Impact on Universities

[NorthOxonian]

What about unhealthy young people? Those who might be obese or have breathing problems or for that matter mental health issues? What about those with BAME origins? What about the teaching, cleaning, catering and security staff, and for that matter the many many students who are not young? What about the situation at Notre Dame or UNC Chapel Hill in the States?
Universities, like any other public body, have to consider the collective whole.
It's not about you. I'm sorry, to help you hear me, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.

Yes, but a balance has to be struck. You do know that (for example) the percentage of young people suffering moderate or severe symptoms of depression has risen to 31% - social isolation has had a huge impact on mental health. I know so many people who have really struggled, and having harsher and harsher restrictions stretching on for months will make their suffering even worse.

Yes, there will need to be some adjustments, but you have to balance the virus with people's mental wellbeing. You can't just look at one or the other.

 

[Kingspanner]

Let us assume for a moment that students go to University for some combination of educational and social opportunities and that Covid-19 outbreaks are bad (because sometimes people die and/or suffer long term ill effects).
1. Educational. Every university tries to figure out what the best course of action is given their demographics, estate and financial position. Most will attempt at least some face-to-face learning to try to satisfy the "contract" with the students. If there is a Covid 19 outbreak among the staff, and the usual self-isolation rules apply (and they will, for the purpose of this argument it is no good imagining a world in which they will not) then the teaching will all go online, which most people agree is sub-optimal. Just look up-thread.
2. Social. If there is an outbreak of Covid 19 in a university then there may be a local lockdown applied and there goes the student's social life.

Incidentally, given the dependence of many universities on Indian and Chinese students no one wants the publicity. And no one wants to be sued.

So you set off somewhere in the middle ground trying to offer at least part of the experience rather than none, buying time for developments elsewhere.

You do not do what Notre Dame and UNC Chapel Hill have done and end up with it out of your hands. Even by the hyperbole often found in student journalism this https://www.dailytarheel.com/ is bad news for UNC.

A balance is being struck, and I'm sorry if healthy young people don't like it, but their concerns just aren't important enough.

 

[BJames]

I disagree with a lot of this.

Let us assume for a moment that students go to University for some combination of educational and social opportunities and that Covid-19 outbreaks are bad (because sometimes people die and/or suffer long term ill effects).

Let's clarify your assumption - I can confirm without doubt that a majority of students attend university for both education and social and that this is affecting us badly in both respects.

1. Educational. Every university tries to figure out what the best course of action is given their demographics, estate and financial position. Most will attempt at least some face-to-face learning to try to satisfy the "contract" with the students. If there is a Covid 19 outbreak among the staff, and the usual self-isolation rules apply (and they will, for the purpose of this argument it is no good imagining a world in which they will not) then the teaching will all go online, which most people agree is sub-optimal. Just look up-thread.
2. Social. If there is an outbreak of Covid 19 in a university then there may be a local lockdown applied and there goes the student's social life.

Universities will be making provisions for all teaching to be online in order to make it accessible for students who cannot travel back to campus (e.g. they live abroad, they are highly vulnerable, extenuating circumstances etc.). In-person teaching will happen where possible, so I agree with the fact that teaching is likely to be forced back online completely for the 14 day period if there is a staff outbreak.


I think however you are under a false illusion in terms of how a student's social life would be affected by a local lockdown. We all have houses. Whilst I will not personally be holding house parties I know where I can go if I want to join in, lockdown or no lockdown. You can't stop students from doing what they want to do. Extra police, or community support enforcement is not effective as students will continue to do it anyway, and there are not enough resources to target the amount of parties that would be happening. Just look at how often on the news they mention that it takes hours to clear people out of one party or rave - now imagine that happening across the different student areas in the city. Note: I do not either condone nor condemn these actions, I am merely stating my educated predictions, based on my visits so far to different student areas up and down the country, where this is already happening.

Incidentally, given the dependence of many universities on Indian and Chinese students no one wants the publicity. And no one wants to be sued.

So you set off somewhere in the middle ground trying to offer at least part of the experience rather than none, buying time for developments elsewhere.

You do not do what Notre Dame and UNC Chapel Hill have done and end up with it out of your hands. Even by the hyperbole often found in student journalism this https://www.dailytarheel.com/ is bad news for UNC.

