SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the prepare-yourself-for-further-tuition-increases dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
International students will be forced to leave the U.S. or transfer to another college if their schools offer classes entirely online this fall, under new guidelines issued Monday by federal immigration authorities.
The guidelines, issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provide additional pressure for universities to reopen even amid growing concerns about the recent spread of COVID-19 among young adults. Colleges received the guidance the same day that some institutions, including Harvard University, announced that all instruction will be offered remotely.
[...] Those attending schools that are staying online must "depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction," according to the guidance.
[...] Of particular concern is a stipulation saying students won't be exempt from the rules even if an outbreak forces their schools online during the fall term. It's unclear what would happen if a student ended up in that scenario but faced travel restrictions from their home country, said Terry Hartle, the council's senior vice president.
[...] Colleges across the U.S. were already expecting sharp decreases in international enrollment this fall, but losing all international students could be disastrous for some. Many depend on tuition revenue from international students, who typically pay higher tuition rates. Last year, universities in the U.S. attracted nearly 1.1 million students from abroad.
[...] The administration has long sought deep cuts to legal immigration, but the goal was elusive before the coronavirus.
The BBC notes:
[...] Large numbers of foreign students travel to the US to study every year and are a significant source of revenue for universities as many pay full tuition.
[...] Harvard has announced all course instruction will be delivered online when students return for the new academic year, including those living at the university.
[...] Monday's announcement said foreign students who remain in the US while enrolled in online courses and fail to switch to in-person courses could face "immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings".
The rule applies to holders of F-1 and M-1 visas, which are for academic and vocational students. The State Department issued 388,839 F visas and 9,518 M visas in the fiscal year 2019, according to the agency's data.
According to the US Commerce Department, international students contributed $45 billion (£36 billion) to the country's economy in 2018.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:18AM (9 children)
I am a faculty member at the University of Nebraska. I have no sympathy for universities during this time. Our administration has absolutely botched the response to COVID-19.
1) Decisions are being made by a "COVID-19 task force" that apparently meets often and is frequently referenced in emails from the administration. This task force seems very secretive. This is a state university, yet it's not even possible to find a list of the people who are on the task force. How can we trust that the university has competent people making these decisions? And how can there be accountability when the task force membership isn't disclosed?
2) The task force doesn't seem to want the input from faculty, staff, and students. There haven't been any public opportunities for any of those groups to ask questions or voice their concerns.
3) Officially, the fall semester is supposed to begin online for one week starting August 17. Then it moves to in-person classes on August 24, with no fall break or Labor Day holiday during the semester. Finals run from November 21-25. This is what has been disclosed publicly. I am aware of one person on the task force, who has shared a small amount of information about the deliberation going on. They've come up with a large number of scenarios for the semester, many of which involve a transition to online classes during the semester as cases increase. This guidance isn't being made available in any official capacity to faculty and students. At a minimum, the university is not being forthcoming about their plans, risking that they mislead faculty and students.
4) During the spring and first part of the summer, faculty and staff were first encouraged to work out arrangements with their supervisors to work remotely if possible. Around the time the university went online only, faculty and staff were instructed to work remotely by default. And for a few weeks, building access was almost completely locked down, with very limited approval for access being granted by upper administration. This worked for the most part. The new guidance is that building occupancy is supposed to be reduced by 70% of normal, so only 30% of the normal occupancy is permitted at any time. However, approval to work remotely is no longer something that's arranged between employees and their direct supervisors. Instead, anyone who wants to work remotely must complete a form that goes to HR for consideration. At a minimum, this makes the process needlessly complicated, especially because HR is not really in a position to know if many jobs can be done well through remote work.
5) While there are deep cuts throughout all units of the university due to budget and enrollment issues, it seems executive pay reduction isn't on the table. Our newly hired university president makes roughly $900k/year, an increase of roughly 70% from his predecessor. There are a large number of highly paid administrators beneath him as well, each with administrative support staff. While I understand that the necessary pay cuts cannot be achieved solely by cutting administrator pay, it's disappointing that this doesn't even seem to be a consideration. Financially, highly paid administrators can much more easily absorb pay reductions than faculty and staff. At a minimum, good administrators would lead by example, voluntarily reducing their pay as a show of solidarity with their employees.
