09-20-2020, 07:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2020, 07:49 PM by TinderForMidgets.)
Can the university just admit that they aren't amateurs because that facade has been long gone.
Pac-12 Football is coming back
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2020, 07:49 PM by TinderForMidgets.)
Can the university just admit that they aren't amateurs because that facade has been long gone.
09-20-2020, 08:13 PM
(09-20-2020, 07:09 PM)Believer Wrote:(09-20-2020, 06:29 PM)donkey687 Wrote:(09-20-2020, 04:28 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: Shaw, who has my full support, is the least of your worries. You won't have him to kick around by next season if things continue this way. He'll probably be off to the NFL or another program that is committed.
Assuming the 247 report is accurate, I can't believe Stanford is asking players to find their own off-campus housing by this Friday and pay for it themselves. Many of the players already reject the principle of amateurism and want to unionize. Now their full ride (room and board) is being taken away, if they want to play this season? Contrary to what other Pac-12 universities are doing? All in the service of a principle of amateurism that many of the football athletes already reject?
I'm not saying that Stanford is wrong - I really don't understand all the layers to the issue. But I observe that they're standing alone, on a matter of principle, and the result could crush the program as we know it.
Something will have to give by Thursday. It will probably get sorted out for now. But some hard feelings may not be forgotten amongst players and recruits...
I am with you. I don't believe that Stanford is asking players to pay for their own housing. That doesn't make sense to me. Has anyone heard that this is actually true? It seems like players would be outraged and revolting and tweeting about it if true.
Not true,,,,
Students who are on full scholarship don't pay for room and board either but they are housed and eat in university facilities. The undergrads who are living on campus are living in the new Escondido Village apartments built for grad students, but housing undergrads 1 per unit this quarter.
(09-20-2020, 07:09 PM)Believer Wrote:(09-20-2020, 06:29 PM)donkey687 Wrote:(09-20-2020, 04:28 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: Shaw, who has my full support, is the least of your worries. You won't have him to kick around by next season if things continue this way. He'll probably be off to the NFL or another program that is committed.
Assuming the 247 report is accurate, I can't believe Stanford is asking players to find their own off-campus housing by this Friday and pay for it themselves. Many of the players already reject the principle of amateurism and want to unionize. Now their full ride (room and board) is being taken away, if they want to play this season? Contrary to what other Pac-12 universities are doing? All in the service of a principle of amateurism that many of the football athletes already reject?
I'm not saying that Stanford is wrong - I really don't understand all the layers to the issue. But I observe that they're standing alone, on a matter of principle, and the result could crush the program as we know it.
Something will have to give by Thursday. It will probably get sorted out for now. But some hard feelings may not be forgotten amongst players and recruits...
I am with you. I don't believe that Stanford is asking players to pay for their own housing. That doesn't make sense to me. Has anyone heard that this is actually true? It seems like players would be outraged and revolting and tweeting about it if true.
Not true,,,,
Students who are on full scholarship don't pay for room and board either but they are housed and eat in university facilities. The undergrads who are living on campus are living in the new Escondido Village apartments built for grad students, but housing undergrads 1 per unit this quarter.
09-20-2020, 11:46 PM
(09-20-2020, 08:13 PM)chrisk Wrote:(09-20-2020, 07:09 PM)Believer Wrote:(09-20-2020, 06:29 PM)donkey687 Wrote:(09-20-2020, 04:28 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: Shaw, who has my full support, is the least of your worries. You won't have him to kick around by next season if things continue this way. He'll probably be off to the NFL or another program that is committed.
Assuming the 247 report is accurate, I can't believe Stanford is asking players to find their own off-campus housing by this Friday and pay for it themselves. Many of the players already reject the principle of amateurism and want to unionize. Now their full ride (room and board) is being taken away, if they want to play this season? Contrary to what other Pac-12 universities are doing? All in the service of a principle of amateurism that many of the football athletes already reject?
I'm not saying that Stanford is wrong - I really don't understand all the layers to the issue. But I observe that they're standing alone, on a matter of principle, and the result could crush the program as we know it.
Something will have to give by Thursday. It will probably get sorted out for now. But some hard feelings may not be forgotten amongst players and recruits...
I am with you. I don't believe that Stanford is asking players to pay for their own housing. That doesn't make sense to me. Has anyone heard that this is actually true? It seems like players would be outraged and revolting and tweeting about it if true.
Not true,,,,
Students who are on full scholarship don't pay for room and board either but they are housed and eat in university facilities. The undergrads who are living on campus are living in the new Escondido Village apartments built for grad students, but housing undergrads 1 per unit this quarter.
