Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:03AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Trump Admin Caves to Harvard and MIT, Won’t Deport Online-Only Students 52 comments

Trump admin caves to Harvard and MIT, won’t deport online-only students:

The Trump administration has rescinded a controversial policy that could have forced the deportation of foreign students who attend colleges that aren't offering in-person classes during the coronavirus pandemic.

As we reported last week, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sued the Trump administration to block the policy issued by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Under the policy change announced July 6, foreign students with nonimmigrant (F-1 and M-1) visas would have had to leave the United States or transfer to different schools that offer in-person classes.

But US officials agreed to rescind the new policy in a settlement with Harvard and MIT, as revealed [Tuesday] at a hearing on the case at US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. "At a short hearing Tuesday afternoon, US District Judge Allison Burroughs confirmed that a settlement had been reached," The Wall Street Journal reported. "She said the government would rescind the policy, withdraw an FAQ detailing the rule and return to the status quo of guidance issued in the spring."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:06AM (#1018079)

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:21AM (29 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:21AM (#1018087)

    If Trump doesn't have the power to force governors to stop fucking their people over with never ending shutdowns, then this may get their major education industry captains to grow a pair and lobby for a return to productivity.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:55AM (28 children)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:55AM (#1018094) Journal

      die productively?
      productively be sick?

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:06AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:06AM (#1018096) Journal

        Exponentially infect others to be productively sick too.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by Dr Spin on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:59AM (25 children)

        by Dr Spin (5239) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:59AM (#1018124)

        You don't know how luck you are -

        In America, you have the constitutional right to remain dead.

        Here in the outside world, we can be required by the government to, at any time, and without notice, rise from the dead and
        defend their dubious covid death statistics.

        --
        Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @10:58AM (24 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @10:58AM (#1018137)

          Indeed. The government will even support you in death to the tune of $1.4 billion. Purse-strings attached of course, but hey. It's nice to know that even after your death, you'll still be a citizen.

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:44AM (23 children)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:44AM (#1018148) Journal

            Courage, citizen! In Soviet America, you still get to vote after you're dead.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:19PM (18 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:19PM (#1018177) Journal

              You've really gone off the deep end, Phoenix. You're as Christian as a Ba'al figurine at this point.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:31PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:31PM (#1018248)

                I think his claim of being a Democrat was when he was down in Dixie....

              • (Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:39PM (16 children)

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:39PM (#1018252) Journal

                No, you are the one who has lost her mind. I commented on getting a refund on a college education the students paid for but didn't receive, an entirely secular topic, and you link it to Christianity somehow. You're a militant atheist who cannot tolerate others' beliefs.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:40PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:40PM (#1018255)

                  She's not even an atheist, just anti-christian.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM (#1018443) Journal

                    I'm anti-Abrahamic religions. If anything the religion I'm most anti is Islam, not Christianity.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:23PM (1 child)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:23PM (#1018370) Journal

                  Chill, Phoenix! It's the recovery. This is not like you. It will all soon be over. Try to take the historical perspective. And remember, Machiavelli's advice is really just quick and dirty politics, when the fundamentals of maintaining a republic have been neglected for far too long, and things have been reduced to naked self-interest and wars and rumors of wars. In the long run, never works.

                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:06PM

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:06PM (#1018634) Journal

                    It will all soon be over.

                    Define "over." Do you mean "It's Miller Time!" over, "The Rapture" over, "Game of Thrones" over, "The Party would like to speak with you, Comrade," over, or some other?

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM (11 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM (#1018442) Journal

                  I have mentioned, in direct replies to you on this very forum at least 3 or 4 times, that I am a Deist (or that's the closest thing to it; most people wouldn't recognize "panentheist" and think I mean "pantheist").

                  The irony is, by any workable definition of what it is to *be* God...*you* are an atheist. A devil-worshiper, for certain. Yahweh does not meet the criteria for what it is to be God, yet you worship him as if he did. And it shows in your actions, and your specific pattern of breakdown. All your useless virtue signaling about where you live and who you married and what you do with your time means jack shit if you are, as your Jesus was fond of calling people, a "whited sepulcher."

