Impact on Universities

[nedchester]

To be really controversial it could be argued that the vulnerable are being selfish not allowing the majority who are young and in good health to get on with their lives. Note: That is NOT my view but perhaps an extreme side of the argument.

The thing is that for many young people the virus is not an issue for them. it doesn’t affect them and they just want to get on with life whatever the government and universities say.

As a father of two teenage children I see that every day. Do I stop them going out and seeing their friends? I did for the first three months but now it’s pretty much a free for all.

 

[BJames]

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)

As a student of said university I would like to confirm this is unenforcable. But you can imagine our frustration when they first said this. We have since realised the impracticalities of this and we think it's more of a "covering their back" scenario. They're asking us all to sign this "community pledge" - we're not at school anymore, we are paying to be at University and they need to realise they can't police our private lives.

As someone on our University confessions page said, you wouldn't like it if your company sent private investigators or police round to your houses to check if you were following government guidance. This isn't any different, and it's not just students breaking the rules.

Nottingham's been quite active though. We've got campuses in China and Malaysia and China's campus has returned in full, so they have some form of experience in getting everyone back. Plus, as above, the veterinary campus is open and has been for over a month so it's the first university to get people back in this country. And funnily enough, students have been ok and no extra spikes have been noted in the Nottingham or Loughborough area because students have moved back.

 

[jtuk]

If it wasn't for the fact there's millions of more qualified people now available to apply for every job going and travelling around on a gap year really isn't that attractive right now, I'd have thought most unis would be struggling to fill spaces through people deferring for a year. Then again, Gavin did U-turn on grades and as such there's probably enough oversubscription to balance it out I guess. If I had a place for this autumn I'd certainly be deferring

 

[HSTEd]

As a student of said university I would like to confirm this is unenforcable. But you can imagine our frustration when they first said this. We have since realised the impracticalities of this and we think it's more of a "covering their back" scenario. They're asking us all to sign this "community pledge" - we're not at school anymore, we are paying to be at University and they need to realise they can't police our private lives.

University of Manchester gave themselves this power and was sending security guards around to break up house parties with the police.

 

[3rd rail land]

University of Manchester gave themselves this power and was sending security guards around to break up house parties with the police.

Does any uni have the right to do this? Of course the police do as they are enforcing criminal law but surely a uni security guard can not enforce anything outside of the uni campus?

 

[BJames]

Does any uni have the right to do this? Of course the police do as they are enforcing criminal law but surely a uni security guard can not enforce anything outside of the uni campus?

Don't know about Manchester but Nottingham are trying to get around the clear fact that they have no remit in student areas by asking us to sign this community pledge. And here's what they say on their website:

Lenton, Dunkirk, Radford, Beeston and Kegworth are all popular areas for students to live but these are mixed communities with a significant number of long-term residents.

As well as noise disturbance, large gatherings of people bring a greater risk for COVID-19 to spread. It’s important to maintain social distancing at all times to reduce the risk of spreading the virus.

The University will take reports of any house parties very seriously. We do not recommend holding, hosting or attending house parties as they are likely to negatively impact neighbours and the wider community.

Keep up-to-date with the latest Government advice about meeting people from outside of your household.

Student Misconduct
Any reports that the University receives about off-campus antisocial behaviour or breaking of COVID-19 regulations will be investigated. Students found breaking the misconduct guidelines as outlined in the Code of Discipline for Students may be subject to fines up to £1,500, suspension or exclusion.

To be honest, navigating the wording on this you just have to basically not be stupid about it - hold a massive house party or street rave with a hundred people and you're going to get noticed, cause an inconvenience and they'd probably tell you off about it even in normal times for disrupting the community. Have less than 30 people over relatively discreetly and under Covid regulations there's nothing they can do.

 

[HSTEd]

Does any uni have the right to do this? Of course the police do as they are enforcing criminal law but surely a uni security guard can not enforce anything outside of the uni campus?

They wrote the authority into the terms and conditions required of students to study there.

 

[DB]

They wrote the authority into the terms and conditions required of students to study there.

Given how much universities are going to be wanting those lovely tuition fees this year, there must be close to no chance that they will kick anyone out for anything unless it's really, really serious...

 

[Jozhua]

So, I have many opinions on this.

I think the move to online will be detrimental to learning, but also ineffective at slowing the spread. Once students return, they will mix and socialise anyway, the less lectures = more time to go out and get drunk/high.