I've seen football player Instagram stories outside of/around the new EV apartments recently. MBB too.
(09-20-2020, 08:13 PM)chrisk Wrote:(09-20-2020, 07:09 PM)Believer Wrote:(09-20-2020, 06:29 PM)donkey687 Wrote:(09-20-2020, 04:28 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: Shaw, who has my full support, is the least of your worries. You won't have him to kick around by next season if things continue this way. He'll probably be off to the NFL or another program that is committed.
Assuming the 247 report is accurate, I can't believe Stanford is asking players to find their own off-campus housing by this Friday and pay for it themselves. Many of the players already reject the principle of amateurism and want to unionize. Now their full ride (room and board) is being taken away, if they want to play this season? Contrary to what other Pac-12 universities are doing? All in the service of a principle of amateurism that many of the football athletes already reject?
I'm not saying that Stanford is wrong - I really don't understand all the layers to the issue. But I observe that they're standing alone, on a matter of principle, and the result could crush the program as we know it.
Something will have to give by Thursday. It will probably get sorted out for now. But some hard feelings may not be forgotten amongst players and recruits...
I am with you. I don't believe that Stanford is asking players to pay for their own housing. That doesn't make sense to me. Has anyone heard that this is actually true? It seems like players would be outraged and revolting and tweeting about it if true.
Not true,,,,
Students who are on full scholarship don't pay for room and board either but they are housed and eat in university facilities. The undergrads who are living on campus are living in the new Escondido Village apartments built for grad students, but housing undergrads 1 per unit this quarter.
I've seen football player Instagram stories outside of/around the new EV apartments recently. MBB too.
09-21-2020, 08:48 AM
Yeah, that part of the story never made sense. Maybe we are seeing UCLA, Stanford and others playing hot potato with the issue the way the Big Ten did. UCLA already came out with a statement over the weekend that they are not the reason a 10/31 start can’t happen, and that they don’t need 8 weeks to get started (contrary to Wilner’s reporting).
Stanford probably did make a point of the issue of amateurism in Friday’s meeting, and possibly doesn’t prefer a fast start. But RJ’s version of the story seems overblown, especially regarding the benefit of housing.
Stanford probably did make a point of the issue of amateurism in Friday’s meeting, and possibly doesn’t prefer a fast start. But RJ’s version of the story seems overblown, especially regarding the benefit of housing.
Yeah, that part of the story never made sense. Maybe we are seeing UCLA, Stanford and others playing hot potato with the issue the way the Big Ten did. UCLA already came out with a statement over the weekend that they are not the reason a 10/31 start can’t happen, and that they don’t need 8 weeks to get started (contrary to Wilner’s reporting).
Stanford probably did make a point of the issue of amateurism in Friday’s meeting, and possibly doesn’t prefer a fast start. But RJ’s version of the story seems overblown, especially regarding the benefit of housing.
Stanford probably did make a point of the issue of amateurism in Friday’s meeting, and possibly doesn’t prefer a fast start. But RJ’s version of the story seems overblown, especially regarding the benefit of housing.
09-21-2020, 10:14 AM
(09-21-2020, 09:48 AM)oldalum Wrote: I agree with the Sage. The principle of equal treatment is desirable (see, RBG), but in a once-in-a-century situation I think most people would be fine with a temporary exception.
Conversely, in a once-in-a-century situation, I think most people would be fine if college football didn't happen.
BC
(09-21-2020, 09:48 AM)oldalum Wrote: I agree with the Sage. The principle of equal treatment is desirable (see, RBG), but in a once-in-a-century situation I think most people would be fine with a temporary exception.
Conversely, in a once-in-a-century situation, I think most people would be fine if college football didn't happen.
BC
09-21-2020, 11:04 AM
If the criterion for on-campus sports activites is the resumption of in-person instruction for the general undergraduate student population, then Stanford should cancel immediately all sports for 2020-21 and the NCAA should allow student-athletes who wish to transfer immediate eligibility. Anything less is unfair to the athletes, IMO, because the likelihood of students returning en masse to campus is very low.
However, I, for one, do not agree with that criterion. I think that the University should resume any and all regular activities as it is safe to do so. It's not safe to resume a lot of in-person instruction--although some graduate student courses have in-person elements. However, research is ramping up, because it is possible--with some effort, of course--to manage safely a small cohort of laboratoy personnel. This is what is happening at the University at which I work.
