(05-21-2020 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 07:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:50 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  These schools=greed for money
Money>student, faculty and athletes' health

Those people aren’t at risk. Liberty University was supposed to be doomed when they let students back on campus after Spring Break... nothing happened.

The typical student isn't at risk. Those with underlying health conditions have some risk, as do faculty and staff over 60. Schools should protect the latter while allowing the former to go about their business, on campus, IMO.

I get this argument, but as a corporate lawyer that regularly gets sent complaints from tort lawyers that really stretch for arguments, what you've outlined just can't be defended if/when some faculty and staff end up contracting the coronavirus and either die or suffer life-long debilitating conditions from it. The fact that a state government says that schools can open doesn't provide any type of immunity.

Eventually, there's going to be a "reasonableness" standard established by the law where companies and other entities can feel comfortable defending themselves against tort claims, but the problem is that it isn't defined at all for a pandemic of this nature in modern society. If cases are still at "x" amount per day in August, is it reasonable to have students move back into a dorm at that point? Can you have at-risk faculty and staff on campus in those conditions? If at-risk faculty and staff can't come back on campus, then how can you actually have students come back on campus? (Note that if other problems arise that have nothing to do with the coronavirus occur during a period where there are fewer campus staff while the students are still there, such as a rise in crime or sexual assaults, then tort lawyers will have a field day on the "lack of administrative protections" in those scenarios, too.)

Look - I'm not saying that we can be closed for months and years without getting some sort of "new normal" into place. I just push back on the "young people are going to be fine with this and just old people need to protect themselves" line of thinking because the reality is that you can't make that distinction. Young people still have parents, grandparents, teachers, and daily interactions with a whole spectrum of ages. The percentage of young people dying from the virus might be low, but their ability to spread the disease in sheer numbers is very high because they're the most likely to be living in close quarters in dorms and apartments, going out to packed bars and restaurants, attending concerts and other large scale events... and the fact that they often aren't showing symptoms means that they continue doing all of those things without realizing that they are spreading the virus. Having testing, masks, social distancing and other measures in place can open things back up, but it shouldn't matter about the age of people. That shouldn't comfort anyone at all, whether it's from a health perspective or (looking at it from the university point of view) the legal side.

UC have to find students elsewhere as long as Trump keeps others not from this country to enter because of the virus. I may see a lot of students not going back this fall as parents will keep them out. There are too much risk right now, and the outbreaks are spiking all over the place after reopening. I do think over 50% in this country are older, people with health conditions and fat people. People who smoke might be at risk as well to catch the virus. You do have a lot of young college age kids who smoke.

(05-20-2020 11:15 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

To be fair, I thought the CSUs generally served a bit of a different demographic, though, such as having a lot more commuter and immediately local students. The on-campus experience isn’t nearly the same as it would be at Berkeley or UCLA.

The on-campus experience is worthwhile at some of the Cal State campuses. Cal Poly SLO for sure, and from what I've heard, at least Cal Poly Pomona and SDSU would be on that list as well.

Cal Poly has $4K in student fees and up until COVID-19, SDSU had a rec center open 24/7, which was bada$$ when it opened 15 years ago, so the ASI fees (student government) run all that stuff for California schools. Nearly all of them have attempted to become more of a "learning/living environment" or "residential campus" since 2004. While most CSU schools have little on-campus housing, they have strived to keep students on campus longer with better student centers (unions) and especially with rec centers. SDSU, Sonoma State, Fresno, San Marcos, Bakersfield, and Sac State built them last decade and SFSU (2018) and SJSU (2019).

I would not call SDSU's rec center "bada$$" unless you're only comparing it to California schools.

It's slightly smaller than the rec center at Case Western was in 2001 when I attended. Case had about 3,400 undergrads when I went there.

California schools in general are about 20-30 years behind the rest of the country when it comes to on-campus amenities. My theory is that it's because that's how long it takes to get anything built in CA (at least since the state started adding roadblocks to the building process in the 80s & 90s).

SDSU certainly has a decent sized residential campus, though. I'd say its comparable to schools like Memphis or Houston.

SDSU is more residential than commuter, Pomona is definitely more commuter than residential. Cal Poly is fully residential, Chico is basically residential. You can tell by when you look at the number of bicycle racks.

SDSU's problem is compactness and urban setting. Northeastern came to mind when my wife and I went through it. Berkeley and UCLA look spacious and wide open by comparison. It would be far harder for to contain this campus than a UC. It's possibly doable, but the density is much greater. There is a significant off campus student housing community/village that is mostly containable -- not dissimilar to those at UCSB and UC Davis, except that it is much more urban environment. I have not seen Memphis or Houston, but I suspect the comparison for SDSU may be more accurate than Northeastern (we toured the Northeast when my son was looking for schools)

Chico is away from big cities, and the campus well contained, so could work. It's also a bicycle rack college. The difficulty is that there is no student village off campus, rather student housing is mingled with the town.

