[akiddoc]

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.

No in-person graduate student instruction this fall. My daughter's boyfriend is a grad student at Stanford and he is in the new graduate student housing. All of his classes are Zoom classes. (And her Stanford job is all Zoom, email and other electronic avenues.) He isn't allowed to go to the lab.

---

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

I don't buy that at all. Kids are really resilient. And many countries don't even try to get their kindergarteners to do anything but play. Yet those kids pass ours eventually by learning at a faster rate.

Most kids will catch up if they get back to full time in a year.

[akiddoc]

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.

No in-person graduate student instruction this fall. My daughter's boyfriend is a grad student at Stanford and he is in the new graduate student housing. All of his classes are Zoom classes. (And her Stanford job is all Zoom, email and other electronic avenues.) He isn't allowed to go to the lab.

---

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

I don't buy that at all. Kids are really resilient. And many countries don't even try to get their kindergarteners to do anything but play. Yet those kids pass ours eventually by learning at a faster rate.

Most kids will catch up if they get back to full time in a year.