Covid-19 Response: Evidence of How Higher Ed Can Be Completely Restructured?

[spork]

Most of my career in higher ed has been spent at institutions that are overwhelmingly oriented around undergraduate instruction.

Understood, and I realize there is a huge range of interest, financial capacity to support MS collections, a need for basic literacy in the base language, etc. as well. And I'm very aware (having also taught in such settings) that food in the cafeteria may need to come before anything else in the budget in some places.

But the student's level needn't inhibit their interest in more specific studies.

[. . .]

I find the following to affect students' willingness to have/pursue specific academic interests far more than level (I'm assuming your use of "level" refers to freshman, sophomore, junior, senior):

• Quality of the college student's K-12 education (which in turn is usually a function of zip code/household wealth).
• Design of the undergraduate curriculum (a major requiring 80 credits out of a total of 120 by default limits opportunities to explore other interests compared to a major requiring 40 credits; also situations of, for example, empty claims of "interdisciplinariness" in a curriculum composed of single course disciplinary check-box requirements).
• Quality of undergraduate instruction.
• Financial resources of the undergraduate institution, or rather willingness/ability of the institution to devote finite resources to academics instead of other operational expenses that might in reality have very little effect on meeting enrollment, regulatory, and other needs.

Over the last decade or two there has been a steady increase in the number of AP/dual enrollment courses taken by college-bound high school students. To me that indicates that the dominant bachelor's-degree-in-four-years model is really quite arbitrary and ripe for replacement, at least for a portion of undergraduates.

[picard]

Here is one elite LAC that will be operating (mostly) online this coming Fall semester:

https://www.pressherald.com/2020/06/22/bowdoin-announces-most-classes-will-be-taught-online-this-fall/

Nearly all classes offered by Bowdoin College this fall will be taught online and about two-thirds of the students will remain off campus for the semester, the college announced Monday.

About one-third of the student population is expected to be on campus this fall, including new first-year and transfer students, as well as select groups such as residential life staff and a small number of honors students who cannot complete pre-approved projects off campus. All other sophomores, juniors and seniors will remain off campus for the fall and take their classes online. The school also has canceled varsity athletics for the fall semester.

Bowdoin's semester is scheduled to start Sept. 2, with almost all classes, including those for students on campus, being taught online with the exception of many first-year writing seminars.

Tuition will remain unchanged at $27,911 for the semester. The college enrolls about 1,800 students, 90 percent of whom are from out of state.

In considering various return-to-campus models, (President) Rose said it made the most sense to dedicate resources to – and ask faculty to commit to – a single mode of learning rather than attempting to do a hybrid of online and in-person teaching.

"I also know how disappointed sophomores, juniors and seniors and their parents are," Rose said. "But my expectation and hope is if it goes as I believe it will I believe they will be on campus in the spring term and we can resume athletics."

If the fall semester goes well, Rose said upperclassmen could return to campus for the spring while first year and transfer students would be expected to study remotely in the spring.

[spork]

^ I have a family member who works in a non-faculty capacity for a similarly-sized, but far less prestigious, institution in New England. She says that the plan she's hearing about is to only bring incoming first-year students to campus in the fall. All other students will be 100% online.

What happens to the students who attend college primarily to continue playing a sport that they played in high school when there are no sports?

[marshwiggle]

^ I have a family member who works in a non-faculty capacity for a similarly-sized, but far less prestigious, institution in New England. She says that the plan she's hearing about is to only bring incoming first-year students to campus in the fall. All other students will be 100% online.

A thought occurred to me: Since bringing first-year students on-campus is supposed to make them feel more comfortable in some way(s), is having to wear masks or shields, distancing in classes, residences, dining halls, etc. , disinfecting surfaces, getting periodic covid tests........... going to still make them feel better than being online at home?

Is online stress greater or less than covid stress?

[TreadingLife]

^ I have a family member who works in a non-faculty capacity for a similarly-sized, but far less prestigious, institution in New England. She says that the plan she's hearing about is to only bring incoming first-year students to campus in the fall. All other students will be 100% online.

