Of course, the most desired colleges, at least on these forums, are often the ones where college is a four year integrated residential experience, rather than just the education that one can get at a much wider range of colleges (including mainly commuter colleges and colleges with distance learning).
Whether COVID-19 related effects of this nature change the prospective student and parent preferences in these respects remains to be seen.
Why isn’t valuing good health for the sake of good health not a good enough reason for asymptomatic testing ?
I hate getting a mild common cold as well. If I had a superpower that allowed me to clearly see if anyone was sick and infective you bet that I will avoid those people as much as possible to avoid catching what they have. COVID, even a mid case, can be much worse than a cold.
Why should we just accept endemic disease ?
No to asymptomatic testing because (1) our kids’ schools have no plans for remote class and I don’t want them missing class and (2) it’s looking like vaccinated but positive Covid cases are contagious for fewer days so might not need to quarantine for ten days but no one is coming up with a different plan. If I saw that there were solid plans to isolate students for shorter period of time and a way to make sure they don’t fall behind, then I’d be ok with asymptomatic testing. But one without the other isn’t quite right.
I think you raise some good points, but I still see value in surveillance testing.
Yes, depending on the frequency of the testing, some cases will slip through, but many (Perhaps most? Depends on frequency) will be caught in time to alert the infected individual to isolate and/or be VERY careful with quality-masking and distancing so as to prevent a large amount of transmission. Testing is not perfect, unless perhaps it is performed daily—but that does not mean it isn’t one of our useful tools. Masks are also not perfect, but they too prevent a good amount of transmission. Vaccines also are not perfect, but they are another (probably the best) tool to prevent a good amount of transmission and minimize harm/sickness. Combining these tools increases the effectiveness.
I am very upset to keep hearing about young people with breakthrough cases where they feel absolutely lousy—very sick akin to the flu or worse. This is not alarming in terms of danger, but I don’t know anyone who wants to go to class if they are comparably sick to having the flu. (Not all the breakthrough cases I’ve heard are this bad—I know of one asymptomatic, 3 that I would consider truly mild like a cold, and 2 that are in this category of really lousy). When medical people refer to cases as “mild”—I think they mean clinically mild—i.e., not hospital-worthy. To me, mild would be milder than that! I like to think mild means you don’t really feel bad, but I think these medical reports citing mild cases can include ones that are full-blown-flu-level-or-worse-yet-not-requiring-the-hospital-and-can-manage-at-home-types of cases. Meaning mild can = miserable.
So I’d still hope many campuses can try to reduce transmission to minimize disruption to all the awesome things campuses should be providing (in-person classes, in-person dining, in-person ECs and lab experiences, spectator sports and performances, social gatherings and parties, etc).
It’s a bummer to see that MIT is still experiencing transmission despite all of their precautions, but I have to think all of their tactics are helping to significantly reduce transmission and the number of people who feel lousy (and possibly pass it on to someone who may react worse).
I think the surveillance testing can also be useful to the schools as a learning mechanism—helps them know what is going on with spread to better inform all of their decision making. Perhaps the testing will reveal that after a few weeks there are no more cases on campus and a real bubble has been formed—then they might decide to drop masks. Perhaps the testing will highlight rampant spread and other decisions might be made. But I can’t imagine not wanting to know. Similarly, as an individual, I would like to know if I was positive. Why wouldn’t I want to know so that for a few key days I can try to protect others? I’d hate to think I was unwittingly walking around giving covid to others (EVEN if it only results in bad colds/flus for some of the people). I would think our kids similarly would not want to unwittingly infect others.
But I’m in total agreement in terms of hoping, praying, and counting on a really great (and largely normal) semester for these kids! 
If a college makes the penalty for a positive test (e.g. forced isolation at one’s own expense, missing class, assignments, exams, and all other educational interaction due to no remote option) worse than the disease is seen as (for vaccinated students), then do you really expect vaccinated students to be all that enthusiastic about such a policy?
Which’s colleges don’t give students another opportunity to take an exams or submit an assignment if they can prove that they where legitimately sick ? I have never heard of any.
Pre pandemic most colleges lecturers uploaded PowerPoint presentations of lectures online for students who where absent to access.
I remember when couples who lived together in the first year dorms broke up, one person often left and crashed at a friends who lived off campus. Communities are good at helping each other out that way. I doubt that any Covid positive student will be left to sleep in the streets.
Not sure we can say ‘most’ profs post slides/lectures online. Tough to make up labs and group study sessions as well.
At some schools, covid positive students have to pay money for quarantine and isolation housing…out of pocket money, not funded by financial aid. In some areas, the nearest hotel is quite a ways away, might not take anyone under 21 and/or covid positive, and I would fully understand why a local B&B for example might not allow covid positive guests.
I for one will tell my college kids to not let a covid positive person crash in their rooms…the downside risk is too great.
I agree, of course there will be ways for students to “get the notes” as was always necessary in case of sickness, and in 2021 the modern version of this is likely better (decent chance of lectures being available online to watch oneself, etc). Labs can be made up, etc. It STINKS being sick and missing class, but it has always been stinky, and kids get through it.
