I mentioned a few weeks ago that Boulder had some problems with college kids coming back to town and partying. It slowed a bit, but since Memorial Day it’s been growing. This has lead to a big spike in positive cases. The head of CU issued a statement warning students, but it had little effect.
Basically the police will be allowed to enter a property and abate the nuisance. I asked a friend that works for the city what this meant, and she said police can enter a dwelling to enforce social distancing. Basically, they will enter and ask everyone to leave. This will also require a meeting with the property owner to ensure the violations don’t happen again. If the violations continue the property owner will have their rental license revoked. The city has listed 15 properties that have already been warned, and I noticed at least one is a frat house. My friend said if the violations continue they will lose their certificate of occupancy.
I would think other large college towns will be doing similar things.
There is still a shortage of tests in many areas throughout the country, and that shortage may increase as many attempt to return to work, school, sports, etc. Also, reporting can be immediate or take several days. Some students will be able to obtain a test, while others will not.
Auburn released this info.
"Currently, Auburn is not able to amass the 38,000 tests that would be required in order to test each student and faculty member, according to Burgess, who said mass testing would not be able to be completed in a timely fashion.
For all of the people claiming that colleges are intentionally lying about in-person classes happening, are you aware that if it could be proven they were intentionally deceiving students and shareholders, administrators could not only be sued, but be arrested for fraud? It’s not like shifting to online classes after claiming you will have mostly in-person classes is consequence-free; they have to have significant evidence they truly intended to have in-person classes.
It would be not be fraudulent if a college said that it intended to have classes in the fall, if it did intend to have classes in the fall and then at a future time changed the plans in the face of new evidence. There will certainly be plenty of new evidence.
Every statement I have read has had plenty of wiggle room. Lots of talk about what they intend to do, not what they will do, with caveats on everything and a liberal use of the word flexible.
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.
^Some places there’s a lot of discussion going on, not only about the morality of opening campuses this fall, but also about the ethics and morality of possibly intentionally misleading, but very carefully written, college statements on those re-openings.
No, @theVulcan, I do not necessarily think the colleges have it all figured out, but I think they are guided by the huge number of medical professionals who say colleges should reopen their campuses this fall.
Nervous gen X parents and those medically fragile can choose to remain home. Doctors say the rest can go back to school.
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.
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.
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."
I’m having a bit of a shift in thinking about all of this after thinking about the possibility of Middlebury (and maybe other NESCACs?) requiring quarantine upon arrival at school. Maybe it will be these more extreme measures that will give the campus a better chance at getting through the semester. Looks like NESCAC is leaning towards cancelling all sports too so there will be no travel for any students at those schools. I haven’t heard of any other conference considering that. Some (all?) of these school seem to be planning to keep kids very close to their campuses and, since they are mostly residential, can control the behavior of their students more easily. Most of them are in relatively better financial shape than many other schools and might be able to do a lot of testing. Maybe more control of the overall situation will lead to a tiny bit more freedom for the students on campus if things go well for the first month or so? Maybe an early restriction on kids not being able to go into each others rooms would be lifted after a certain amount of time when the college is convinced that it’s safe?
I have a friend whose son goes to St. Andrews. They’ve released their plan. Scotland, as a country. has been very cautious in their plan to eradicate the virus. Things are still pretty closed down. There will be a lot of rules surrounding students returning including quarantine for Americans. Another friend lives in Scotland and has a daughter who goes to college in the US. She thinks St. Andrews has a way better chance of keeping kids healthy on campus than the American schools she’s been reading about, with the CU frat party and the football practices at other schools. And that made me think that US colleges that are in states that are more conservative in their virus plans also have a better chance of making it. So, weirdly enough, maybe the NE with it’s early hot spots won’t be a bad place to go to college this fall? Maybe the population there is down with all of the things that need to be done to keep a spike from happening unlike other states that are wide open?
I realize this is a way different way at looking at things than I have been. I’ve been really struggling with the idea of quarantine (especially upon arrival) but, after talking with these friends with connections to St. Andrews and Scotland, it’s making me reconsider.
Has any expert (with a reputation to protect) actually flat-out said, “colleges should re-open this fall” or have those statements been qualified in some way?