(07-22-2020 12:39 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:55 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:51 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:39 AM)dubcat14 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  100% agree on that.

The only problem I see from UC's perspective is they're struggling to find housing for everyone as it is.. I don't see how they'd be able to with what would then amount to 2 years worth of freshman. From an incoming student's perspective though, I agree completely. You make so many friends/connections and have a much greater experience the more time you spend on campus, I could imagine doing the first year remotely.

If a school is worried about just packing them in this year and next, they are not all that interested in the welfare and educational experience of the students anyways.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but truly how do you handle it? If you give all 15,000 freshman (for example) the option for a deferment and 8,000 of them take it, what do you do the following year? I guess raise your admission standards and only take the best say 7,000 that apply to even out numbers? I feel bad for the kids that are juniors in high school right now. I dicked around a ton in high school and most likely got into UC on the merits of my ACT score alone. Thats not gonna cut if you cut the class size in half. It feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Lotta good points on all of the issues, but what happens to next year's class is a very tough nut to crack. They could be looking at a mostly remote senior year next year followed by a very limited number of open slots from desirable colleges (having deferred a large number from this year). And then who knows what happens to those that get in to those limited slots - are we looking at another year of mostly remote? Will colleges be inclined to allow another year of deferments?

Maybe now is a good time to look at the whole "year of service" concept. I'm reluctant to make it mandatory but if we could come up with enough viable options for "service" and a system that rewards the decision maybe it could be a win all around? Or heck, maybe it should be mandatory - it's a lot more common around the world than many of us probably think.

(07-22-2020 12:39 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:55 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:51 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:39 AM)dubcat14 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  100% agree on that.

The only problem I see from UC's perspective is they're struggling to find housing for everyone as it is.. I don't see how they'd be able to with what would then amount to 2 years worth of freshman. From an incoming student's perspective though, I agree completely. You make so many friends/connections and have a much greater experience the more time you spend on campus, I could imagine doing the first year remotely.

If a school is worried about just packing them in this year and next, they are not all that interested in the welfare and educational experience of the students anyways.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but truly how do you handle it? If you give all 15,000 freshman (for example) the option for a deferment and 8,000 of them take it, what do you do the following year? I guess raise your admission standards and only take the best say 7,000 that apply to even out numbers? I feel bad for the kids that are juniors in high school right now. I dicked around a ton in high school and most likely got into UC on the merits of my ACT score alone. Thats not gonna cut if you cut the class size in half. It feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Lotta good points on all of the issues, but what happens to next year's class is a very tough nut to crack. They could be looking at a mostly remote senior year next year followed by a very limited number of open slots from desirable colleges (having deferred a large number from this year). And then who knows what happens to those that get in to those limited slots - are we looking at another year of mostly remote? Will colleges be inclined to allow another year of deferments?

Maybe now is a good time to look at the whole "year of service" concept. I'm reluctant to make it mandatory but if we could come up with enough viable options for "service" and a system that rewards the decision maybe it could be a win all around? Or heck, maybe it should be mandatory - it's a lot more common around the world than many of us probably think.

(07-22-2020 02:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I hope I don't derail the "year of service" discussion that I started here. But this seems rather pertinent to much of the earlier discussion although I'm too exhausted to analyze the details and ramifications:

(07-22-2020 02:12 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I hope I don't derail the "year of service" discussion that I started here. But this seems rather pertinent to much of the earlier discussion although I'm too exhausted to analyze the details and ramifications:

Real science ^^^

I read the details and recommend doing so. It isn't long and The Lancet is well regarded in the academic circles.

Quote:Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings propose avenues for further debate, research, and exploration, and do not support a definitive judgement on the effectiveness of various public health interventions implemented across different countries.

(07-22-2020 02:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I hope I don't derail the "year of service" discussion that I started here. But this seems rather pertinent to much of the earlier discussion although I'm too exhausted to analyze the details and ramifications:

(07-22-2020 02:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:12 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I hope I don't derail the "year of service" discussion that I started here. But this seems rather pertinent to much of the earlier discussion although I'm too exhausted to analyze the details and ramifications:

Real science ^^^

I read the details and recommend doing so. It isn't long and The Lancet is well regarded in the academic circles.

So you saw this, right?

Quote:Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings propose avenues for further debate, research, and exploration, and do not support a definitive judgement on the effectiveness of various public health interventions implemented across different countries.

(07-22-2020 03:11 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:12 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I hope I don't derail the "year of service" discussion that I started here. But this seems rather pertinent to much of the earlier discussion although I'm too exhausted to analyze the details and ramifications:

Real science ^^^

I read the details and recommend doing so. It isn't long and The Lancet is well regarded in the academic circles.

So you saw this, right?

Quote:Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings propose avenues for further debate, research, and exploration, and do not support a definitive judgement on the effectiveness of various public health interventions implemented across different countries.

Yes, all science is up for debate, research, and further exploration last time I checked and almost always extends afterwards from the original conclusions.

Galileon Gravity > Newton's Laws > Einstein's General Theory of Relativity > Dare I say String Theory (JK) is good example of with the hundreds of other scientist in between.

This was the best data analysis I have seen yet, and by a well regarded journal is all. I definitely would recommend comprehending this article over just listening to what MSNBC, CNN, or FOX have to say is my only point.