From the accounts that I have read, it looks like it is now possible to manage athletics cohorts in a safe manner for the players, coaches and support staff. I don't know if the Pac-12 is considering any other fall sports for return-to-play other than football and basketball, but I hope that Stanford participates in full as long as it is reasonably safe.
However, I, for one, do not agree with that criterion. I think that the University should resume any and all regular activities as it is safe to do so. It's not safe to resume a lot of in-person instruction--although some graduate student courses have in-person elements. However, research is ramping up, because it is possible--with some effort, of course--to manage safely a small cohort of laboratoy personnel. This is what is happening at the University at which I work.
From the accounts that I have read, it looks like it is now possible to manage athletics cohorts in a safe manner for the players, coaches and support staff. I don't know if the Pac-12 is considering any other fall sports for return-to-play other than football and basketball, but I hope that Stanford participates in full as long as it is reasonably safe.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
If the criterion for on-campus sports activites is the resumption of in-person instruction for the general undergraduate student population, then Stanford should cancel immediately all sports for 2020-21 and the NCAA should allow student-athletes who wish to transfer immediate eligibility. Anything less is unfair to the athletes, IMO, because the likelihood of students returning en masse to campus is very low.
However, I, for one, do not agree with that criterion. I think that the University should resume any and all regular activities as it is safe to do so. It's not safe to resume a lot of in-person instruction--although some graduate student courses have in-person elements. However, research is ramping up, because it is possible--with some effort, of course--to manage safely a small cohort of laboratoy personnel. This is what is happening at the University at which I work.
From the accounts that I have read, it looks like it is now possible to manage athletics cohorts in a safe manner for the players, coaches and support staff. I don't know if the Pac-12 is considering any other fall sports for return-to-play other than football and basketball, but I hope that Stanford participates in full as long as it is reasonably safe.
However, I, for one, do not agree with that criterion. I think that the University should resume any and all regular activities as it is safe to do so. It's not safe to resume a lot of in-person instruction--although some graduate student courses have in-person elements. However, research is ramping up, because it is possible--with some effort, of course--to manage safely a small cohort of laboratoy personnel. This is what is happening at the University at which I work.
From the accounts that I have read, it looks like it is now possible to manage athletics cohorts in a safe manner for the players, coaches and support staff. I don't know if the Pac-12 is considering any other fall sports for return-to-play other than football and basketball, but I hope that Stanford participates in full as long as it is reasonably safe.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
09-21-2020, 11:28 AM
What is it about football that makes it "safe" to manage cohorts for players that is not safe for other activities (and specifically in person instruction). If it is that all football activities can take place outdoors, and it is not possible to have most classes outdoors, then ok. But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players. If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes? If that's the case, why isn't the same amount of energy being used to ensure that? I think we all know the reason, and that is the wrong reason.
BC
BC
What is it about football that makes it "safe" to manage cohorts for players that is not safe for other activities (and specifically in person instruction). If it is that all football activities can take place outdoors, and it is not possible to have most classes outdoors, then ok. But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players. If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes? If that's the case, why isn't the same amount of energy being used to ensure that? I think we all know the reason, and that is the wrong reason.
BC
BC
Good questions, BC. I think it's a lot of factors. Outdoor activity is one. The smaller numbers is another. You can give the quick-response antigen test to a few hundred people daily, but what are the logistics to give it to tens of thousands (I'm talking all students, faculty and staff at Stanford)?
So we do what we can. A research lab with a PI, a couple of postdocs, two or three graduate students, four or five undergraduates and a lab manager might be able to be safely resumed with frequent testing, staggered work hours, work-space redesign, etc. Psych 1 in Dinkelspiel cannot, at least not now.
Another consideration is that, costs aside, a lot of instruction can be conducted online. I know this from first-hand experience when I had to convert my upper-division seminar last spring quarter. It's not ideal, of course, but it can be done. Same with a lot of staff work. I'm working at home through the end of 2020, and likely beyond, because my job can be done online. It's not ideal, but it can be done.
On the other hand, other University activities (e.g. research, athletics, University chorus, certain lab courses) cannot be done online. If and when these activities can be safely resumed, they should be safely resumed. Not because they are money-makers, but because they are part of what Stanford does.
And, for the record, I'm not just talking about football, although I acknowledge that was the focus of this thread. I'm talking about all intercollegiate sports. So if, for some reason, the Pac-12 and/or Stanford decided to restart football and basketball but not the Olympic sports, then I would be right beside you as part of the virtual protest.
