(01-11-2021 04:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: (01-11-2021 11:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: My daughter starts back today... with the same protocols as before... Routine testing, random well-checks. Monitoring of comings and goings from campus. Classes can be done in person or from the dorm as necessary. On campus housing for anyone needing to quarantine (positive test or suspected exposure)
What I don't understand is that we demonstrated that we can greatly outperform almost any decent sized city in the US, often by a WIDE margin in the fall, so why are students now 'safer' remaining in those more risky situations? They aren't. The value of the education is greatly diminished, as is the value of 'student life' and 'diversity'.
Whom are we protecting by remaining closed? Are we saying that students on campus at Rice are LESS safe than anywhere else to the point where we're willing to further diminish most of that which makes us a top 20 University? That's what these actions imply.... and that has absolutely nothing to do with sports.
Bones, the vast majority of Universities are doing exactly what Rice is doing. UT announced the same today. Many of the other Top 20 universities are remaining closed well past February 15th. It would be one thing if the students were currently on campus, but they are not. They've been scattered all over the country and the world since just before Thanksgiving-- 6+ weeks ago. Sure, you can say that's what testing is for, but testing students upon arrival doesn't mean they don't have the virus incubating in their systems.
No one is question whether the value of one's education is diminished when done remotely, which is why the university hopes to get students back on campus after the first month of the Spring semester when, hopefully, the current holiday-induced surge diminishes.
The vast majority of Universities (particularly larger ones) had infection rates that were higher than their local populations.... and with respect, 'following the crowd' is not what we should be doing. We made a point of noting how much better we were doing than 'the crowd' of Houston just a few months ago.
What you describe also isn't what my daughter had to do. They had to have a test 'x' days before they arrived and then were tested once they arrived and quarantined if they failed or had any symptoms... reducing/eliminating the risk you speak of. My son's girlfriend was also required to quarantine before she arrived... Hard to enforce, but a good practice anyway. Why didn't we do that? Wouldn't that be a good use of the Rice Honor Code?
With so many kids remaining at 'home' as you describe for the next month, there is little reason to suspect that the infection rate for returning Rice students will be meaningfully lower 2/15 than 1/15. They are now in areas where the infection rate is VASTLY higher than it would be at Rice, and much more likely to become infected and then spread it to each other. The disease doesn't have a calendar, it simply moves from place to place as the opportunity presents itself... and we are subjecting many of our students to a vastly higher risk of infection by leaving them subject to the rules and customs of their environment and NOT allow them to return to the relative safety of the Rice campus.
Bring the kids on campus and make them take classes from their rooms for the first week or two... if you feel safer at home, stay there... the possible solutions are almost endless. Telling kids to deal with whatever they have at home and check back in a month, where we may push if back again is great for Rice... it's just not great for the students.
Bottom line, whether we are looking out for 50 potential cases coming on campus in January or 20 in February, the responses should be the same... and if you address them correctly, it doesn't make any difference whether it is 50 or 20, other than no OTHER kids got infected during the interim. If there are 50 kids with no symptoms returning to school, aren't they (and everyone around them) MUCH better off having them go to a place where they will be tested and confined as necessary as opposed to one where they potentially won't be tested or confined at all?
ETA: It's not a HORRIBLE decision. It's safe for the University and is not without ANY support.... I just think we shouldn't shy away from an opportunity to protect our students... ESPECIALLY under the 'guise' of doing so.