JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,198
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7916
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: ND Prez: if covid doesn't improve in 2 weeks, then no FB
(08-19-2020 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (08-19-2020 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: (08-19-2020 01:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (08-19-2020 12:12 PM)JRsec Wrote: (08-19-2020 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The issue is that college campuses specifically are unique petri dishes similar to nursing homes. Most reasonable people understood that to be the case (see many discussions here over the past few months about the practical impossibility of socially distancing in dorms and the reality that college students will find ways to get together no matter what), but now we see it in practice with the spikes at UNC and ND after just a week. If you multiply that times thousands of other colleges across the country, then that alone can spike the numbers for the entire country... again.
The common counterargument would be that college-aged people have a lower risk of serious symptoms, which I understand. However, as a lawyer, all it takes is one bad case for a university and they are F*CKED.
The problem here Frank is academic rigidity. This we can't have sports unless we have on campus classes is about as stupid a policy as could have been conceived by the so called academics who can't be creative enough to think their way out of a box.
The biggest risk here at Auburn are the incoming Freshmen and Sophomores who are in party high gear. If our schools wanted to make a quantum leap in resolving their financial issues they would open enrollment for core curriculum to unrestricted levels, but all online and remote. This helps them to recoup a lot of revenue they've lost already. All they need do is to solicit a guarantee from all other state schools that all core curriculum course work would transfer anywhere instate without loss of credit.
Getting the Freshmen and Sophomore classes off campus opens more space for graduate work, research, and those pursuing their work in majors and minors in undergraduate. They are older and more responsible than the partiers at every school which are reduced by half at most campuses after 2 years due to sorting the serious students from those who are not.
Let athletes temporarily have a dorm unto themselves and make sure that tutors are there to schedule routine classwork outside of the class settings for the Freshmen and Sophomore athletes and to work with the Juniors and Seniors to minimize their class time which naturally would be in smaller classes on most campuses but could be moved to rooms where spreading out and good air circulation and filtration can be maintained.
I'm willing to bet that the rate of infection in the general society could be easily maintained if the Freshmen and Sophomores took classes from home. When the average 18 year old leaves Mom and Dad's supervision they go apeshit wild their first year at college and this is the norm and not the exception. Sophomores are right there with them, though not in quite the percentage.
All of the orientation groups here in Auburn have gathered without regard to social distancing, don't mask, and act like the young jerks they are. Vandalism and infection rates have increased since their return. Imagine that?
Auburn went from single digit cases reported per week to 40 when they showed back up 2 weeks prior to the Monday open of classes. There's your risk. The whole graduate department throughout the whole pandemic has barely hit 10 cases all traced to outside sources and all quarantined without further spread.
Realistically, the "party risk" is inherent on virtually every college campus. I totally understand why colleges *want* kids to come back to campus when they're generally paying $15,000 to $20,000 per year for room and board that would likely cost a fraction of that amount in the open market. Of course, pretty much all of us with any sense knew that cases were going to spike because of all of the factors that you just mentioned.
If we were actually rational in this country, we'd have less concern with elementary school kids going to school in-person (where the in-person instruction is going to impact their learning abilities for the rest of their lives combined with health risks that are demonstrably lower) and wouldn't even think to have college kids back on-campus (as that is a group that is *biologically* hard-wired to take on unreasonable and irrational risks at that age while literally living on top of each other in dorms and apartment buildings). Instead, we have the opposite.
I'd disagree with the notion of academic rigidity, though... at least if colleges want to continue with the farce of claiming that these are student-athletes instead of professionals. (To be clear, I'd be perfectly happy if colleges got rid of that farce.) It's pretty hard to justify why football should continue if the college deems that the entire student population isn't safe on-campus. The general public health consensus (the "reasonable person standard" for legal purposes, if you will) is that in-person classes with masks and social distancing would be "safe" (whatever that means today), whereas football in and of itself is deemed to be a high risk sport due to amount of direct physical contact and the sizes of teams (even putting aside that 100-plus people need to travel each time that there's a road game). So, if a college doesn't believe that in-person classes are safe when they are supposed to be *safer* than playing football, then as bullet notes, the only reason why football is being played would be for money (which is a bad reason to have amateur athletes play games during an on-campus public health crisis, much less the potential legal exposure involved).
Now, if the players were actually paid salaries with a collectively bargained agreement regarding safety protocols (which is probably going to be the reality sooner rather than later regardless of the pandemic), then that's an entirely different story. In that situation, the players could come back in an Ebola outbreak on-campus if they've collectively bargained to do so. Until then, though, making an exclusion for football (which anyone reasonable person would see is all about revenue) while the entire rest of the campus is deemed "unsafe" is going to be an untenable position for any school.
You double clutched the discussion by shifting twice. Pay for play is not relevant to this discussion and is relevant entirely as a separate issue to viral spread. The second shift was subtle in that ignored my premise. The academics are rigid. They wouldn't have to shut down the whole campus if they culled the Freshmen and Sophomores to online work only. The high risk behavior goes down significantly with upperclassmen and grad students. Auburn had no underclassmen after March and the infection rate among grad students was about .001.
The refusal to be flexible is exactly why they are faced with an all or nothing decision. It ignores the reality of who it is that puts people at risk, and whom it is that can work safely with others. There is no need to shut down college in the age of on line learning and since grad students aren't a risk there is no reason to shut down research and doctoral programs. And quite frankly little reason to stop Juniors and Seniors who can more effectively social distance without the mass of Freshmen and Sophomores who don't have to be impeded on a timeline if they take their core curriculum on line from home saving their parents 50% of the cost of their first two years.
And furthermore, if you drop the enrollment limits for online courses you can make up for the loss of dorm revenue and then cull that group to an acceptable Junior class by taking the best of that group leaving the rest to find another school in state in which to continue their education. So the rising enrollment tide on line eventually floats all state school boats.
That's an interesting proposed approach regarding just having juniors and seniors on campus. My semi-educated guess is that colleges (particularly large state schools) generally get the most room and board demand from freshmen and sophomores (while juniors and seniors are more likely to live in off-campus apartments and houses). As I noted earlier, that room and board translates to significant revenue, so if a college wants to maximize revenue from a particular group of students, their rational economic self-interest would be to *encourage* freshmen and sophomores to come to campus as opposed to the upperclassmen. I'm not saying that's a good thing from a public health perspective AT ALL, but I can clearly see the economic rationale (similar to how I can see the economic rationale to try to play football through hell or high water regardless of whether I think that's safe or not).
Outside of revenue, I can see the broader social reasons, as well. Personally, my freshman year of college was, without question, the most important year of my personal and academic development of my entire life on a whole slew of levels. I know that I'm not alone on that front and it's a big reason why so many of us have such intense feelings for where we went to school. Not being able to be on-campus for freshman year is a HUGE negative - it's a particularly critical transition year for personal and academic development on par with entering kindergarten or high school. Once again, I'm not saying that this is more important than addressing the public health issue (as I believe quite to the contrary), but I understand it at a guttural/emotional level.
I don't disagree with your observations. I just believe we are at the dawn of paradigm shift not only for health reasons but economic and technological reasons and that the confluence of motive (pandemic), incentive (family economics) and opportunity (technology) is about to make a compelling case for why these dynamics are about to change.
My reference to rigidity is exactly for the guttural reasons you suggest. Change is frightening because the reliability of the current dynamic will change. Therefore, the importance of being more intentional about helping incoming Juniors to identify strongly with the school would be a matter that deserves considerable attention.
Either way, during the health crisis is the best time to test these things and work out the kinks, and also to assist in holding the spread numbers down.
|
|