College this fall--parents' perspective

[Caracal]

Caracal and hegemony both have good and true points and the deep inequalities in our k12 Ed system are wretched.  That said, my point remains.   Some public school districts are so awful that the kids aren't really missing anything during this interregnum, but most provide something, and the kids that most need that something, the families that are least equipped to offer any meaningful homeschooling alternative now, well they not getting that something that the school provides, and the longer the hiatus lasts, the more devastingly murderous the situation becomes

I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same. The costs are also really high, to kids, but also to everyone else if people have no child care options. I'm not excited about the prospect of teaching online in the fall, but if my toddler is at daycare I'm sure I can do it. If he's not, I really don't think I could do a full load for a whole semester.

[pgher]

Some news yesterday. Kid 1's college is delaying the housing lottery, which was supposed to happen next week, to an indeterminate time in the future.

Kid 2's college sent a no-information letter indicating that they are planning to have classes this fall, but they don't know what form that will take.

So we wait and see.

[wellfleet]

I deeply want wellkid's high school to be open in the fall, both for his general well-being and because fall is the beginning of his IB diploma program. However, wellkid also lives with his elderly, immune-compromised grandmother, and, well, if this is still going around, I'm not interested in additional vectors coming into the house, either. No good answers here. 

[Anselm]

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/a-twenty-year-professor-on-starting-college-this-fall-dont-df3ea4024f70

This is a message to all high school seniors (and their parents). If you were planning to enroll in college next fall — don't.

No one knows whether colleges and universities will offer face-to-face instruction in the fall, or whether they will stay open if they do. No one knows whether dorms and cafeterias will reopen, or whether team sports will practice and play.
It's that simple. No one knows. Schools that decide to reopen may not be able to stay that way. A few may decide, soon, not even to try. Others may put off the decision for as long as possible — but you can make your decision now.

[polly_mer]

I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.

Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.

[Hegemony]

In answer to that last question, there's today's article from the Guardian:

"Case of symptomatic nine-year-old suggests children may be less likely to pass on virus"

"A nine-year-old boy who contracted Covid-19 in Eastern France did not pass the virus on despite coming into contact with more than 170 people, according to research that suggests children may not be major spreaders of the virus. ... A report on the investigation published in Clinical Infectious Diseases describes how tests revealed the boy to be infected with Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, and also influenza and a common cold virus. While both of his siblings caught the latter infections, neither picked up the coronavirus.

"One child, co-infected with other respiratory viruses, attended three schools while symptomatic, but did not transmit the virus, suggesting potential different transmission dynamics in children," Kostas Danis, an epidemiologist at Public Health France told the French news agency AFP. The boy had only mild symptoms and when tested was found to have levels of virus that were barely detectable. The low level of infection is thought to explain why he did not infect other people.The researchers believe that since children typically have only mild symptoms, they may transmit the virus far less than infected adults. "Children might not be an important source of transmissions of this novel virus," they write. ..."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/boy-with-covid-19-did-not-transmit-disease-to-more-than-170-contacts

[Hegemony]

However, I see this is disputed by Prof Lars Schaade, vice president of the Robert Koch Institute, Germany's leading public health body:

"Despite reports this morning that children are not spreading the disease as much as had been thought, Schaade said intensive tracking showed children who had contracted the disease in Germany were found to have as much of the virus in their throats as adults, even if they often show no symptoms. He said the RKI believed children played a not-insignificant role in spreading the disease."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/apr/21/coronavirus-live-news-donald-trump-downplays-oil-price-crash-as-short-term-latest-updates

[onthefringe]

I also have a kid graduating highschool and who committed to a college for this fall. At the moment, our plan is to roll with it and see what the college plans for the fall and whether it seems safe etc.

But I'm frankly confused by the idea that everyone can just defer for a year. Many schools have an incoming class size that's limited by instructonal and housing capacity. If they let even a significant fraction of students defer, that's taking up slots for next year's freshman class. If large numbers of students decide just to opt out this year and reapply in 2021, they will be competing with all the other students who did that AND with all of next year's graduating seniors. The medium article claim that "if they let you in this year they probably will next year" seems unsupported (especially given that many schools are increasing their acceptances in anticipation of lower yields).

(all of this is made easier by the fact that my family unit has a lot of privileges and won't be risking our financial future by sending our kid to college next year, and that the fringelet is committed to a fairly selective school with a very robust endowment).

[marshwiggle]

I also have a kid graduating highschool and who committed to a college for this fall. At the moment, our plan is to roll with it and see what the college plans for the fall and whether it seems safe etc.