The idea that students will stay in specific "bubbles" is ridiculous to me. Firstly, almost every second/third year & postgrad have accommodation completely outside university control and that has already been sorted out by students privately. There will still be challenges for those running halls, as rooms have already been assigned (with many rooms at different pricing tiers) and accommodation providers tend to group similar-ish personalities together to avoid conflict. (There also tends to be a huge amount of people moving flats, when they don't get along with other flatmates.) And also, you're telling a bunch of teenagers who've just moved out of home to not party and not have sex with each other. Some of the crusty bean-counters who came up with these ideas probably haven't had a drop of hormones in their blood for the past decade.

Now, we can either live in cookoo land and pretend that with online learning the university can distance itself from all accountability, but let's come back to reality. Students have already paid for housing, made plans to move and many are already moving in. Once they're here, they'll either be locked in their room away from all their friends and family, with only the odd zoom based lecture or freshers event to stop them from going insane, or they're going to go out and party/**** and risk spreading covid.

So the sensible thing to do, is set up testing on campus (some kind of tent where you can pick up or drop off kits), encourage students who do invite others over to keep track of who they have been in contact with using social media/messaging, distribute cheap masks and sanitiser across campus, make sure all spaces are ventilated and then get students back in to study. Sans the larger lectures, students should be getting the same seminars and practicals, as these are where the true learning happens.

I'll add a comparison to state my theory. You have abstinence only education vs safe sex. One sticks its fingers in its ears and pretends it won't happen, the other is proactive and makes sure to minimise risk when it does. Funnily enough, the second actually results in less sex, because kids don't feel like they need to rebel...

We can either stick our fingers in our ears and pretend we can put it all online and make it go away, or be proactive and minimise risk in ways that aren't completely detrimental to the learning experience. Everyone's only going to spend the extra time drinking at Spoons or sharing a spliff outside a Maccies anyway...

 

[nedchester]

So, I have many opinions on this.

I think the move to online will be detrimental to learning, but also ineffective at slowing the spread. Once students return, they will mix and socialise anyway, the less lectures = more time to go out and get drunk/high.

The idea that students will stay in specific "bubbles" is ridiculous to me. Firstly, almost every second/third year & postgrad have accommodation completely outside university control and that has already been sorted out by students privately. There will still be challenges for those running halls, as rooms have already been assigned (with many rooms at different pricing tiers) and accommodation providers tend to group similar-ish personalities together to avoid conflict. (There also tends to be a huge amount of people moving flats, when they don't get along with other flatmates.) And also, you're telling a bunch of teenagers who've just moved out of home to not party and not have sex with each other. Some of the crusty bean-counters who came up with these ideas probably haven't had a drop of hormones in their blood for the past decade.

Now, we can either live in cookoo land and pretend that with online learning the university can distance itself from all accountability, but let's come back to reality. Students have already paid for housing, made plans to move and many are already moving in. Once they're here, they'll either be locked in their room away from all their friends and family, with only the odd zoom based lecture or freshers event to stop them from going insane, or they're going to go out and party/**** and risk spreading covid.

So the sensible thing to do, is set up testing on campus (some kind of tent where you can pick up or drop off kits), encourage students who do invite others over to keep track of who they have been in contact with using social media/messaging, distribute cheap masks and sanitiser across campus, make sure all spaces are ventilated and then get students back in to study. Sans the larger lectures, students should be getting the same seminars and practicals, as these are where the true learning happens.

I'll add a comparison to state my theory. You have abstinence only education vs safe sex. One sticks its fingers in its ears and pretends it won't happen, the other is proactive and makes sure to minimise risk when it does. Funnily enough, the second actually results in less sex, because kids don't feel like they need to rebel...

We can either stick our fingers in our ears and pretend we can put it all online and make it go away, or be proactive and minimise risk in ways that aren't completely detrimental to the learning experience. Everyone's only going to spend the extra time drinking at Spoons or sharing a spliff outside a Maccies anyway...

Excellent post and well put.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

The Scottish Government have produced their "safe return to campuses" guidance: https://www.gov.scot/news/safe-return-to-campuses/

In summary:

• a continuation of blended learning, with significantly reduced frequency and numbers of staff and students on campus compared to pre-COVID levels
• a requirement to keep face-to-face teaching to small groups, generally less than 30 and supported by other infection prevention control measures. Group numbers of up to 50 students may be considered in some circumstances, but only where supported by a risk assessment
• advice that face coverings should be worn in any area on campus where physical distancing cannot be guaranteed, on dedicated college and university transport and in student accommodation indoor communal areas such as toilets, common rooms and laundry rooms
• a requirement for colleges and universities to give clear information on regulations and guidance to students arriving from outside Scotland, and to take steps to ensure international students and staff who need to quarantine comply with the law, including using appropriate disciplinary procedures

 

[BJames]

The Scottish Government have produced their "safe return to campuses" guidance: https://www.gov.scot/news/safe-return-to-campuses/

In summary:

Some of that is good and some is frustrating.