My take away is rural schools Humboldt and Chico and of possibly urban SDSU could maybe do a hybrid similar to the UCs. But the rest of the CSU campuses it really would not work. (For completeness Cal Poly SLO is completely contained and should follow the UC model).

DavidSt does have a point on visas being halted. That could impact the UCs as perhaps 1/3rd fewer foreign students (those who went home not coming back and those who matriculated) this year. As a California tax payer I welcome that, as far too many slots are taken from California kids. Basically the UCs need to reduce their overhead 10-20% to stay in budget and give California kids, especially way under represented Hispanic kids (Asians have 3x as many as their share of the population, Hispanics about 1/3rd, Whites about spot on), where we have the greatest economic and social disparity.

Kinda funny as those schools are mostly recruiting basketball players from outside California, especially Cal Poly and UC Riverside. A couple years back Cal State Fullerton only had five players from in-state. Heck, for the '20-'21 season 10 of the 13 scholarship players on UC Santa Barbara's roster are non-CA natives.

(05-22-2020 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 07:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:50 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  These schools=greed for money
Money>student, faculty and athletes' health

Those people aren’t at risk. Liberty University was supposed to be doomed when they let students back on campus after Spring Break... nothing happened.

The typical student isn't at risk. Those with underlying health conditions have some risk, as do faculty and staff over 60. Schools should protect the latter while allowing the former to go about their business, on campus, IMO.

I get this argument, but as a corporate lawyer that regularly gets sent complaints from tort lawyers that really stretch for arguments, what you've outlined just can't be defended if/when some faculty and staff end up contracting the coronavirus and either die or suffer life-long debilitating conditions from it. The fact that a state government says that schools can open doesn't provide any type of immunity.

Eventually, there's going to be a "reasonableness" standard established by the law where companies and other entities can feel comfortable defending themselves against tort claims, but the problem is that it isn't defined at all for a pandemic of this nature in modern society.

A couple things. First, about immunity, in the case of state schools, a lot of states enforce their sovereign immunity against lawsuits, right? I know that varies from state to state, but in some states it is just very hard to file a tort claim against a state institution.

That aside though, I would open the campus with protections for faculty and staff. For staff, barriers and social distancing from students, and particular professors can conduct classes from a physical distance (e.g., a stage or lecturn) or online if they older or have underlying conditions. Students too can take all the classes online if they have health conditions. I am not advocating that older staff or faculty or students with health conditions just be thrown to the wolves, concrete steps have to be taken to protect them, but of course there is always an assumption of risk - have kids and professors like me sign waivers to return to campus, etc.

As for kids taking the virus home, that can happen anywhere. E.g., right now, my wife and I, pushing 60, are not allowing anyone in our house, period. Nobody, not even close family. Won't change until we feel comfortable and despite our state taking steps to re-open, we aren't comfortable yet. Yes, many students live with parents, but unless they are going to never leave the house, they can always bring the virus back, that's a risk the family takes by living together, all families face.. A 20 year old isn't going to leave the house and limit themselves to only places where they don't come within 6 feet of other 20 year olds, school closed or not.

Bottom line is, despite polls showing large majorities in favor of "shutdowns" and moving very slowly to reopen, the actions of people seem to differ from what they tell pollsters (not uncommon at all, btw). Two months seems to be the limit of at-home tolerance for a large segment of people given the nature of virus, namely that it does seem to specifically target some groups but not others. Re-opening is happening everywhere, even in deeply-blue states, so we have to figure out how to make it happens as safely as possible.

Granted, this was just released yesterday, but it may foreshadow what a large campus the fall and why schools are deciding to end on-campus instruction after Thanksgiving.

Abstract:

Quote:We present evidence that travel by college students, identified by the timing of university spring breaks, contributed to the local spread of COVID-19. Due to the timing of university closures, students at universities with earlier spring breaks traveled and subsequently returned to campus while students at universities with later spring breaks effectively had their breaks canceled. We collect spring break dates for traditional four-year universities and link these universities to smartphone location data. To study the effect of spring break travel on the evolution of confirmed COVID-19 cases and mortality, we use a difference-in-differences identification strategy. Our estimates imply that counties with more early spring break students had higher confirmed case growth rates than counties with fewer early spring break students. We find that the increase in case growth rates peaked two weeks after students returned to campus. Consistent with secondary spread to more vulnerable populations, we find an increase in mortality growth rates that peaked four to five weeks after students returned. We trace destinations and modes of travel for university students and find that students who traveled through airports, to New York City, and to popular Florida destinations contributed more to the spread of COVID-19 than the average early spring break student. Our results suggest that universities have a unique capacity to reduce local COVID-19 spread by altering academic calendars to limit university student travel.