A balance is being struck, and I'm sorry if healthy young people don't like it, but their concerns just aren't important enough.

The rest of this I'm not quite sure what you mean. Universities are being forced to accept that they will be receiving very few new international students this year, and are reliant on increased numbers of UK students. Current international students may either study from home or arrive two weeks before to quarantine before university starts. I agree with starting in the middle ground - indeed, I've attended meetings to discuss this in the past, and am very aware of what to expect come September.

I don't really understand what that's linking to, I can't see any article about Notre Dame from that link. Not familiar with that paper as iti s American but I know The Tab, and I wouldn't take anything seriously if it's coming out of a student tabloid, it's written mainly for entertainment and not really renowned for its accuracy.

I strongly reject and take issue with the statement that our concerns are not important enough. My university has over 40,000 students on their role. It worries me that you don't think that our concerns are important? Not to mention that in total, in the year 2018/19, there were 2.38 million students studying at UK higher education institutions (https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/facts-and-stats/Pages/higher-education-data.aspx). I think this represents a significant section of the population and that really, our concerns are important.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

All four nations have made an effort to get schools back full-time - now they should be focusing on getting colleges/universities back to as normal as possible, none of this "online only" nonsense for the first semester. AFAIK there has been no guidance on the return of universities issued by UK or Scottish governments (unsure about Wales/NI).

FWIW I've been given little to no information by my Uni.

 

[Huntergreed]

All four nations have made an effort to get schools back full-time - now they should be focusing on getting colleges/universities back to as normal as possible, none of this "online only" nonsense for the first semester. AFAIK there has been no guidance on the return of universities issued by UK or Scottish governments (unsure about Wales/NI).

FWIW I've been given little to no information by my Uni.

I agree, but I think it's, sadly, clear this isn't going to happen.

My uni is online only for term one, and they 'don't envisiage a return to fully on-campus learning in the upcoming academic year'

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I agree, but I think it's, sadly, clear this isn't going to happen.

My uni is online only for term one, and they 'don't envisiage a return to fully on-campus learning in the upcoming academic year'

Yeah. Feel sorry for those who plan on moving away from home as they're destined to be in the same four-walls most days with Microsoft Teams open.

The only thing I've been told by my uni is "blended approach" with a phased return to more on-campus teaching as government guidelines allow for it.

 

[BJames]

I agree, but I think it's, sadly, clear this isn't going to happen.

My uni is online only for term one, and they 'don't envisiage a return to fully on-campus learning in the upcoming academic year'

We're sort of taking it one term at a time, nothing concrete about January/Feb onwards, but there's no optimism around either. Such a shame.

 

[brad465]

There's now a leading article warning about University returns being the driver of a second wave:

Coronavirus: University return 'could spark Covid avalanche'

Lecturers say cases may soar as students move in, but ministers insist institutions are prepared.

www.bbc.co.uk

Universities in the UK are being urged to scrap plans for face-to-face teaching until Christmas in order to prevent a second wave of coronavirus.

Academics' union, UCU, said more than a million students moving around the country was "a recipe for disaster".

UCU leader Jo Grady said universities were not prepared, and risked becoming the "care homes of the second wave".

But university bosses say they have worked hard to plan for a safe return to all aspects of student life.

When the students return in September, they will be expected to abide by new policies on the use of face coverings and social distancing protocols.

From what I've heard a number of Universities have already ditched face-to-face teaching for the rest of this year at least anyway, although it maybe wrong to single out Unis as if they're the ones to be solely responsible for a second wave as implied here?

 

[DB]

This 'things which could cause a second wave' list is becoming as much of a joke as the list of things which the Daily Mail has claimed could cause cancer.

I.e. there's pretty much nothing which doesn't eventually make it onto the list!

 

[adc82140]

There's now a leading article warning about University returns being the driver of a second wave:

Coronavirus: University return 'could spark Covid avalanche'

Lecturers say cases may soar as students move in, but ministers insist institutions are prepared.

www.bbc.co.uk

From what I've heard a number of Universities have already ditched face-to-face teaching for the rest of this year at least anyway, although it maybe wrong to single out Unis as if they're the ones to be solely responsible for a second wave as implied here?