So we do what we can. A research lab with a PI, a couple of postdocs, two or three graduate students, four or five undergraduates and a lab manager might be able to be safely resumed with frequent testing, staggered work hours, work-space redesign, etc. Psych 1 in Dinkelspiel cannot, at least not now.
Another consideration is that, costs aside, a lot of instruction can be conducted online. I know this from first-hand experience when I had to convert my upper-division seminar last spring quarter. It's not ideal, of course, but it can be done. Same with a lot of staff work. I'm working at home through the end of 2020, and likely beyond, because my job can be done online. It's not ideal, but it can be done.
On the other hand, other University activities (e.g. research, athletics, University chorus, certain lab courses) cannot be done online. If and when these activities can be safely resumed, they should be safely resumed. Not because they are money-makers, but because they are part of what Stanford does.
And, for the record, I'm not just talking about football, although I acknowledge that was the focus of this thread. I'm talking about all intercollegiate sports. So if, for some reason, the Pac-12 and/or Stanford decided to restart football and basketball but not the Olympic sports, then I would be right beside you as part of the virtual protest.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(This post was last modified: 09-21-2020, 01:36 PM by Papa John.)
Good questions, BC. I think it's a lot of factors. Outdoor activity is one. The smaller numbers is another. You can give the quick-response antigen test to a few hundred people daily, but what are the logistics to give it to tens of thousands (I'm talking all students, faculty and staff at Stanford)?
So we do what we can. A research lab with a PI, a couple of postdocs, two or three graduate students, four or five undergraduates and a lab manager might be able to be safely resumed with frequent testing, staggered work hours, work-space redesign, etc. Psych 1 in Dinkelspiel cannot, at least not now.
Another consideration is that, costs aside, a lot of instruction can be conducted online. I know this from first-hand experience when I had to convert my upper-division seminar last spring quarter. It's not ideal, of course, but it can be done. Same with a lot of staff work. I'm working at home through the end of 2020, and likely beyond, because my job can be done online. It's not ideal, but it can be done.
On the other hand, other University activities (e.g. research, athletics, University chorus, certain lab courses) cannot be done online. If and when these activities can be safely resumed, they should be safely resumed. Not because they are money-makers, but because they are part of what Stanford does.
And, for the record, I'm not just talking about football, although I acknowledge that was the focus of this thread. I'm talking about all intercollegiate sports. So if, for some reason, the Pac-12 and/or Stanford decided to restart football and basketball but not the Olympic sports, then I would be right beside you as part of the virtual protest.
So we do what we can. A research lab with a PI, a couple of postdocs, two or three graduate students, four or five undergraduates and a lab manager might be able to be safely resumed with frequent testing, staggered work hours, work-space redesign, etc. Psych 1 in Dinkelspiel cannot, at least not now.
Another consideration is that, costs aside, a lot of instruction can be conducted online. I know this from first-hand experience when I had to convert my upper-division seminar last spring quarter. It's not ideal, of course, but it can be done. Same with a lot of staff work. I'm working at home through the end of 2020, and likely beyond, because my job can be done online. It's not ideal, but it can be done.
On the other hand, other University activities (e.g. research, athletics, University chorus, certain lab courses) cannot be done online. If and when these activities can be safely resumed, they should be safely resumed. Not because they are money-makers, but because they are part of what Stanford does.
And, for the record, I'm not just talking about football, although I acknowledge that was the focus of this thread. I'm talking about all intercollegiate sports. So if, for some reason, the Pac-12 and/or Stanford decided to restart football and basketball but not the Olympic sports, then I would be right beside you as part of the virtual protest.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(09-21-2020, 11:28 AM)BostonCard Wrote: If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
(09-21-2020, 11:28 AM)BostonCard Wrote: If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
09-21-2020, 01:34 PM
FWIW, Stanford has its own dashboard at https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...dashboard/, and the reported positivity rate for on-campus students is 0.17.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
FWIW, Stanford has its own dashboard at https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...dashboard/, and the reported positivity rate for on-campus students is 0.17.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
09-21-2020, 01:49 PM
(09-21-2020, 01:34 PM)Papa John Wrote: FWIW, Stanford has its own dashboard at https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...dashboard/, and the reported positivity rate for on-campus students is 0.17.
That's 0.17% (so 17 out of 10,000), not 0.17 (17/100).
BC
(09-21-2020, 01:34 PM)Papa John Wrote: FWIW, Stanford has its own dashboard at https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...dashboard/, and the reported positivity rate for on-campus students is 0.17.
That's 0.17% (so 17 out of 10,000), not 0.17 (17/100).