Wearing face coverings in student toilets? Good luck with that.
And common rooms? Students will just meet in their smaller rooms and end up closer to each other.

But excellent to see the requirement to keep some face to face teaching.

 

[Jozhua]

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.

BAME people are no more at risk of serious infection than anyone else. The issue has been that they are much more likely to get infected, due to working front line roles, not having the finance to isolate as much and typically being confined to multigenrerational households. So as students, I doubt they will be any more at risk.

In regards to mental health, I think remote learning will actually be detrimental to most. Without some structure, social groups and in person support, I think a lot of people will really struggle, especially if they are freshers.

So in regards to staff older students, and those with health conditions, yes there is some risk. But I think this can be mostly mitigated with good on campus testing and tracing, wearing of face coverings in all indoor spaces (except for halls and canteens), making sure spaces are well ventilated and limiting group sizes.

There are already support systems in place for students who might need to learn remotely or have extended deadlines. I'm sure this can be adapted for the more at risk groups. Allowing for students to use their own discretion as to wether they feel comfortable attending certain classes and giving them the option to acess certain facilities out of hours, etc could be a good idea.

But overall, getting students back in should be an absolute priority. Our future doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, mechanics who will be left to pick up the pieces next time humanity cocks up, are relying on high quality training from these institutions.

If the pubs are open, so should the libraries, labs and workshops.

Some of that is good and some is frustrating.

Wearing face coverings in student toilets? Good luck with that.
And common rooms? Students will just meet in their smaller rooms and end up closer to each other.

But excellent to see the requirement to keep some face to face teaching.

Yeah, I mean I think people are just gonna meet up and drink anyway. That's what next door to me did all the way through lockdown. Not living in halls anymore, but my friends sister is moving to my uni, so I'll have to find out from her what things sre like on the ground!

 

[Richard Scott]

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.

So where do you suggest we draw the line? I'm afraid the youngsters have suffered enough so why shouldn't it be about them? They're the ones who've gone along with all this whilst we go on about older people, those in care homes etc. I'm afraid it is time it was about them. Majority of people you list won't be affected either. Shall we put life on hold for ever, let those with cancer die through lack of treatment, let people with mental health issues commit suicide because it's not about them either?

 

[Kingspanner]

No one is putting life on hold for ever, cancer services will not be affected by decisions about students, but I take your point about mental health and this is a difficult balance being struck with inadequate information. I think we would probably all agree that funding for mental health care in this country has been inadequate for a very long time indeed.
I think that the measure of a civilisation is how well the strong look after the weak. The argument being offered that it is all about students is analogous to saying that people can talk on mobile phones while driving because its not them who will get run over.
We make sacrifices every day for the benefit of others, consciously or not, taxes used for the NHS or Universal Credit for example. We accept restrictions in our daily lives that are for the benefit of others - smokeless zones, the smoking ban, all manner of traffic rules, avoidance of noise nuisance and so on. We also presumably support laws which punish those who attack minorities for example in hate crime, this is because we recognise the need to protect the weak from the strong.
I accept that the risk to young people is slight (in part because I did some research to rebut comments made on here and it changed my mind so this debate has real impact) but the risk they pose to others is not slight. It will be years before we know how dangerous Covid 19 really was and will be able to evaluate the effects of Government action properly. In the meantime I'm not keen to poke the sleeping bear.

 

[Jozhua]

No one is putting life on hold for ever, cancer services will not be affected by decisions about students, but I take your point about mental health and this is a difficult balance being struck with inadequate information. I think we would probably all agree that funding for mental health care in this country has been inadequate for a very long time indeed.
I think that the measure of a civilisation is how well the strong look after the weak. The argument being offered that it is all about students is analogous to saying that people can talk on mobile phones while driving because its not them who will get run over.
We make sacrifices every day for the benefit of others, consciously or not, taxes used for the NHS or Universal Credit for example. We accept restrictions in our daily lives that are for the benefit of others - smokeless zones, the smoking ban, all manner of traffic rules, avoidance of noise nuisance and so on. We also presumably support laws which punish those who attack minorities for example in hate crime, this is because we recognise the need to protect the weak from the strong.
I accept that the risk to young people is slight (in part because I did some research to rebut comments made on here and it changed my mind so this debate has real impact) but the risk they pose to others is not slight. It will be years before we know how dangerous Covid 19 really was and will be able to evaluate the effects of Government action properly. In the meantime I'm not keen to poke the sleeping bear.

But we also cannot put life on hold not knowing how dangerous the disease really is.

