IMO, it’s all about how one thinks about the pandemic. Life throws curveballs. They are not an option but exogenous events that impact plans and wishes. How one deals with those curveballs can reveal their level of thoughtfulness, creativity, positivity, energy and, of course, priorities. It’s very easy to do nothing or very little; much harder to figure out how to work with and around Covid to get done what needs to get done, including - and especially - research and scholarship.
I’ve noticed some differences in the messaging among the colleges in announcing their plans for Fall 2020. By no means an exhaustive list, it seems that a few outliers such as Cornell, UChicago Duke, JHU and Vandy have made a point to welcome all back and have publicly based their decisions on research and findings from their own in-house experts. That seems appropriate for a research university with a top medical school. Penn and NU also seem to be welcoming everyone back and, while I can’t find specific reference to their medical experts’ input, it’s no doubt been present given the caliber of those experts.
However, many other top research universities are opting for staggered or alternating residency throughout the year and haven’t referenced any sort of dialogue with their own infectious diseases people (although surely such has taken place). Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia and Stanford - among others - all have top medical schools. Stanford even has Dr. Ionnes who is so maverick that he’s practically been blacklisted by others in the field for his bold questioning of economic lockdowns despite a complete lack of data this past spring. No doubt Covid has afforded many opportunities for interesting research by these institutions across many fields - medical, economic, educational, social, legal, etc. I wonder how much of that research is has been deemed applicable for resuming some sort of normal on-campus life this fall for the undergraduates? Those opting not to re-open their doors to everyone don’t seem to answer that. They don’t even provide studies or research justifying their decisions to keep half or more of their undergrads at home. I’m not even sure they have responded to the Cornell study.*
IMO, this latter group - which includes some of the best academic institutions in the world - is signaling a few things, but a devotion to undergraduate scholarship isn’t necessarily one of them. I wonder, then, how these institutions can lead the way to any sort of positive educational revolution. For that they would need a spirit of adventure or an energetic determination to carry on the mission despite the difficulty. Or at least the willingness to experiment a bit with their particular model of education. It seems that won’t be happening. The revolution must be left to others. Perhaps to those who were confident enough to rely on their own research and expertise.
*Cornell’s research shows that welcoming everyone back and testing aggressively will result in a lower incidence of Covid infection among their student population than keeping them home.