(07-22-2020 03:21 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 03:11 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:12 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I hope I don't derail the "year of service" discussion that I started here. But this seems rather pertinent to much of the earlier discussion although I'm too exhausted to analyze the details and ramifications:

Real science ^^^

I read the details and recommend doing so. It isn't long and The Lancet is well regarded in the academic circles.

So you saw this, right?

Quote:Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings propose avenues for further debate, research, and exploration, and do not support a definitive judgement on the effectiveness of various public health interventions implemented across different countries.

Yes, all science is up for debate, research, and further exploration last time I checked and almost always extends afterwards from the original conclusions.

Galileon Gravity > Newton's Laws > Einstein's General Theory of Relativity > Dare I say String Theory (JK) is good example of with the hundreds of other scientist in between.

This was the best data analysis I have seen yet, and by a well regarded journal is all. I definitely would recommend comprehending this article over just listening to what MSNBC, CNN, or FOX have to say is my only point.

Agree on all of the bolded points. I think it's important to point out though that the researchers themselves noted the limitations in their data set and went out of their way to say that the study shouldn't be used to make a definitive judgment on public health initiatives (including shutdowns). Some, inlcuding the woman from the tweet linked above, will nonetheless do so.

(07-22-2020 03:33 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 03:21 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 03:11 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:12 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  Real science ^^^

I read the details and recommend doing so. It isn't long and The Lancet is well regarded in the academic circles.

So you saw this, right?

Quote:Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings propose avenues for further debate, research, and exploration, and do not support a definitive judgement on the effectiveness of various public health interventions implemented across different countries.

Yes, all science is up for debate, research, and further exploration last time I checked and almost always extends afterwards from the original conclusions.

Galileon Gravity > Newton's Laws > Einstein's General Theory of Relativity > Dare I say String Theory (JK) is good example of with the hundreds of other scientist in between.

This was the best data analysis I have seen yet, and by a well regarded journal is all. I definitely would recommend comprehending this article over just listening to what MSNBC, CNN, or FOX have to say is my only point.

Agree on all of the bolded points. I think it's important to point out though that the researchers themselves noted the limitations in their data set and went out of their way to say that the study shouldn't be used to make a definitive judgment on public health initiatives (including shutdowns). Some, inlcuding the woman from the tweet linked above, will nonetheless do so.

The only way to potentially eliminate the virus is with a 100% effective vaccine...these are tough to generate against a lot of viral strains.

I think we learn to live with this like we learn to live with the Flu, Alzheimer's, Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Automobile accidents, and on, and on....

It doesn't mean stop the fight, but it does mean that shutting down the economy is not an effective solution.

(07-22-2020 01:14 PM)geef Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:39 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:55 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:51 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:39 AM)dubcat14 Wrote:  The only problem I see from UC's perspective is they're struggling to find housing for everyone as it is.. I don't see how they'd be able to with what would then amount to 2 years worth of freshman. From an incoming student's perspective though, I agree completely. You make so many friends/connections and have a much greater experience the more time you spend on campus, I could imagine doing the first year remotely.

If a school is worried about just packing them in this year and next, they are not all that interested in the welfare and educational experience of the students anyways.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but truly how do you handle it? If you give all 15,000 freshman (for example) the option for a deferment and 8,000 of them take it, what do you do the following year? I guess raise your admission standards and only take the best say 7,000 that apply to even out numbers? I feel bad for the kids that are juniors in high school right now. I dicked around a ton in high school and most likely got into UC on the merits of my ACT score alone. Thats not gonna cut if you cut the class size in half. It feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Lotta good points on all of the issues, but what happens to next year's class is a very tough nut to crack. They could be looking at a mostly remote senior year next year followed by a very limited number of open slots from desirable colleges (having deferred a large number from this year). And then who knows what happens to those that get in to those limited slots - are we looking at another year of mostly remote? Will colleges be inclined to allow another year of deferments?

Maybe now is a good time to look at the whole "year of service" concept. I'm reluctant to make it mandatory but if we could come up with enough viable options for "service" and a system that rewards the decision maybe it could be a win all around? Or heck, maybe it should be mandatory - it's a lot more common around the world than many of us probably think.

I spent two years in AmeriCorps in the 90s (post college), and it was the best decision I've ever made. In my case, however, I didn't come away with any hard skills other than being able to build a pretty bad ass trail. I'd love a year or two of service to coincide with specific skills and perhaps community college credit related to those skills - infrastructure, home weatherization, etc.

(07-22-2020 03:41 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Haven't read that yet but I want to point out an error in the original tweet-- eClinicalMedicine isn't the Lancet, it's an additional journal that's published by the Lancet network. It's also relatively new (I think 2018) and doesn't yet have an impact factor. Whereas the Lancet itself is one of the top, if not the best, medical journals in the world.

(07-22-2020 08:27 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  Wasn’t the Lancet the journal that published the reasearch against hydroxychloroquine then had to rescind because the database in the meta-analysis couldn’t be authenticated?

Everyone done lost their minds these days and I am taking everything with a huge chunk of salt.

(07-22-2020 11:39 PM)AZBCAT Wrote:  https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-cb-college-football-season-chances-20200722-dqocpvtuk5elbnx4wlncvivpti-story.html

Main college football columnist for the Trib says his sources tell him a 15% chance the Big Ten plays football this season.

Quote:None has signed off on Big Ten football, at least not yet. The conference was wise to scrap nonconference games because, really, can you count on UConn or Morgan State to enact rigorous testing protocols? And now the Big Ten has total control of its schedule. So if that 15% hits and some games can be played, the conference can determine when and where.