Ah yes, a prediction from those experts on epidemiology, a trade union. The unions seem to be much better informed than the real experts :-/

However, sarcasm aside, going by previous form the prime minister will probably immediately u turn as a result and give in to their every demand, because he wants people to like him.

 

[6862]

However, sarcasm aside, going by previous form the prime minister will probably immediately u turn as a result and give in to their every demand, because he wants people to like him.

And I'm sure that the universities will be only too pleased to comply. I'm fully expecting a pretty miserable 3-6 months at my university - I doubt I'll be doing much research during that period as I imagine the university will be keen to close everything as soon as there's single case (and let's face it, cases are inevitable). The only way I can see the mass movement of students being of concern is if infection spreads to local communities - but as most infection is supposedly when people gather in houses, surely its likely to remain mostly among the student population? I don't think many students socialise with 'locals'/non-students.

 

[adc82140]

Students are also the least likely to go and give it to an elderly person.

 

[PTR 444]

There's now a leading article warning about University returns being the driver of a second wave:

Coronavirus: University return 'could spark Covid avalanche'

Lecturers say cases may soar as students move in, but ministers insist institutions are prepared.

www.bbc.co.uk

From what I've heard a number of Universities have already ditched face-to-face teaching for the rest of this year at least anyway, although it maybe wrong to single out Unis as if they're the ones to be solely responsible for a second wave as implied here?

What a load of tosh. Most unis have implemented sufficient measures already so why should there be a need to take further action? As stated above, students are the least likely group to pass the virus onto the elderly. Yes there will be a minority of students who are considered to be at risk of falling seriously ill themselves, but I’m sure they would do the right thing and shield if required to do so.

 

[PHILIPE]

Perhaps it would be better if the Unions were to try and persuade the students to observe the Social Distancing and other Rules.

 

[DB]

Perhaps it would be better if the Unions were to try and persuade the students to observe the Social Distancing and other Rules.

Why?

Thess rules will make life difficult and unpleasant and mean anything like normal student life is impossible. How is this a reasonable response to a virus which poses an absolutely negligible risk to most people of that age? And indeed a pretty negligible risk to most people of working age.

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps it would be better if the Unions were to try and persuade the students to observe the Social Distancing and other Rules.

Perhaps it would be better if the unions remembered that no students = no jobs for their members.

 

[Scotrail12]

Students are also the least likely to go and give it to an elderly person.

Exactly - student's parents are rarely elderly and if they live away at uni, they won't see much of their remaining grandparents anyway. How many 80+ year olds do I spend time around? Not many - the people I live with are 49, 50, 18 (me) and 16. I do visit grandparents most weeks but if going back to uni meant I had to visit less and/or ensure strict distancing when I do see them, then frankly so be it.

 

[BJames]

This article and "news" about universities being drivers of a second wave is further frustrating media hysteria, given that everyone relevant in this field has already worked out that whether or not universities go online, students will still move back to their student area. I've paid for my first quarter and am obliged to pay for my student house until 30th June 2021. I don't intend to spend 100% of this time at my family home instead, whilst still paying for my student house.

Bottom line - students will mix with each other, whether the universities and the government want us to or not. This could lead to students catching covid, but being based entirely in the student area, they will not cause an increased risk to the rest of the country. This huge fixation on "increased case numbers" is getting frustrating. Those worried about students mixing need to remember that teenagers up and down the country have been mixing throughout this anyway, and it hasn't led to a second wave. They're just going to be mixing with their university friends rather than their friends from home.

Those who are vulnerable will be supported. You can take your first term online if you have extenuating circumstances. Lecturers who are vulnerable will not be mingling with students. The risk is miniscule.

To be perfectly honest, my university has done quite well covering their back. They're "investing" £60,000 with the other university in the city to patrol the student area. Reassuring for residents but delving into the detail, they're using community protection officers who we've noted have limited powers anyway (not to mention that £60k doesn't result in that many new officers). But the residents are happy. And it makes it look like they're doing all they can - so the University is covering themselves.

Anyway, I guess we'll see what happens. Let's hope universities don't bow to pressure and just send everything online again. I know mine has no intention to unless they're explicitly told to by the government. Lectures will be online, yes, but seminars, practicals, labs and small group teaching is all going to be in person where possible.