6) The university isn't reporting any statistics on the number of people on campus who have tested positive. This information needs to be publicly available, yet it's not being disclosed. At a minimum, it is essential that this information be available so that faculty, staff, and students can make an informed decision about whether it's safe to go to campus. In particular, fall classes are supposed to be taught using a HyFlex model, allowing students to freely transition between online and in-person instruction throughout the semester with no reduction in their ability to participate in the course. In reality, there will always be a difference between the in-person and online experiences. Students and faculty generally prefer in-person instruction. Yet we need to be able to make an informed decision about whether it's safe to have in-person instruction. Without this information being disclosed, how can anyone properly assess the risk to themselves?
Not specific to this university, but there's a good article in the LA Times [latimes.com] about university administrations taking an adversarial approach toward faculty and students. The article raises the possibility that universities will seek to indemnify themselves from liability for the spread of the viruses on their campuses through a variety of ways. I'm wary of faculty and staff being told they must apply to HR for an alternative work arrangement. Based on this article, it raises the distinct possibility that the university would argue that anyone who doesn't request to work remotely has voluntarily consented to the risk.
I've seen how the University of Nebraska continues to mishandle their response to COVID-19, adversely affecting faculty and students in the process. While the ICE requirements are not helpful in this matter, I have absolutely no sympathy for university administrations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:17AM (1 child)
"Our newly hired university president makes roughly $900k/year, an increase of roughly 70% from his predecessor."
Jesus Christ, that is ridiculously absurd!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:51AM
Perhaps this is the universe's way of correcting such things.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:48PM
Newsflash: most of the big money decisions were already being made by your secret cadre, COVID has just given the shadow puppet masters a name. You can't trust them any more now than you could before the crisis, but the crisis may push them to make some colossally bad decisions - from your perspective. I'm sure if you had full transparency you could see how all these decisions are actually good ones, from the perspective of the committee.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:28PM
Its the same in big corporate world. I already do contract work at home so I don't care but the stuff I hear from onsite employees is about the same as what you hear. The only people in the drivers seat are the legal dept trying to risk minimize at this time.
Your statistical pool is almost certainly people who already decided they love in-person, so the only negative responses you get are going to be those with buyers remorse, etc.
I did blended 15 years ago and there was a lot of trepidation about how I'd get office hours or homework help although the telephone and email worked fine 15 yrs ago and today my kids are loving video conferencing.
The administrators REALLY prefer in person because they've got a physical plant empire to oversee and eternally expand and play endless office politics games about who gets what office what lab and what lecture halls. Online everyone is equal and some administrators REALLY dislike that because they've got favorites to reward and enemies to punish and trade deals to make all of which disappear online.
Overall I think everyone except administrators are better off not paying for unnecessary monumental uni buildings.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:05PM (1 child)
How can we trust that the task force actually exists?
Although I have no doubt that the funding for it is quite real.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:33PM
Quite easily verified, it is called "The Task Force in the High Castle." Nothing Kafkaesque, since regular teaching faculty have not yet turned into giant bugs. So far as we know.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bussdriver on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:53PM (1 child)
This is what happens when you act like everything is a business and hire expensive management CEOs with a business mindset as well as promote that culture. Many places are no longer considering the former professor at slightly higher pay to run their school... it's also not a school, but a business with the idea that students are products...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:00PM
Usually they're selling an aspirational vocational lifestyle couple year long career, and short term wild parties with no life responsibilities as students, in exchange for a lifetime of student loan debt.
Students getting sold usually doesn't extend much past the major mens sports athletes, or sometimes taking ownership of individual personal research results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:34PM
I am also faculty at a University, but not Nebraska. We also have a secret "task force." One of my friends from the medical school was actually on it. He told me that it was a train wreck until he was removed. Turns out that included on the membership were representatives of the Governor, the Dept. of Ed, and "stakeholders" consisting of big donors and businesses. The leadership of the task force not only ignored any input from faculty and staff, but also the other representatives of the school on the task force. They basically were told what to do by the Governor and ED and had their funding threatened directly and indirectly multiple times. They also repeatedly refused to open the meetings under sunshine requests and have had frequent OTR communication. From what I've heard, the state and federal administration is squeezing the University administration, which is taking it out on those "under" them with whatever power they have.