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:02PM (1 child)

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:02PM (#1018633) Journal

                    A bigot by any other name, smells the same.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 10 2020, @01:13AM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 10 2020, @01:13AM (#1018919) Journal

                      So you have no actual rebuttals to any of my arguments, and all you're gonna do is throw insults? Classic. There is far less daylight between you and the fundamentalists you claim to shit on than you think.

                      Also, "Fallacy fallacy" alert! Someone can be a bigot and still be correct! Even if they're correct for the wrong reasons they're still right. I'm no bigot though: you just want to believe that, as if it would make my arguments any less potent or correct if I were one. You are one of those whitewashed mausoleums Jesus spoke of, Phoenix...

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Thursday July 09 2020, @04:17PM (8 children)

                    by DeVilla (5354) on Thursday July 09 2020, @04:17PM (#1018701)

                    Yahweh does not meet the criteria for what it is to be God, yet you worship him as if he did.

                    Where are those documented? Just curious.

                    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @08:28PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @08:28PM (#1018805)

                      While I can't answer for her, the standard criteria for "God," as opposed to "god," is the ultimate supreme being, a sort of One-Above-All. They usually possesses the "omni-" traits or other "perfect" traits, a non-contingent existence, and a "creator" aspect. Yahweh, as depicted in the Old Testament and understood by early Yawistic religions, was none of those. Instead, the name applied to a tutelar, as can be easily gleaned from the bible itself through references such as "the god of Israel" vs "god of the Babylonians." As such, Yahweh is commonly depicted as lacking a non-contingent existence, was not the creator of the cosmos or other gods, and lacking in perfection as recognized at the time. Over time due to the dominance of the Yahweh worshipers in the region, they slowly transitioned from a polytheistic situation, to a henotheistic, to a monotheistic one. Because of this, there are attempts, both honest and otherwise, to rehabilitate the earlier stories in the bible as showing monotheism to various degrees of success. But they are limited in the ability to claim definitive success because they are relying on stories and language constructs that weren't written with such an interpretation in mind.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 10 2020, @01:10AM (6 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 10 2020, @01:10AM (#1018917) Journal

                      The AC below you raised some excellent points, but I'm going to add some of my own (and I've said these to ol' devilbird up there at least once, which means he's just been sticking his head in the sand ever since):

                      Non-contingent existence ("divine aseity" in the argot of theologians) goes hand-in-hand with complete perfection and absolute self-sufficiency. In plain English, if a being is truly God, it lacks for nothing, and nothing added to it, taken from it, or otherwise changed in conjunction with it could improve it.

                      This immediately leads into a problem I've seen called "the problem of non-God objects." Briefly: consider a state of affairs which we shall call "GodWorld" in which nothing but God exists. By definition this is the most perfect possible state, since anything that is not-God, and in this I am including such things as spacetime and the universe itself, is less perfect than God. Furthermore, a truly perfect, self-sufficient being has in the most profound, literal, and global sense *no reason to create.* Anything. Ever. Why and how could it? Even leaving aside the assertion that a perfect being cannot/would not create imperfection, by definition the perfect being lacks nothing, and nothing it creates could make it better. I would allow an exception for copies/aspects of itself, but there's still no reason for it to do so.

                      In other words, the very fact that Yahweh is said to be God coupled with the fact that we exist means he cannot, by definition, be God. And this isn't even an anti-Yahweh argument; it's actually fatal to any God-concept that makes conscious decisions! Yahweh himself has dozens and dozens more arguments against his Godhood.

                      I will expand on one here because it tends to cause the kind of glitchage in a Christian (or Muslim!) brain you normally associate with a computer getting a fat lightning bolt through the PSU: the incompatibility of free will theodicies and heaven. This one neatly drives a sharpened Problem of Evil stake through the heart of essentially every theodicy I've ever heard and the free will argument itself by pointing out a flaw in its premises: this being "Yahweh values free will so highly that he will allow sin to exist, which leads to evil." And the counter is "this theodicy makes your heaven, the only thing you live for, logically impossible." Here's how:

                      There are four possibilities for the truth table derivable from the statements "sin exists" and "free will exists."
                      1) There is no sin in heaven, and there is free will as well
                      2) There is sin in heaven, and there is free will as well
                      3) There is no sin in heaven, and there is no free will there either
                      4) There is sin in heaven, and there is no free will their either.