 

[PHILIPE]

Why?

Thess rules will make life difficult and unpleasant and mean anything like normal student life is impossible. How is this a reasonable response to a virus which poses an absolutely negligible risk to most people of that age? And indeed a pretty negligible risk to most people of working age.

I know these rules make life difficult and am not in agreement with them but in that case the unions should just keep quiet instead of adding to Project Fear

 

[DB]

I know these rules make life difficult and am not in agreement with them but in that case the unions should just keep quiet instead of adding to Project Fear

Don't disagree with you about unions. Does seem that they are wanting to be seen to be doing something!

 

[Huntergreed]

I know these rules make life difficult and am not in agreement with them but in that case the unions should just keep quiet instead of adding to Project Fear

Precisely, the unions are just causing more trouble, the education and rail unions in particular have been vocally challenging throughout the recent months.

 

[Bikeman78]

Exactly - student's parents are rarely elderly and if they live away at uni, they won't see much of their remaining grandparents anyway. How many 80+ year olds do I spend time around? Not many - the people I live with are 49, 50, 18 (me) and 16. I do visit grandparents most weeks but if going back to uni meant I had to visit less and/or ensure strict distancing when I do see them, then frankly so be it.

Agreed. When I was at uni, my one remaining grand parent was in her 80s. I only saw her a few times a year. My parents would have been late forties/early fifties so not high risk.

 

[BJames]

I've seen quite a few articles going round today like the one in post #188. I have now written to the UCU to ask them to produce their evidence that it is (and I quote from their statement) "too dangerous". Grady is just making things up as she's going along, none of this makes any sense. Not really expecting a response but I just hope Universities don't bow to pressure.

Just look at this (sorry for the strange formatting but in the quote box below) - April Vet students are already back doing face-to-face teaching at Nottingham. Funnily enough they've been ok. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53962714

For reference, we take an extra cohort in April (for veterinary only) as well as the usual late September cohort - an unusual technique but has meant that Nottingham already knows what they're doing (at least, I hope).

 

[NorthOxonian]

As someone who's suffered heavily with mental health issues during my time at university, I have a pretty good knowledge of what depressing actually means. And being cooped up, socially isolated, not feeling like you have anywhere to turn for support, and fearful for your future? That's almost guaranteed to make your mental health worse. So many people that I know feel absolutely awful at the current time, my generation really feel like we've been thrown under the bus. And we're seeing our mental health suffer - a recent study found 31% of young people now have moderate to severe symptoms of depression, and in my experience that's an underestimate (the true figure might well be getting up to 50%).

I'm not saying that everything should go back to normal. But fixating on this virus, while ignoring the things which make people feel like their life is worth living, is a recipe for disaster. If I wanted to be provocative, I'd say that those attitudes betray a sickening view of those with less than 100% perfect mental health, who have found life nearly impossible over the last few months, but I don't actually think most people arguing for restrictions do have dodgy views about those with difficulties in that regard - I just think they're inconsiderate.

 

[BJames]

As someone who's suffered heavily with mental health issues during my time at university, I have a pretty good knowledge of what depressing actually means. And being cooped up, socially isolated, not feeling like you have anywhere to turn for support, and fearful for your future? That's almost guaranteed to make your mental health worse. So many people that I know feel absolutely awful at the current time, my generation really feel like we've been thrown under the bus. And we're seeing our mental health suffer - a recent study found 31% of young people now have moderate to severe symptoms of depression, and in my experience that's an underestimate (the true figure might well be getting up to 50%).

I'm not saying that everything should go back to normal. But fixating on this virus, while ignoring the things which make people feel like their life is worth living, is a recipe for disaster. If I wanted to be provocative, I'd say that those attitudes betray a sickening view of those with less than 100% perfect mental health, who have found life nearly impossible over the last few months, but I don't actually think most people arguing for restrictions do have dodgy views about those with difficulties in that regard - I just think they're inconsiderate.

I agree with this, put much better than I could have done.

Although I feel immense sympathy for those who are vulnerable, I can't agree that all of this justifies the restrictions imposed throughout society for this extended period of time. We're in a middling state . We do not know what the mental impact of lockdown, quarantine and these restrictions have either on some of us.