Is online stress where you are stuck at home living with your parents in close quarters and under their rules greater or less than covid stress where you are stuck in your dorm with your friends all around you but you still have someone else telling you what to do once you leave your room for classes and meals?

I embellished your last point with bold.

I know which one I would choose if I were 18, 21, or 41...

[dr_codex]

We just got our first salvo from our union, filtered through administration.

Bottom line? We can be required to show up in person. Dispensation petitions for medical reasons will be heard.

The real elephant in the room? What to do about non-compliant students. (Refusing to distance, to wear masks, etc.) Union & management are not close to any agreement on this. < Gets popcorn. 6 months' supply. >

[Caracal]

The real elephant in the room? What to do about non-compliant students. (Refusing to distance, to wear masks, etc.) Union & management are not close to any agreement on this. < Gets popcorn. 6 months' supply. >

I know this is not a popular opinion, but I think everyone is fixated on worrying about this because it fits an emotional need, not because it really is the major issue. It is the academic version of all those dumb foreshortened pictures of people at parks and beaches. Will every student follow all the rules completely? Of course not, but that's actually not required for public health measures to be effective.

I'm not really worried about enforcing mask rules. My school has announced that masks will be required, they will be given to students and they will also be available in vending machines around campus. This seems easy enough. Everyone should have a mask, the requirement is clear, and if you forget one, they are easily available. I might make the whole thing simpler by just buying a 50 pack of masks and sticking a bunch in my bag to give to anybody who forgets along with a reminder to bring one next time.

I suspect that dealing with infractions will mostly be similarly about setting clear rules and clear penalties, particularly for the highest risk settings and using some common sense. A frat having an indoor party isn't the same thing as four students hanging out in a room together. I think the biggest risk comes just from communal settings, rather than the supposed moral decencies of students.

[marshwiggle]

The real elephant in the room? What to do about non-compliant students. (Refusing to distance, to wear masks, etc.) Union & management are not close to any agreement on this. < Gets popcorn. 6 months' supply. >

I know this is not a popular opinion, but I think everyone is fixated on worrying about this because it fits an emotional need, not because it really is the major issue. It is the academic version of all those dumb foreshortened pictures of people at parks and beaches. Will every student follow all the rules completely? Of course not, but that's actually not required for public health measures to be effective.

So, when (not "if") the first faculty member or student dies of covid contracted from being on campus, who should be held responsible? Or do "effective" health measures have an acceptable percentage of deaths?

[TreadingLife]

The real elephant in the room? What to do about non-compliant students. (Refusing to distance, to wear masks, etc.) Union & management are not close to any agreement on this. < Gets popcorn. 6 months' supply. >

I know this is not a popular opinion, but I think everyone is fixated on worrying about this because it fits an emotional need, not because it really is the major issue. It is the academic version of all those dumb foreshortened pictures of people at parks and beaches. Will every student follow all the rules completely? Of course not, but that's actually not required for public health measures to be effective.

So, when (not "if") the first faculty member or student dies of covid contracted from being on campus, who should be held responsible? Or do "effective" health measures have an acceptable percentage of deaths?

I hear what you are trying to say, but good luck proving where you caught COVID. The points of contamination are so varied I don't see how anyone could reasonably claim it was their employer who infected them vis-a-vis somewhere else. Many people have kids who play with other kids, have spouses who go to their places of employment and in general have to go out in the world to get groceries and essentials, so it isn't just the place of employment that is a potential point of infection.

If first responders had a hard time scientifically linking their cancers to 9/11, then good luck linking COVID to any particular source.

[Caracal]

The real elephant in the room? What to do about non-compliant students. (Refusing to distance, to wear masks, etc.) Union & management are not close to any agreement on this. < Gets popcorn. 6 months' supply. >

I know this is not a popular opinion, but I think everyone is fixated on worrying about this because it fits an emotional need, not because it really is the major issue. It is the academic version of all those dumb foreshortened pictures of people at parks and beaches. Will every student follow all the rules completely? Of course not, but that's actually not required for public health measures to be effective.

