[Farm93]

The president of Brown, Christina Paxson, argues that universities can and should re-open in the fall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opini...QVE13UdvE5

Testing is an absolute prerequisite. All campuses must be able to conduct rapid testing for the coronavirus for all students, when they first arrive on campus and at regular intervals throughout the year. Testing only those with symptoms will not be sufficient. We now know that many people who have the disease are asymptomatic.

If I had seen planning for any of the things noted in the opinion I would be more confident.

It would only take a few anti-restriction protesters to ruin the multi-million dollar plans of a school.  
Opening is the easier part.  What happens if a school has an outbreak or becomes a hot spot?   How hot does the hot spot need to get for a school to close? 

That's the trick as it is likely much more expensive to start on-campus and then rush to virtual instruction mid-term.   Every school will need to make their own risk assessment, but unlike Brown with its assets few schools can afford to be wrong and ultimately do both in the same term AGAIN.   If they pick on campus and then stubbornly stay with that a bit too long they may become the Tyson's or Smithfield of education.

At least for academic aspects schools can decide their own fate.  Athletics requires a full conference or even the entire NCAA to agree on a path.  I can see how an Ivy league school might think sports without fans will be viable, but that's not going to work for a lot of schools since their expenses are only offset if they can get game day football revenue (tickets, parking, concessions).

Tough calls are coming, but the fear of the second way hitting in November likely will force some schools to cancel on-campus classes and intercollegiate athletics because few schools have an endowment safety net and relatively low costs athletics like Brown University.

[Farm93]

The president of Brown, Christina Paxson, argues that universities can and should re-open in the fall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opini...QVE13UdvE5

Testing is an absolute prerequisite. All campuses must be able to conduct rapid testing for the coronavirus for all students, when they first arrive on campus and at regular intervals throughout the year. Testing only those with symptoms will not be sufficient. We now know that many people who have the disease are asymptomatic.

If I had seen planning for any of the things noted in the opinion I would be more confident.

It would only take a few anti-restriction protesters to ruin the multi-million dollar plans of a school.  
Opening is the easier part.  What happens if a school has an outbreak or becomes a hot spot?   How hot does the hot spot need to get for a school to close? 

That's the trick as it is likely much more expensive to start on-campus and then rush to virtual instruction mid-term.   Every school will need to make their own risk assessment, but unlike Brown with its assets few schools can afford to be wrong and ultimately do both in the same term AGAIN.   If they pick on campus and then stubbornly stay with that a bit too long they may become the Tyson's or Smithfield of education.

At least for academic aspects schools can decide their own fate.  Athletics requires a full conference or even the entire NCAA to agree on a path.  I can see how an Ivy league school might think sports without fans will be viable, but that's not going to work for a lot of schools since their expenses are only offset if they can get game day football revenue (tickets, parking, concessions).

Tough calls are coming, but the fear of the second way hitting in November likely will force some schools to cancel on-campus classes and intercollegiate athletics because few schools have an endowment safety net and relatively low costs athletics like Brown University.