But I'm frankly confused by the idea that everyone can just defer for a year. Many schools have an incoming class size that's limited by instructonal and housing capacity. If they let even a significant fraction of students defer, that's taking up slots for next year's freshman class. If large numbers of students decide just to opt out this year and reapply in 2021, they will be competing with all the other students who did that AND with all of next year's graduating seniors. The medium article claim that "if they let you in this year they probably will next year" seems unsupported (especially given that many schools are increasing their acceptances in anticipation of lower yields).

If you want a recent historical example of something like this, Google "Ontario double cohort year". The high school curriculum in Ontario used to be 5 years long; when it changed to a 4 year curriculum like most other places, that meant that Fall 2003 had the last of the 5 year curriculum students starting university along with the first of the 4 year curriculum graduates.

One specific thing I remember about that year was that there were very few people who dropped courses once they were registered in them, probably because courses were that much harder to get into in the first place. Many others I talked to had a simlar experience.

[Caracal]

I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.

Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.

I'm reading the news Poly and I follow epidemiologists and others who have argued this. Could be wrong, but seems likely. I think one of the things you and others might not understand is that kids are big transmitters of the flu. Schools really drive its spread. If kids just transmit Covid at the same rate as everyone else, then that would make a big difference in terms of thinking about the costs and benefits of having schools reopen. Again, I think it is suggestive that I haven't seen evidence anywhere of big clusters related to k-12 schools. There could be lots of reasons for this. Since kids usually get much milder versions of Covid, it could be harder to see those clusters within larger community spread. Maybe other studies will find a whole bunch of cases among adults all linked by a schools or daycares. It sort of seems to me like someone would have noticed that already somewhere in the world though, and to my knowledge nobody has. Maybe that's totally wrong. And lower risk doesn't mean no risk, and people need to get a better handle on this before schools reopen in the fall. I'm not sending my toddler to go hang out with grandparents (as amazing as that would be) right now.

[RatGuy]

I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.

Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.

I'm reading the news Poly and I follow epidemiologists and others who have argued this. Could be wrong, but seems likely. I think one of the things you and others might not understand is that kids are big transmitters of the flu. Schools really drive its spread. If kids just transmit Covid at the same rate as everyone else, then that would make a big difference in terms of thinking about the costs and benefits of having schools reopen. Again, I think it is suggestive that I haven't seen evidence anywhere of big clusters related to k-12 schools. There could be lots of reasons for this. Since kids usually get much milder versions of Covid, it could be harder to see those clusters within larger community spread. Maybe other studies will find a whole bunch of cases among adults all linked by a schools or daycares. It sort of seems to me like someone would have noticed that already somewhere in the world though, and to my knowledge nobody has. Maybe that's totally wrong. And lower risk doesn't mean no risk, and people need to get a better handle on this before schools reopen in the fall. I'm not sending my toddler to go hang out with grandparents (as amazing as that would be) right now.

Around here, it seems as if everyone is clamoring to open everything except the schools. While we haven't had images of protesting that have gone viral, there have been enough people angry with the lockdown that the mayor has said, "there won't be any repercussions for violating the governor's policy on isolation. Gyms, restaurants, retail outlets will likely be open next week, at the discretion of the managers. And given all that, those people sure as heck don't want their school-aged kids returning...because better safe than sorry when it's your kids.

[polly_mer]

I think it is very unlikely the vast majority of K-12 schools won't be open in the fall. Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.

Again, I have to ask what you are reading/watching/discussing because even Fox News is not saying this message as a general rule.

I'm reading the news Poly and I follow epidemiologists and others who have argued this.

Which news?

Which epidemiologists and do they actually know what they're doing or are they just "others who have argued this"?  Arguing something is not the same as actually being a scientist in the relevant area with enough of the detailed knowledge to make good decisions.  One of my "favorite" recent examples was a model that assumed kids don't transmit and then drew conclusions on the probable effect on reopening the schools based on that assumption.

The concern everywhere I've seen that has real scientists involved is indeed that little kids spread everything, even if they themselves aren't all that sick.  It's a lovely thought that somehow people with the worst hygiene habits are somehow not going to be spreading a highly contagious disease, but that's not a science thought based on everything we know about other viruses and kids.

My employer is a science institution that includes real scientists whose bread and butter is exactly disease modeling for spreading and predicting outbreaks along with other scientists who do vaccines and other biological aspects.  Our daily all-hands updates are likely much better sources of scientific information regarding disease-spread models and likely outcomes than whatever filtered-by-filtered-by-filtered headlines you're reading.

Epidemiology isn't my specialty, but my colleagues who are (close enough colleagues that I can call them up and say, "Hey, it's Polly.  What's the real scoop on ...?) are much more trustworthy sources than your interpretation from "news" sources that you didn't even bother to name so we could judge their credibility.