As for paying for isolation hotels, etc, I was mostly familiar with Purdue’s approach, which I think was that vaccinated kids would be taken care of, whereas only unvaccinated kids would have to find suitable housing during isolation time—which seemed to me to be a smart incentive to get kids to want to vaccinate. Or maybe it was that unvaccinated kids would have to quarantine (at own expense) if they were a close contact, whereas vaccinated kids would not need to quarantine if they were a close contact. Either way, it sounded like it was designed to encourage vaccination. Decent idea, but of course, I personally think the better incentive is a strong mandate!! And I also firmly believe the schools should provide isolation housing to vaccinated students who need it. Pretty poor form, in my opinion, to not provide that.
If surveillance testing is required on some sort of regular basis, then there isn’t an option to avoid it (mentioned in a post above). It’s hard not to think this will be very helpful in reducing transmission.
In fact, I think testing for the general public is getting harder (some states no longer proving free testing, other states cutting back on the number of locations doing testing)—-and I think the public at large would benefit from more testing—combined with vaccines, smart protocols, etc the testing can really reduce the spread.
COVID-19 isolation periods tend to be longer than typical other sicknesses. Missing one class is different from missing six classes in a two week isolation period. Catching up on the assignments and exams becomes more difficult, even if allowed, after a two week isolation period.
If the college requires isolation after a positive test for COVID-19, then crashing at friends living off campus would not be within the rules of isolation. Also, many of the colleges that are favored on these forums have most students living on campus all years.
I am hopeful that quarantine periods will be reduced (at least for vaccinated students), and certainly not 2 weeks. It sounds like the recent evidence shows that with breakthrough cases, the length of time someone is infectious with delta is shorter. So just like last year the quarantine period eventually got reduced from 14 days down to 7 or 10 depending on when/if you tested and your symptom status, I think it’s reasonable to assume quarantine periods will go down to a maximum of the 7 days, and perhaps shorter for vaccinated individuals.
UTSA moves to remote classes for first 3 weeks
Serious question for those who are opposed to surveillance testing—what would you prefer? That the schools close their eyes to spread and let it run Willy-nilly around campus, just so Little Joey doesn’t have to miss class for a week? Because Joey might benefit in that case (he doesn’t have to miss a lab!!), but Joey can pass it to five kids including Susie who might feel really lousy and end up missing class for a week or a month because she unfortunately gets quite ill (not hospitalized, but really really sick). Isn’t it better for Joey to stay home for a week and break his chain of transmission? By the way, I can tell that my tone sounds snarky, and truly I don’t mean for that. I myself keep thinking MY KID could be the Joey, or my kid could be the Susie. If I’m selfish, I’d want my Joey to sneakily go to class without letting on he has the sniffles. But if I’m Susie’s mom, I’d be pretty pissed that Joey didn’t get tested and caused a world of harm to my Susie. 
. The whole situation stinks, hard to believe we are dealing with this. On the bright side, we all have good reasons to think our vaccinated kids are not going to the hospital, and they will be seeing people in person, and unless they go to poor UTSA, they’ll be having in person classes, etc.
The college needs to “sell” the vaccinated students on the need for it (protecting the medically vulnerable is probably the only thing that may be convincing). Otherwise, vaccinated students are likely to feel that the costs and penalties of a positive test are unreasonably high. As another poster mentioned, students forced out of their dorms to isolate after a positive test are likely to “isolate” by crashing on their off-campus friends’ couches, which is not really the intent of forcing them to isolate to break the chain of transmission.
so they think that spread happens in the classroom but not in the dorms and other locations. Also they are making this change because they cannot mandate masks. they say 3 weeks online classes, but what happens if it continues all semester. ?
But do they need to “sell” it (surveillance testing) to vaccinated students? My kids’ school just required testing, didn’t ask the kids’ permission!! 
. That makes me laugh— their school didn’t care one wit what students and/or their families thought of their plans. They didn’t even attempt to PRETEND to sell their plans, they just said what the plan was. They did a truly beautiful job last year of crushing covid, but at a very very high cost to the students (all remote classes, very minimal socializing on-campus (of course the clever kids found their ways), no sports, no meeting with professors in person, etc). I’m hopeful that with their strong vaccine mandate coupled with surveillance testing, this year they can again beautifully crush covid BUT THIS TIME, provide a drastically better overall experience.
I agree. S19’s classes move FAST and he’s freaked out thinking he could miss a week and a half. Even without missing, most kids there are hanging on by a thread trying to get work done. Missing lectures and discussions would be a giant problem. I would want the shortest possible isolation period. Every day would count. It doesn’t seem like there’s any guidance for vaccinated Covid positive isolation that is more nuanced than one for an unvaccinated person yet there’s starting to be evidence that vaccinated people shed virus for a shorter period of time
The vaccinated students who get positive surveillence tests and are then forced to isolate at their own expense (missing classes, etc.) might not like the experience.
Also, are positive PCR results in vaccinated people always due to contagious virus, or could they be due to neutralized virus that got into them but is rendered harmless due to antibody response? If so, then some positive PCR results in vaccinated people could be false positives that result in unnecessary forced isolations.
"PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals. "
And then - “Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response.”
Faster decline = shorter isolation?
That paper also says “Despite significantly older age in the vaccine breakthrough group, the odds of severe COVID-19 requiring oxygen supplementation was significantly lower following vaccination (adjusted odds ratio 0.07 95%CI: 0.015-0.335, p=0.001).”
If history is any indication it will take months before the CDC issues new isolation timeframe recommendations.