We've already decided it's worth the infection risk to re-open pubs, restaurants, shops, bars and have people fly on holiday.

So why should we be stopping students from receiving a good quality of education?

Many will be moving in to halls or accommodation anyway and the move has started. Like it or not, the freshers are going to party and mess around. It is too late to do anything about that now.

My suggestion, considering that we are only using half our lab capacity in tests, is that we offer testing on all campuses, regardless of symptoms or not, for the students and staff. It would be a great opportunity to try out pooled testing as well.

 

[Kingspanner]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this https://documentcloud.adobe.com/lin...606a4a2-9237-4f70-8e8e-8a5384a8db39#pageNum=1

This will ignite reignite the fire.

 

[Yew]

I lost you at "Zero Covid University" That's never going to happen, it's cloud cuckoo land levels of delusional to think it's achievable.

 

[BJames]

I lost you at "Zero Covid University" That's never going to happen, it's cloud cuckoo land levels of delusional to think it's achievable.

So did I.

I also continue to strongly disagree with this:

Rather than regarding remote learning as ‘reduced quality’ by default, research shows the opposite can be the case.

Experience tells me this isn't true. And experience of others, including on University websites, forums and chats, seems to match up with mine. I'm not looking forward to another term of remote working.

There's so many things I'd love to pick out of that report. I also found this one entertaining:

Ensure a clear strategy and implementation regarding “bubbles”, households, and gatherings. On bubbles, SAGE has “consistently advised caution” around the application of bubbles, but for universities recommends that the term “bubble” is not used – instead, where it can be done, referring to “segmenting of the population” instead.”

"Segmenting of the population"? Speaking as a student, I wish them good luck getting students to do that.

 

[Kingspanner]

Well done in reading and digesting (or discarding) that document in 4 and 16 minutes respectively

 

[madannie77]

Quite difficult to take something like this seriously when the author(s) don't even know what year it is.

Other than that glaring error, the report gives the impression of being put together by people who have no understanding of how young people behave and how university life works, and in addition seem to be of the opinion that this virus is far more dangerous to most people (especially young and healthy ones) than the evidence shows.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Quite difficult to take something like this seriously when the author(s) don't even know what year it is.

Other than that glaring error, the report gives the impression of being put together by people who have no understanding of how young people behave and how university life works, and in addition seem to be of the opinion that this virus is far more dangerous to most people (especially young and healthy ones) than the evidence shows.

Independent SAGE have been pretty extreme throughout - they're proponents of an elimination policy, and have little credibility in my eyes. As soon as I saw that the report was written by them, I knew it would be overly myopic, and dismissive of anything which doesn't fit their ridiculous goal of "zero Covid".

 

[BJames]

Well done in reading and digesting (or discarding) that document in 4 and 16 minutes respectively

@Yew didn't say he read the document in 4 minutes. That's why the "you lost me at" comment was added.

As for me, going to ignore the sarcasm as I did read the document in 16 minutes, excluding the appendix. It's only 8 pages, most of which is bullet pointed and some of which I've heard before. I didn't claim to have read and made notes on the document as I would if I was studying a source for further reading as part of my degree, I read it quickly and understand the general points they are trying to make (although as @NorthOxonian said above, I pretty much could've guessed the message they were trying to put out before I'd read any of it).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2020 ==

Quite difficult to take something like this seriously when the author(s) don't even know what year it is.

Other than that glaring error, the report gives the impression of being put together by people who have no understanding of how young people behave and how university life works, and in addition seem to be of the opinion that this virus is far more dangerous to most people (especially young and healthy ones) than the evidence shows.

Someone's made a little comment next to the date correcting it. An admin error but disappointing that this was overlooked before sending the report out - it's supposed to be properly proof-read.

I do agree as well - it also seems to assume that students want to do more online learning and are concerned about being on campus, and are happy to be told what to do to make it Covid-zero. I couldn't disagree more with that, in my opinion students don't care what Independent SAGE think and certainly don't want online learning to take up the bulk of their time.

 

[takno]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this https://documentcloud.adobe.com/lin...606a4a2-9237-4f70-8e8e-8a5384a8db39#pageNum=1

This will ignite reignite the fire.

Independent Sage is basically an ego trip on the part of a few oddball academics and hangers-on who are in a sulk about not being in real Sage. Obviously they have the background and training to make the reports look moderately professional, but basically they've got about as much business "publishing" reports like this as my nephew's primary school class. I'm not sure if anybody apart from the Guardian even reports on their antics do they?

 

[Kingspanner]

OK, so we need someone who knows what students think.