So, when (not "if") the first faculty member or student dies of covid contracted from being on campus, who should be held responsible? Or do "effective" health measures have an acceptable percentage of deaths?

That's an odd framing. Students and faculty members die every year from diseases contracted on campus. If having classes is going to result in a bunch of extra infections and unacceptable risk to professors, students, staff and the wider community, schools shouldn't reopen. That's different from insisting that only zero risk is acceptable.

[downer]

The real elephant in the room? What to do about non-compliant students. (Refusing to distance, to wear masks, etc.) Union & management are not close to any agreement on this. < Gets popcorn. 6 months' supply. >

I know this is not a popular opinion, but I think everyone is fixated on worrying about this because it fits an emotional need, not because it really is the major issue. It is the academic version of all those dumb foreshortened pictures of people at parks and beaches. Will every student follow all the rules completely? Of course not, but that's actually not required for public health measures to be effective.

I'm not really worried about enforcing mask rules. My school has announced that masks will be required, they will be given to students and they will also be available in vending machines around campus. This seems easy enough. Everyone should have a mask, the requirement is clear, and if you forget one, they are easily available. I might make the whole thing simpler by just buying a 50 pack of masks and sticking a bunch in my bag to give to anybody who forgets along with a reminder to bring one next time.

I suspect that dealing with infractions will mostly be similarly about setting clear rules and clear penalties, particularly for the highest risk settings and using some common sense. A frat having an indoor party isn't the same thing as four students hanging out in a room together. I think the biggest risk comes just from communal settings, rather than the supposed moral decencies of students.

You are writing in generalities. But what will you do if you see a student in your classroom wearing their mask below their nose? The first time? The 30th time?

My concern is with teaching a class for 90+ minutes with 20+ students in the room, with poor ventilation. If students are not talking and participating, then there's no point in requiring on-campus classes. If they are talking, they will be spreading their breath into the room, even if they are wearing masks.

[marshwiggle]

So, when (not "if") the first faculty member or student dies of covid contracted from being on campus, who should be held responsible? Or do "effective" health measures have an acceptable percentage of deaths?

That's an odd framing. Students and faculty members die every year from diseases contracted on campus. If having classes is going to result in a bunch of extra infections and unacceptable risk to professors, students, staff and the wider community, schools shouldn't reopen. That's different from insisting that only zero risk is acceptable.

And how many of those diseases have resulted in shutting down large sectors of the economies of countries across the globe for months, with economic costs that wil be for years if not decades?
Educational institutions all over adapted to fully online for part of the winter, and many (most?) are operating fully online for the summer. Those actions implicitly identify the risk. Until a vaccine is widely available, there is nothing to suggest a significantly decreased risk. Having students back on campus, even with all kinds of precautions, will produce a risk which is much closer to the situation before the lockdown than to the situation during the lockdown. Saying the risk is "close" to zero suggests all of the lockdown measures were mostly unnecessary.

[Caracal]

Until a vaccine is widely available, there is nothing to suggest a significantly decreased risk. Having students back on campus, even with all kinds of precautions, will produce a risk which is much closer to the situation before the lockdown than to the situation during the lockdown. Saying the risk is "close" to zero suggests all of the lockdown measures were mostly unnecessary.

This is pretty nonsensical on all counts. Lockdowns were a response to both rapid spread of the virus, but also a lack of knowledge of how it spread, as well as almost no testing. Plenty of countries have been able to lift lots of measures without rapid spread of the virus. Some of the hardest hit US states have also been able to do that. There is a lot of evidence that pretty targeted interventions can do a lot to prevent spread.

Of course, that isn't happening in the US at the moment and unless it does, I don't think many schools will actually reopen. You could argue, of course, that colleges are just an environment that's too risky in terms of overall spread. Maybe that's true, and maybe not, but that doesn't mean that if you lift restrictions you just magically have a resurgence of the virus. What matters is how effective tracing is and how much people are modifying behavior to reduce risks.

[Wahoo Redux]

Some very sensical advice.

[spork]

Envisioning a day in the life of an undergraduate student in Fall 2020.