[spork]

[. . .]

The medium article claim that "if they let you in this year they probably will next year" seems unsupported (especially given that many schools are increasing their acceptances in anticipation of lower yields).

[. . . ]

An example of just how little many faculty understand about the economics of operating a university.

Edited to add: And on the subject of children transmitting Covid-19, if they didn't, and there was evidence that they didn't, then nursing and retirement homes would be throwing open their doors to become day care facilities for pre-schoolers. Parents have first-hand experience with the disease-transmitting capabilities of small children who congregate in groups, as happens at schools. 

[Caracal]

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/a-twenty-year-professor-on-starting-college-this-fall-dont-df3ea4024f70

This is a message to all high school seniors (and their parents). If you were planning to enroll in college next fall — don't.

No one knows whether colleges and universities will offer face-to-face instruction in the fall, or whether they will stay open if they do. No one knows whether dorms and cafeterias will reopen, or whether team sports will practice and play.
It's that simple. No one knows. Schools that decide to reopen may not be able to stay that way. A few may decide, soon, not even to try. Others may put off the decision for as long as possible — but you can make your decision now.

I'll put that in the category of "people who seem to feel qualified to offer overly broad advice to everyone despite having  no actual qualifications to do so." First of all, as someone pointed out somewhere upthread, a fairly small percentage of students go to the sort of colleges where the extracurricular activities are a big part of the draw. At my big regional state school about half of students are commuters, and even among most residential students, few think of the acacpello group or the sports teams as big parts of the experience. For most of my students the major things they are going to be concerned about are whether their ability to get credits they need to graduate in their major. They are more likely to be thinking in those terms.

Which actually goes into the point about the costs. My students all work. On one hand the bad economy could make it harder for some of them to pay for college, but I suspect a lot of them are likely to see it as a better idea to be taking a full load during a semester when their work opportunities might be limited. If they aren't going to be working, I suspect many are going to decide they need to figure out a way to maximize future earning by getting credits sooner. They certainly don't have the luxury of spending the year volunteering for no pay.

As for the rest, I find the article sort of offensively presumptuous in her surety about what students value and want. There's something a little weird about saying "colleges won't be back to normal in the fall" as if everything else will be. The alternatives she suggests all would have sounded pretty grim for me as an 18 year old.

The advice is geared at this very particular sort of student who has an extremely idealized view of "college" and is going to be devastated by anything else, but is also self motivated enough at eighteen to figure out how to hang out in their parents house without a lot of external structure. If it was me I would probably prefer just going ahead and committing to attending whatever version of college is going to be there in the Fall. Worst case scenario, all the classes are online and I stay home, but at least I'm busy and am working within a structure. Chances are that by Spring school is open and I can get out of my parent's basement, but I'd still feel better not putting everything on hold for a year even if it wasn't.

[Caracal]

]

Which news?

Which epidemiologists and do they actually know what they're doing or are they just "others who have argued this"?  Arguing something is not the same as actually being a scientist in the relevant area with enough of the detailed knowledge to make good decisions.  One of my "favorite" recent examples was a model that assumed kids don't transmit and then drew conclusions on the probable effect on reopening the schools based on that assumption.

Ok poly, have some links,

In fact, it is not a settled question at all.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/16/21181025/coronavirus-covid-19-us-testing-pandemic

Here's the former director of the cdc saying its an unanswered question.

"We don't know the answers to other key questions that determine policy decisions. Can children, who don't seem to get severely ill with Covid-19, spread the disease?"

Here's the Director-General of health in New Zealand arguing
"Children and teenagers tend to have low coronavirus infection rates, and don't tend to pass it on to adults, the Director-General of Health says. The article has others saying they want to see more studies on that, which is reasonable, but again, this isn't some fringe belief.

In that Guardian story Hegemony posted, you see again a lot of uncertainty about the role of children. Obviously the one case of that kid is suggestive, but it is just one person. The broader argument I was making about it not being clear kids play a particularly important role in transmission is the one made here.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/apr/06/school-closures-have-little-impact-on-spread-of-coronavirus-study
"We know from previous studies that school closures are likely to have the greatest effect if the virus has low transmissibility and attack rates are higher in children. This is the opposite of Covid-19," said thereview's lead author, Prof Russell Viner, of UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health."

I'm not claiming this is definitive or that the answer is clear, but its not some absurd conclusion as you seem to think based on...."working in the same building as people who study diseases?"

Also, your tone continues to be incredibly unpleasant, offensive and inappropriate for a forum that is supposed to be professional in nature. I had a particularly noxious post of yours removed from these boards a few weeks ago, but I'm inclined to just stop responding entirely to you at this point.