I know, what about the NUS? https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/covid-19-and-students-survey-report

I'll spare you the trouble of pretending to read it by pointing out the obvious, that this survey was undertaken in April.

Key findings

"62% of students are somewhat or very scared of contracting Covid19
• This increases with age
• Only 23% of students feel prepared for how they would manage their health if they did contract Covid-19
• Almost all (93%) are practicing social distancing • But 40% of students tell us they are not at all, or only somewhat aware of guidance around living in shared accommodation
• 74% are experiencing a negative impact on family life, and 88% are experiencing a negative impact on their social lives
• Almost all are constantly connected to their friends and families on their phones through social media and phone/videocalls"

Second phase being promoted here https://www.nus.org.uk/en/news/coro...survey-phase-ii/?load=5&top=454.5454406738281

 

[DB]

OK, so we need someone who knows what students think.

I know, what about the NUS? https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/covid-19-and-students-survey-report

I'll spare you the trouble of pretending to read it by pointing out the obvious, that this survey was undertaken in April.

Key findings

"62% of students are somewhat or very scared of contracting Covid19
• This increases with age
• Only 23% of students feel prepared for how they would manage their health if they did contract Covid-19
• Almost all (93%) are practicing social distancing • But 40% of students tell us they are not at all, or only somewhat aware of guidance around living in shared accommodation
• 74% are experiencing a negative impact on family life, and 88% are experiencing a negative impact on their social lives
• Almost all are constantly connected to their friends and families on their phones through social media and phone/videocalls"

Second phase being promoted here https://www.nus.org.uk/en/news/coro...survey-phase-ii/?load=5&top=454.5454406738281

What was their survey methodolody? i.e. is it statistically significant, and is it across a broad spectrum of students?

 

[Domh245]

• A sample of 9872 students was achieved and it was weighted to reflect the student population in HE (54% female, 46% male).
• Respondents were given a chance to win £500 to encourage response, and the survey was live from 27 March until 6 April 2020. It took most respondents around 20 minutes to complete.
• Promotion was via NUS databases, students’ union databases and the TOTUM member database.

I would suggest that only promoting it via those channels is going to have produced some rather biased results. My experience is that those in the NUS and active within Student Unions tend to be a bit more 'woke' and likely to be considerably more along the "oh no, if I leave the house I'll kill my granny" type. And like you say, the fact it was carried out late March to early April (ie peak pandemic) is going to significantly skew the results too. This was about a week on from campuses being closed - a lot more now is understood about the virus, and I suspect a lot of opinions have now changed.

 

[BJames]

What was their survey methodolody? i.e. is it statistically significant, and is it across a broad spectrum of students?

9872 students in that survey. Which, following the figure of Universities UK that there are 1.80 million undergraduate students in the UK, this represents 0.548% of the student population. But also, I'd say it represented my views in April while everyone was at their most paranoid, so I'm not exactly surprised at the results from this April survey. It certainly doesn't represent my views now, and I would be surprised if the Phase 2 results came out the same.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I would suggest that only promoting it via those channels is going to have produced some rather biased results. My experience is that those in the NUS and active within Student Unions tend to be a bit more 'woke' and likely to be considerably more along the "oh no, if I leave the house I'll kill my granny" type. And like you say, the fact it was carried out late March to early April (ie peak pandemic) is going to significantly skew the results too. This was about a week on from campuses being closed - a lot more now is understood about the virus, and I suspect a lot of opinions have now changed.

Not just because more is understood about the virus, but people have also experienced more of the consequences of closures. After a week or two most people would have felt alright, but after five months of isolation people are really struggling. For the first month or so people were willing to use videocalls and similar, but quickly realised how inferior that was to real social contact, and became markedly less keen as time went on. You can't use a survey from April to make conclusions about now.

 

[BJames]

OK, so we need someone who knows what students think.

I know, what about the NUS? https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/covid-19-and-students-survey-report

I'll spare you the trouble of pretending to read it by pointing out the obvious, that this survey was undertaken in April.

Key findings

"62% of students are somewhat or very scared of contracting Covid19
• This increases with age
• Only 23% of students feel prepared for how they would manage their health if they did contract Covid-19
• Almost all (93%) are practicing social distancing • But 40% of students tell us they are not at all, or only somewhat aware of guidance around living in shared accommodation
• 74% are experiencing a negative impact on family life, and 88% are experiencing a negative impact on their social lives
• Almost all are constantly connected to their friends and families on their phones through social media and phone/videocalls"

Second phase being promoted here https://www.nus.org.uk/en/news/coro...survey-phase-ii/?load=5&top=454.5454406738281

You do realise you keep quoting evidence to try and work out "what students think" but that a fair few of the people responding on this thread are actually students...