@homerdog This is not true at Amherst, where there are plenty of unoccupied off-campus apartments and hotels due to the presence of UMass. Which makes Amherst’s decision all the more surprising.
Well what is surprising to me is that some colleges are “ok” with doubles and some of these LACs are saying single dorm rooms only?
But I think the bigger issue might be a lack of medical beds in the town in case of an outbreak? But then again, being in a relatively small LAC “bubble” should prevent massive outbreaks of the illness anyways.
Maybe I’m an idiot for being surprised but I don’t completely understand the rationale. Is University of Michigan just a big risk taker vs an LAC?
It’s a reasonable thought but I think the whole idea of an LAC is the on campus experience so I would not think that many students would be willing to give up their on -campus “spot” so easily?
I don’t know if you mean my family, but we filled out the info from MIT as soon as they asked, which was some time ago.
For schools that have determined that the appropriate level of de-densification is putting almost everyone in singles, the ones with more singles are more likely to bring more of their students back to campus.
@ChemAM maybe U Mass already took some hotel spots? I don’t know what the town of Amherst looks like. Maybe Amherst thought doubles would be ok and are now rethinking that and the extra spots near town are gone. Or they want to keep the bubble as bubbly as they can and having kids off campus isn’t part of their evolving plan.
My guess is that U of MI will also reduce population and modify its plan, but if not, it probably relates to the significant medical/hospital resources in the area. All “in person” plans are best-case-scenario hopes.
If a school (LAC or not) feels only singles are appropriate for its students, it’s highly likely that it wouldn’t want students in off-campus apartments where the risk is even greater.
I’m going to refer back to my own post#8452:
The next bombshell will be Wesleyan.
I already explained that, in Bowdoins case, there’s little to no inventory. Kids who want to get out of their parents house and get a house in Maine are not near campus and they are not allowed on campus. As for hotels off of campus that are somewhat controlled by the college for short term, that’s not great either. Kids still “off campus”. I don’t know that I’ve heard a plan with a LAC putting kids in hotels. It was an option but I don’t know that any have taken it.
Why the glee with some of our responses relative to this situation?
It’s really odd.
Whatever the school decides it’s ultimately not a contest to prove anything.
you have a school going all remote it would seem most appropriate to hope that it was not necessary. If s a school chooses to go back, one would hope that it all works out.
It’s gotten so strange, here and elsewhere, I can’t even relate anymore.
I really used to think we had common interests. It feels like it’s complete self interest in all facets of society. And people are happy about it. C’est la vie.
Late response as I’m just catching up…
I wish it was this simple. The problem is that there is a clear socioeconomic component to this that people continually ignore because it doesn’t affect them. There are always those who are in a position to weather any storm because they have the means to do so. Some may even welcome the divide because it just puts their kids in a better position. This is why we have such a stratified society, and it’s only getting worse. I’m not worried about the students and families on CC. They’ll be fine. It’s those already on the margins of society that have the most to lose. The gap keeps widening. But, I suppose we can just “let them eat cake.”
It is interesting how similar schools make different calculations regarding housing. Like doubles are fine for some, while singles are the only way for others.
Many schools would certainly have room on campus for modular housing which could go up pretty quickly. Disappointing that schools would rather have kids stay home or take leaves/gap yrs, than house them in temporary construction
I’m pretty sure Bowdoins, and other schools adopting similar policies, strongly prefer their students who aren’t offered to returned to campus not to live off-campus on their own, even though they can’t legally prevent it. That’s why they disallow the use of any campus facilities for these students to discourage it.
But I’m sure the students would rather live somewhere near the campus with at least a chance of a campus style life vs living in their childhood bedrooms. And, I strongly suspect, many a parent would rather their young adult be in off campus housing - of some sort - than to see them hunkered down in their childhood bedroom.
How do you disallow any access to campus facilities? Can stroll thru the campus? Can’t grab a sandwich and meet a friend on a bench? how about sitting on a lawn in a group study group. How do campus plan to police this type of activity?
@circuitrider Doubt it; Wesleyan has straight-up stated they intend to bring all students back.
^You said the same thing about Amherst!
Yes, it’s hard to police, or perhaps impossible in a large school. For smaller schools, or for schools with strong tradition in its honor codes, such rules may be more or less observed without imposing penalties.
This article says Purdue has made a $50 million investment in Covid protections. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/25/wealthier-colleges-can-offer-more-protection-covid-19-cash-strapped-peers
The good news is that regardless of which model they follow for the 20-21 school year and regardless of the course of the virus, it seems clear all colleges will follow the Notre Dame open-up model by 2021-2022, as they can’t sustain long term online only learning.