(05-22-2020 02:02 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 12:21 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  I'm glad the UC's are going to have some classes and some ADs in both UC's and CSU's are saying they are having sports. I think that means CSU will have to go back on their "virtual only" stance and there is a very strong chance sports are played this fall. There is too much money at stake to not have both of those things in some capacity.

I don't think it does. The CSU structure is different than the UC's. Most students commute, a very large percentage still living with their parents or family. The CSU schools are not dependent upon foreign students to pay for the high overhead, unlike the UC schools.

possible exception: Cal Poly SLO

Two very systems are different animals. Both the student body with it's expectations and living situation, and the parking lot nature of class attendance (I know I went to San Jose State). Even many of those who live near campus it's more a choice to move out of the house while studying, but mom and dad are just 10 to 30 minutes away -- in this environment I think few will move out of the house until the situation is different.

While bike racks dominate UC campuses, tower parking lots dominate the CSU schools. With almost 8,000 parking spaces (plus a few thousand who park on the streets around campus and hike in, or who arrive by public transit, San Jose State resembles grand central station. At least 75% of the 35,000 or so students commute in, funneling into the Business or Math or Science or Engineering towers, literally thousands elbow to elbow going to classes in every room filled to the brim from 8am to 7:30pm, then filter back out through the narrow halls into the parking lot and home after 2 or 3 classes back to back, and the next wave come in and uses the same parking spots or if the lot is full (and they fill fast) on the street as close as you can get. This coming into campus in large crowds, then leaving back to home, many with older parents, is asking for a mass breakout. (I'm thinking SJSU, but it's far worse for say SF State)

But if you look at the UC schools and Cal Poly (Chico and SDSU are kind of residential, so maybe exceptions possible), pretty much all the students live on campus or very close, and the campuses are larger and easier to close to non-students, and restrict coming an going. You do not have the large commuter pool of the Cal States. It's bicycle racks more than parking lots. Students are not going back to mom and dad's house after class. There are a lot of reasons the UC schools are better setup for some on campus instruction than the CSU schools.

Just think about the physical layouts and the commuting patterns.

I'm not sure how you claim UC's are staying open for the money but somehow think that doesn't apply for the CSU's. There will be a significant chunk of revenue out the window via residential fees and parking permits for the CSU's if this stands.

Regarding the risk of a outbreak...meh. We would have seen worse than we did here in CA, I'm not too worried about the fear porn regarding a "2nd wave".

Regardless of all that (CA taxpayers will foot the bill in the end so it doesn't matter), I heard Sac State football is on for this fall so I'm good.

SDHornet,

Parking revenue per student is nothing compared to foreign student tuition. I did a quick look up on the two Bay Area schools:

San Jose State full year Parking Pass: $384.00

If say 50% of the CSU students bought parking passes (far too high a number) then possibly $100m could be lost.

UC Berkeley full tuition and Fees (foreign student): $47,293
add to that student housing and meals = $18,900/academic year

Total revenue = $66,193 per student

These students are not funded $1 by the State of California, so that is all revenue for the UC schools. The UC's have 55,183 foreign students, 42% from the PRC (actually higher as many list resident sponsors as overseas relatives). If they all paid full ticket that comes to over $3.65B at risk. The actual take is probably below $3B for the UC system, but that is still a lot of money. The UC system is projecting a $1.2B deficit. So they need this money.

11,942 UCLA
10,652 UC San Diego
10,063 UC Berkeley
8,064 UC Irvine
8,048 UC Davis
3,022 UC Santa Barbara
1,770 UC Riverside
1,622 UC Santa Cruz

55,183 Total for 8 Main UC Campus

Note: UC Merced has ~7,800 students and well less than 1% are International, likely fewer than 50.

USC has over 11,392 International students, but only 2,674 were undergrads (very different than the UC system where most are undergrads).

CSU International students are far fewer per campus, often grad students living off campus, more like USC. We see a lot of the wives of Green Card holders at the CSU campuses - part timing if they can, to reduce fees. While significant, the numbers, the per student money paid and living pattern of International students is far lower at CSU than the UC schools. It's easily an order of magnitude difference.

This is one of the pressures on the UC system which the CSU system does not face. This, and the higher socioeconomic demographic of UC students families (read "political donors") explain why the two systems are opting for a different approach.

Great info. But regarding on-campus residents and parking fees, it doesn't matter if you are international or not. Those are revenue sources to the campus. If there aren't students occupying those rooms, there isn't revenue from those rooms.

I never brought up tuition fees paid by international students, and yes I agree that is a large revenue source for the UC. None of which is relevant as to the data (or in this case lack thereof) of why any campus should be shuttered come fall. There is no reason why one public system should be shuttered and one not.