School in the 2020-2021 Academic Year & Coronavirus (Part 1)

[Chekov]

@circuitrider

Just to be clear, there’s no difference in the moral stance taken by a college that announces a “full return” (whatever that may mean) and the ones announcing partial returns. The partial-openers have been nearly unanimous in saying they would open more fully if they could figure out a way to do it. They. Just. Can’t.

I’d say there is a difference between promising in-person instruction and saying outright that “everything that can be taught effectively online will be taught online.”

And while I’ve obviously not looked into every school’s decision making process, the approach to dedensification through pushing students off-campus was rejected by MIT not because “They. Just. Can’t.” shove them into hotel rooms.

Here are some outtakes form the heads of houses feedback to a 100% return scenario.

"1) One of the core values of residential life at MIT is to create a safe environment. The risk and complexity associated with the plans to bring 100% of UG back to campus [e.g., using hotels or implementing a pod structure with strict requirements for physical distancing outside the pods] significantly compromises MIT’s ability to create a safe environment for those that live and work in the dorms.
…
3) Inequities caused by the need to house a large number of UG off-campus:
a) Creating a well-supported residential community takes time and resources.
Creating several new communities in different hotels with support from existing House Teams is not a viable solution.
…
b)Hotel rooms and hotels in general, especially with restrictions, are not conceived for study (e.g. many rooms may not have a decent working desk, chair) or long-term living (e.g many rooms may not allow any means of cooking), and will make it more difficult to enforce social distancing.

4. Lack of flexibility from straining the system: The strain from planning and running a residential system with 100% UG back while implementing physical distancing will leave no flexibility to respond to contingencies if there is an outbreak on campus.

5. False sense of security: Inviting all UG back to campus might create a false sense of security and a false sense of [back to] normalcy, thereby sending the wrong message and increasing the possibility for noncompliance. For those students that can safely live and study from home during the Fall semester, an incentive to do so (e.g., study grants, reduced tuition) would convey a more clear and accurate message."