BC
09-21-2020, 01:51 PM
Yes, positivity rate in percentage. Thanks for clarifying.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
Yes, positivity rate in percentage. Thanks for clarifying.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
09-21-2020, 01:51 PM
(09-21-2020, 12:40 PM)oldalum Wrote:(09-21-2020, 11:28 AM)BostonCard Wrote: If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
Right, I believe that was the initial plan (two-year classes), with a mix of zoom classes for the large lectures (e.g, Psych 1 in Dinkelspiel), and in person classes for smaller classes that can potentially be held outdoors, and which benefit much more from being in person (small seminars), not to mention labs for the sciences and engineering, and potentially the arts.
BC
(09-21-2020, 12:40 PM)oldalum Wrote:(09-21-2020, 11:28 AM)BostonCard Wrote: If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
Right, I believe that was the initial plan (two-year classes), with a mix of zoom classes for the large lectures (e.g, Psych 1 in Dinkelspiel), and in person classes for smaller classes that can potentially be held outdoors, and which benefit much more from being in person (small seminars), not to mention labs for the sciences and engineering, and potentially the arts.
BC
(09-21-2020, 12:40 PM)oldalum Wrote: Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
well not everyone is staying "at home"
Quote:In an attempt to simulate a portion of the college experience while taking remote classes, many incoming frosh have been in communication with classmates through group chats dedicated to searching for a place to stay in the Bay Area.
...
Groups of Stanford students have been coming together in Seattle, as well as Park City, Utah
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/09/14...locations/
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(09-21-2020, 12:40 PM)oldalum Wrote: Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
well not everyone is staying "at home"
Quote:In an attempt to simulate a portion of the college experience while taking remote classes, many incoming frosh have been in communication with classmates through group chats dedicated to searching for a place to stay in the Bay Area.
...
Groups of Stanford students have been coming together in Seattle, as well as Park City, Utah
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/09/14...locations/
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
09-21-2020, 04:53 PM
(09-21-2020, 12:40 PM)oldalum Wrote:(09-21-2020, 11:28 AM)BostonCard Wrote: If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
Not just Vandy. I've posted Notre Dame dashboard previously (and Northeastern is on it, too).
https://here.nd.edu/our-approach/dashboard/
ND's trend looks great, particularly if you consider they are 2 weeks into home football games and in-person classes (for at least a week now).
It's a matter of will, discipline, and resources (the last of which I think most of us agree Stanford possesses).
As for the football decision, can we at least be candid and recognize that Stanford "sent the kids home" (or more directly, disallowed on campus workouts) which other schools did not do. Thus, Stanford is the least prepared team to re-start football. That is so Stanford, especially under this regime. And truthfully, I don't really care whether Stanford plays or not (or whether the Pac plays at all or plays without Stanford). Especially with Stanford lagging, I don't see how the Cardinal can have a meaningful season, nor do I see how a November 7, 2020 season start works for any teams.
Of course, I also do not see the magic behind the December 20, 2020 "deadline" of completing the season (i.e., the day before the CFP announcement). Maybe it has to do with all the bowls (I heard some commentators say they were happening, even if they pitted sub .500 teams against each other). But it seems to me the Big Boys can play through the year and then pick teams. Hell, in 2020, there are no "rules" . . . are there?
(09-21-2020, 12:40 PM)oldalum Wrote:(09-21-2020, 11:28 AM)BostonCard Wrote: If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.
Not just Vandy. I've posted Notre Dame dashboard previously (and Northeastern is on it, too).
https://here.nd.edu/our-approach/dashboard/
ND's trend looks great, particularly if you consider they are 2 weeks into home football games and in-person classes (for at least a week now).
It's a matter of will, discipline, and resources (the last of which I think most of us agree Stanford possesses).
As for the football decision, can we at least be candid and recognize that Stanford "sent the kids home" (or more directly, disallowed on campus workouts) which other schools did not do. Thus, Stanford is the least prepared team to re-start football. That is so Stanford, especially under this regime. And truthfully, I don't really care whether Stanford plays or not (or whether the Pac plays at all or plays without Stanford). Especially with Stanford lagging, I don't see how the Cardinal can have a meaningful season, nor do I see how a November 7, 2020 season start works for any teams.
Of course, I also do not see the magic behind the December 20, 2020 "deadline" of completing the season (i.e., the day before the CFP announcement). Maybe it has to do with all the bowls (I heard some commentators say they were happening, even if they pitted sub .500 teams against each other). But it seems to me the Big Boys can play through the year and then pick teams. Hell, in 2020, there are no "rules" . . . are there?
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »