6 ms·

It is not an improvement, it's a punishment for universities being responsible. The outcome is worse for everyone involved, including anyone who lives near a co

It is not an improvement, it's a punishment for universities being responsible. The outcome is worse for everyone involved, including anyone who lives near a college. "At least one in-person class" doesn't make any sense. Either in-person classes are safe, and the rules can go back to pre-pandemic, or they aren't, and forcing students and professors to attend them is dangerous and cruel. There is no legitimate justification for this. There's no slippery slope issue or anything, everybody accepts that these rules will go back to normal once it's safe to do so.

davidf18 6y ago
They way, way overcharge for an on-line only experience. One misses the networking and the class interaction. There are very good quality MOOCs, coursera, etc. What's the difference if Harvard teaches an ML course, now on-line, and a Stanford MOOC?
DuskStar 6y ago
The perspective of ICE is that there's no legitimate justification for someone to be in the US if they're only taking online courses.
- sigzero 6y ago
  I would agree with that justification.
- ouid 6y ago
  I think that just being in the same time zone as your school makes a pretty big difference.
  - alchemism 6y ago
    Any remote worker at a 'distributed' company would heartily agree.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Well, I can give one. These students fully expected to attend in-person classes, paid for them in full, paid to get to America and get housing for that purpose, will attend in person again as soon as it is possible. Why can't they go home for one semester? 1) It's expensive. Flight home, rent for a US apartment they no longer occupy, potential rent for a new apartment at home, flight back here next semester. Where is a student supposed to get $5000+ to deal with this? 2) They need good internet access (and a laptop) wherever they're going. Not guaranteed, and not something the university can easily provide. 3) Timezones. Many classes are synchronous and discussion-based. Not only do you need internet good enough to support video calls, but you need to be awake at the same time as 15 other people in however many timezones. 4) It might be illegal. What if you're from China or Iran and your school uses G Suite for Education? Or they use Zoom, which is banned in 6 countries. Participating in your classes would be illegal. Can the university switch their entire infrastructure to a new platform in a couple months to support a few students for one semester for arbitrary reasons? 5) It might be unsafe. Not all students have a safe and stable place to go. 6) It achieves nothing. Literally no benefit for anyone. If you expect these students to come back in a semester or two, there is no point.
  - pera 6y ago
    I am not sure if many people are aware of this fact but even flying can be quite difficult right now: if for instance you need to go back to Argentina it can take literally months until you are able to successfully book a flight (and this it with some help of the local embassy), and they all depart from Miami so you also have to figure out how to get there first. After that, once you get to Buenos Aires, you have to quarantine for two weeks in a specially designated hotel room. A good friend of mine passed through all this and it was pretty stressful.
  - lr 6y ago
    You forgot one: 7) Lost rent to the landlord in the college town, and their ability to fill the apartment/room (doubtful).
    - burkaman 6y ago
      Of course, there's many more. - Lost reputation (if there's any left) among embassies that will have to work to repatriate these students for no reason. - Lost business at supermarkets, bookstores, cafes, whatever else. - Many students are probably just going to transfer to a college that's holding in-person classes rather than deal with this, putting them in danger and disrupting their education. - Lost societal contributions from future college graduates who may no longer want to live and work in this country. - Massive waste of government resources as ICE agents try to deport people to countries that aren't accepting flights from America. - Waste of everyone's resources as the government and universities work through this inevitable court case. - Loss of future international students who are now seeing an example of how arbitrary and capricious the US government can be that hits a little too close to home. - Endangering the lives of faculty and students and neighborhoods of every college that is now forced to hold in-person classes because they can't afford to sue the United States government and don't expect this lawsuit to succeed. - Waste of fossil fuels for completely pointless international flights. - etc. etc. etc.
- adrianmonk 6y ago
  The justification is that it was already decided that, for whatever reason(s), there was a benefit to allow these students to study in the US. They were given a spot at a university that could have gone to someone else, and resources have been expended on getting them through the process toward graduation. If we create obstacles or burdens that stand in the way of completing that education, it serves to jeopardize the returns on the investment we've made. If it was in the US's best interests to let them start, it's in the US's best interests to give them best odds of finishing. Let them choose whether or not to return to their home country as best fits their individual situation.
  - yostrovs 6y ago
    The interest is purely in the benefit of universities charging full rate of most international students.
mathdev 6y ago
> Either in-person classes are safe, and the rules can go back to pre-pandemic, or they aren't, and forcing students and professors to attend them is dangerous and cruel. Actually, in-person classes are completely safe and this is a gentle nudge from the federal administration to make the universities reconsider their (completely political) decision to not resume normal classes this Fall.
- burkaman 6y ago
  There's nothing I can say to this argument. Good luck out there, and please be kind to your neighbors who are still wearing masks and staying home.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Next time the government threatens to arrest you and throw you out of the country, let me know if you consider this "gentle".
- the_benno 6y ago
  This is an awfully confident statement that is unsupported by available evidence on covid transmission and health risks. On what basis do you say that in person classes are completely safe when reopening of indoor spaces has led to massive upticks in infections across much of the US?
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    It is certainly confident, but it is also supported -- modulo "completely" -- by our understanding of how effective masks are supposed to be, and infection rates in certain other (mask-wearing) countries.
jychang 6y ago
> "At least one in-person class" doesn't make any sense. Either in-person classes are safe, and the rules can go back to pre-pandemic, or they aren't, and forcing students and professors to attend them is dangerous and cruel. This sounds ridiculously reductive, and too black and white. "Either driving a car is safe, and you shouldn't need to apply safety rules, or they aren't, in which case driving a car is cruel". There is no such thing as completely safe, only levels of risk, and how you mitigate risk. You can still catch a disease even if you wore a N95 mask, for example. There is a reason why essential groceries stores are open during the pandemic, while barbershops are closed. It's about how you manage the risk/reward balance. Starving is not an option, whereas not getting a haircut is. Well, some classes clearly work better online than others. You can teach a webdev class online. Would you want someone who is learning to become a surgeon to learn purely online and without hands-on experience? Some other classes, like biology labs, chemistry labs, etc produce a lot more value in person. This means that in order to manage risk, a university could implement a strategy where it reduces the number of in-person classes as much as possible, but still have some in-person classes (with added social distancing and other safety rules). This doesnt mean international students should be forced to leave the country if they are not taking an in-person class, for example. But I don't think it means universities should be prevented from allowing in-person classes if they take precautions and understand the risk.
- burkaman 6y ago
  > This doesnt mean international students should be forced to leave the country if they are not taking an in-person class, for example. But I don't think it means universities should be prevented from allowing in-person classes if they take precautions and understand the risk. ? Nobody is being prevented from holding in-person classes if they want to. And yes, international students being forced to leave the country is what we're talking about. This rule has nothing to do with risk/reward balance or picking which classes benefit most from in-person interaction. The driving analogy would make sense if students were being forced to drive one hour a week without a seatbelt for no reason in order to remain in the country.

davidf18 6y ago

They way, way overcharge for an on-line only experience. One misses the networking and the class interaction. There are very good quality MOOCs, coursera, etc. What's the difference if Harvard teaches an ML course, now on-line, and a Stanford MOOC?

DuskStar 6y ago

The perspective of ICE is that there's no legitimate justification for someone to be in the US if they're only taking online courses.

sigzero 6y ago
I would agree with that justification.
ouid 6y ago
I think that just being in the same time zone as your school makes a pretty big difference.
- alchemism 6y ago
  Any remote worker at a 'distributed' company would heartily agree.
burkaman 6y ago
Well, I can give one. These students fully expected to attend in-person classes, paid for them in full, paid to get to America and get housing for that purpose, will attend in person again as soon as it is possible. Why can't they go home for one semester? 1) It's expensive. Flight home, rent for a US apartment they no longer occupy, potential rent for a new apartment at home, flight back here next semester. Where is a student supposed to get $5000+ to deal with this? 2) They need good internet access (and a laptop) wherever they're going. Not guaranteed, and not something the university can easily provide. 3) Timezones. Many classes are synchronous and discussion-based. Not only do you need internet good enough to support video calls, but you need to be awake at the same time as 15 other people in however many timezones. 4) It might be illegal. What if you're from China or Iran and your school uses G Suite for Education? Or they use Zoom, which is banned in 6 countries. Participating in your classes would be illegal. Can the university switch their entire infrastructure to a new platform in a couple months to support a few students for one semester for arbitrary reasons? 5) It might be unsafe. Not all students have a safe and stable place to go. 6) It achieves nothing. Literally no benefit for anyone. If you expect these students to come back in a semester or two, there is no point.
- pera 6y ago
  I am not sure if many people are aware of this fact but even flying can be quite difficult right now: if for instance you need to go back to Argentina it can take literally months until you are able to successfully book a flight (and this it with some help of the local embassy), and they all depart from Miami so you also have to figure out how to get there first. After that, once you get to Buenos Aires, you have to quarantine for two weeks in a specially designated hotel room. A good friend of mine passed through all this and it was pretty stressful.
- lr 6y ago
  You forgot one: 7) Lost rent to the landlord in the college town, and their ability to fill the apartment/room (doubtful).
  - burkaman 6y ago
    Of course, there's many more. - Lost reputation (if there's any left) among embassies that will have to work to repatriate these students for no reason. - Lost business at supermarkets, bookstores, cafes, whatever else. - Many students are probably just going to transfer to a college that's holding in-person classes rather than deal with this, putting them in danger and disrupting their education. - Lost societal contributions from future college graduates who may no longer want to live and work in this country. - Massive waste of government resources as ICE agents try to deport people to countries that aren't accepting flights from America. - Waste of everyone's resources as the government and universities work through this inevitable court case. - Loss of future international students who are now seeing an example of how arbitrary and capricious the US government can be that hits a little too close to home. - Endangering the lives of faculty and students and neighborhoods of every college that is now forced to hold in-person classes because they can't afford to sue the United States government and don't expect this lawsuit to succeed. - Waste of fossil fuels for completely pointless international flights. - etc. etc. etc.
adrianmonk 6y ago
The justification is that it was already decided that, for whatever reason(s), there was a benefit to allow these students to study in the US. They were given a spot at a university that could have gone to someone else, and resources have been expended on getting them through the process toward graduation. If we create obstacles or burdens that stand in the way of completing that education, it serves to jeopardize the returns on the investment we've made. If it was in the US's best interests to let them start, it's in the US's best interests to give them best odds of finishing. Let them choose whether or not to return to their home country as best fits their individual situation.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  The interest is purely in the benefit of universities charging full rate of most international students.

mathdev 6y ago

> Either in-person classes are safe, and the rules can go back to pre-pandemic, or they aren't, and forcing students and professors to attend them is dangerous and cruel. Actually, in-person classes are completely safe and this is a gentle nudge from the federal administration to make the universities reconsider their (completely political) decision to not resume normal classes this Fall.

burkaman 6y ago
There's nothing I can say to this argument. Good luck out there, and please be kind to your neighbors who are still wearing masks and staying home.
tehjoker 6y ago
Next time the government threatens to arrest you and throw you out of the country, let me know if you consider this "gentle".
the_benno 6y ago
This is an awfully confident statement that is unsupported by available evidence on covid transmission and health risks. On what basis do you say that in person classes are completely safe when reopening of indoor spaces has led to massive upticks in infections across much of the US?
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  It is certainly confident, but it is also supported -- modulo "completely" -- by our understanding of how effective masks are supposed to be, and infection rates in certain other (mask-wearing) countries.

jychang 6y ago

> "At least one in-person class" doesn't make any sense. Either in-person classes are safe, and the rules can go back to pre-pandemic, or they aren't, and forcing students and professors to attend them is dangerous and cruel. This sounds ridiculously reductive, and too black and white. "Either driving a car is safe, and you shouldn't need to apply safety rules, or they aren't, in which case driving a car is cruel". There is no such thing as completely safe, only levels of risk, and how you mitigate risk. You can still catch a disease even if you wore a N95 mask, for example. There is a reason why essential groceries stores are open during the pandemic, while barbershops are closed. It's about how you manage the risk/reward balance. Starving is not an option, whereas not getting a haircut is. Well, some classes clearly work better online than others. You can teach a webdev class online. Would you want someone who is learning to become a surgeon to learn purely online and without hands-on experience? Some other classes, like biology labs, chemistry labs, etc produce a lot more value in person. This means that in order to manage risk, a university could implement a strategy where it reduces the number of in-person classes as much as possible, but still have some in-person classes (with added social distancing and other safety rules). This doesnt mean international students should be forced to leave the country if they are not taking an in-person class, for example. But I don't think it means universities should be prevented from allowing in-person classes if they take precautions and understand the risk.

burkaman 6y ago
> This doesnt mean international students should be forced to leave the country if they are not taking an in-person class, for example. But I don't think it means universities should be prevented from allowing in-person classes if they take precautions and understand the risk. ? Nobody is being prevented from holding in-person classes if they want to. And yes, international students being forced to leave the country is what we're talking about. This rule has nothing to do with risk/reward balance or picking which classes benefit most from in-person interaction. The driving analogy would make sense if students were being forced to drive one hour a week without a seatbelt for no reason in order to remain in the country.