way on any level. Do students get a partial refund because the iconic quad depicted on the brochures with students sunbathing on a nice day gets renovated and is a giant hole for a year? Do they get a refund if their dreams of becoming a doctor are dashed by failing the p-chem course? What if they can't get into the class of the superstar professor? If their history class is different than they always thought it would be?
No. but somehow nearly all academics agree higher ed has been defunded. Apparently it doesn't have the good will it thinks it has.
The question remains what is being paid for?
I like bioteacher's example from years ago that likened college to the trainer at the gym: you're paying for the opportunity to use the equipment with expert advice.
You're not guaranteed any given outcome.
You have to do the work yourself.
Half a semester of networking is definitely worth some of the money paid.
Half a semester of a lab probably is worth less than half a semester of tuition.
Half a semester of a project-based class that required access to equipment and space is worth nowhere near half tuition since most of the value is in the second half of the term.
Caracal keeps making a case on course credit being the value, but that's not the value for students who enrolled for specific knowledge gained from specific experiences, Credit is not the value for people paying big money for networking opportunities through shared experiences like the late nights working on the project in the final weeks.
[on preview]
Higher ed has lost significant good will over the years, in large part because a bunch of college credits is not at all the same as a college education.
Quote from: writingprof on May 15, 2020, 07:11:31 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2020, 03:39:40 AM
Most universities actually charge a higher rate for online courses, because of the extra technology support needed.
Is there evidence to support this assertion?
My state flagship charges the same per credit hour tuition regardless of mode of delivery.
If you are taking entirely online coursework, you don't have to pay student fees that would include things like the activity fee, and (importantly) out of state or international surcharges. But you do have to pay a distance learning fee (once per student, covers all your online courses) that amounts to about a third of the cost of one credit hour.
If even one of your classes has any non-online component you have to pay all the on campus fees.
So, for an out of state student, taking all online is vastly cheaper than in person. For an instate student, all online is somewhat cheaper than in person because the on campus fees are much higher than the distance learning fee.
If you take some in person and some online classes, the distance learning class increases your fees by an amount equivalent to about 10 chipotle burrito dinners.
The perverse incentive actually relates to the fact that the money we get from the STATE is much lower for credits taken fully online.
Quote from: onthefringe on May 17, 2020, 08:27:54 AM
If you take some in person and some online classes, the distance learning class increases your fees by an amount equivalent to about 10 chipotle burrito dinners.
Good one!
Quote from: polly_mer on May 17, 2020, 07:43:17 AM
Caracal keeps making a case on course credit being the value, but that's not the value for students who enrolled for specific knowledge gained from specific experiences, Credit is not the value for people paying big money for networking opportunities through shared experiences like the late nights working on the project in the final weeks.
I'm not really saying course credits are the value. I'm just arguing that there's a reason courts have thrown out suits that try to argue that students have somehow not gotten what they were promised by the university unless they were either explicitly promised something, or there was clear bad faith. Trying to define exactly what tuition is supposed to pay for would end up being essentially impossible.
I think this lawsuit over the AP test has more legs:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Glitches-Complicated-This/248825 (https://www.chronicle.com/article/Glitches-Complicated-This/248825)
Ah, another problem with ol ed-- how to keep the tech working, and, like it or not, how to avoid cheating?