Some students, like myself, are taking full notice of the fact that some people are vulnerable. I am continuing to keep my distance from those who I don't know. Those who I do know, and come into close contact with, well - we both know and accept the risk. We don't then go and visit relatives in care homes (I did my visit before having come into close contact with anyone outside my household).

The fact of the matter is that students will return to university (UCU can say what they want - I've basically moved in anyway, so have many others in the area) and will mix in their student areas. I don't believe that going to campus for seminars and practicals (where the environment is much more controlled than the student areas) would increase transmission more than it's already going to be in the student areas.

Life is going to need to get back to normal sooner or later.

 

[bramling]

This whole thing has already gone on for essentially a year, with devastating effects on jobs and society. Look no further than this years GCSE and A-level students for an example of this - and I don’t use the term devastating lightly, but not being able to take a once-in-a-lifetime key exam is exactly that. It’s rapidly becoming too much of a gamble to have all this damage off the back of gambling on a vaccine which may never come or may never have lasting effect.

There is no easy answer to all this, however I think increasing numbers of people are being persuaded that the cure is fast becoming worse than the virus. It’s absolutely not good that people have to shield, but unfortunately this really does seem to be the lesser evil at the moment. We cannot trash every strand of our society, which is what will happen if things continue down the current route.

One area which could and should have been done better is cohesion - this is a massive government failure. Look no further than the way people are at each other’s throats over masks for an example of this.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Truth be told, it's an impossible situation. I don't think getting rid of all restrictions which forces the vulnerable into effectively a prison is a good idea. But equally, restrictions shouldn't be so tight that those who are less vulnerable live an utterly miserable life. Because I'm very extroverted, have struggled with mental health, and am worried restrictions could jeopardise my future, I'll freely admit I'm pretty biased and tend to usually supporting loosening restrictions. Whereas those with physical health concerns are going to see things very differently. What's really needed is a way to bring those from the different groups across society to a round table, and have a frank discussion about how we're going to balance the different issues like stopping people getting the virus, ensuring people have fulfilling lives, and preventing an economic disaster. There isn't going to be an easy compromise - many, many people are going to find their life very difficult until the day when the large majority have had a vaccine. The question is how to make this (inevitable) suffering as fair as possible, rather than having certain vulnerable people have unlivable lives.

 

[6862]

It is totally unrealistic to expect universities (or any pary of our society) to be able to continue under these restrictions for much longer. Universities are not functioning as they should right now, and the suggestion that they should remain closed is only going to lead to mass closures (some are already in terrible financial states) and the loss of educational opportunities for thousands.

Also (this may fit better in another thread but I'll just add it as a brief thought here), it is unfortunately a part of life that there are always going to be infectious diseases out there that could make some people very ill or kill them. Of course our universities (and other scientific researchers) are trying to find cures/treatments/vaccines (and I hope they do make progress!) but sadly they'll never be able to save every person. We need to realise this and stop having this unrealistic world view of totally protecting ourselves. People in the past didn't have this viewpoint - they were much more accepting of the fact that life is short and can end at any time. In my opinion it's the transition to a largely atheistic society which has caused this change. So I would say we need universities to open up again so they can get on with teaching and doing research (yes we can do some right now but it's limited) - and we need to avoid getting into the same fear-mongering that has surrounded every reopening so far (pubs, shops, schools etc.). Let's base our decisions on evidence instead.

 

[nedchester]

I also noticed that the University of Nottingham is also stating that sanctions will be applied to students who socialise outside of their “bubble”. They must know this is completely unenforceable.

How can a university tell their students not to go for a drink or a party with friends on a Sunday? A real question of civil liberties.

If posters think this is OK then I ask them to think of the long term consequences.

I also say this as a parent of an 18 year old shortly to go to university (he was out on Friday with his friends)

 

[Richard Scott]

Sitting at home waiting for a vaccine could mean a long wait. Surely it's better to let others get on with life, get the virus and develop some herd immunity (admittedly not proven) but if this works all those shielding will be able to get out sooner and it'll be safer. Ok, this could be a gamble too but this persistent policy of keeping infections down will just maintain the status quo for longer and helps no-one.