                      Now option 4 is absurd on the face of it to a Christian or Muslim. Option 2 would be accepted by very few of them, as it opens up the possibility of getting kicked out of heaven, as well as the much more interesting possibility that Yahweh has had multiple rebellions from multiple Lucifer-figures over time, and we've only ever heard about the last one.

                      Option 3 completely defeats the purpose of running a free will theodicy, since Yahweh can't value free will that highly if it isn't there in heaven and if the test for getting into heaven is "proper" use of free will in the first place. This leaves the committed believer with only Option 1, but they are now trapped: this amounts to saying "there is free will both on earth and in heaven, but sin only on earth." What *this* means is that sin is *not* a function of free will, but one of circumstance, and by definition *outside the scope of human choice!*

                      I am honestly surprised at how unimaginative Muslims and Christians are on this subject. This is not an original argument to me, but I did come up with it independently, and have since seen it in at least three other places, one of which I took the term "GodWorld" from.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday July 10 2020, @03:42AM (5 children)

                        by DeVilla (5354) on Friday July 10 2020, @03:42AM (#1018954)

                        Some question regarding non-God objects:

                        • So a God must not ponder anything but itself? Todo so is imperfect?
                        • It can only imagine the perfection of itself?
                        • It can only sit in the static state of its own all-powerful perfection?
                        • Why? Because some person defined perfection that way?
                        • Your definition of something all-powerfully perfect comes with the inability of the perfect thing to co-exist with anything but itself?

                        Regarding the truth table, assuming the perfect all-powerful can choose to craft a thing, is it not possible that it could consider a myriad of potentially imperfect materials (sinful material?) before selecting one or more such materials with which to create a perfect thing? It's not capable of perfecting something imperfect? Or it's not allowed to consider the exercise? Does the assertion that it does not need to do so somehow impose the requirement that it must not try?

                        As far as "sin" being outside the scope of human choice, I think Martin Luther and the reformers actually agree with that point. I think they assert that "normal" people (not their Savior) are sinners and they can't do anything to fix that. If they become not-sinful, it was God's (seemingly) arbitrary decision alone to make that so. That it's God picking the "keepers" and "discards" not based on any quality of any given person in question. Admittedly, that's not a universal belief. Some folks (including some modern Lutheran amusingly enough) seem to believe God turns every person into a "keeper". That doesn't work for the "Conditional Election"-ists though. They get to have freewill to save themselves while God knows in the future they can be made into "keepers". I assume your "God" wouldn't create the non-keepers to begin with nor would have to allowed the "keepers" to be crafted up from a non-perfect state.

                        Sure there are a lot of unimaginative religious folks, but I don't think they are alone in that. It sounds like you and those who you agree with are admitting to being imperfect beings capable of assuming the ability to define the acceptable bounds of a being presumably infinite complexity and ability It sounds like when Hannity on Fox tries to simplify a multifaceted problem into a simple black & white, yes or no question.

                        Mind you, if you read all this assuming I'm trying to build the case for the God of any particular religion, then you are missing my argument, perhaps due to a preconception. I'm currently just trying to work my way to imaging an "all-powerful" being who is so omnipotent that it can chose to imagine or simulate a universe that would produce the mythology of a "Malcolm Reynolds".

                        This all make me think about "The Last Answer". Can your kind of "God" commit suicide? Is it allowed to consider it? Is it allowed to not consider it? Could it be perfect by succeeding, there by ending a chain of reincarnations by achieving a state of nirvanaesque nonexistence?

                        Just to note after skimming the above, when I refer to "your God" or "your "God"", I'm referring to your definition of the perfect "God", not a specific god. I do allude to the Abraham-ic God and something like the Hindu Gods or other Asian dieties. Specifically I think I remember you saying your a deist. I'm not specifically trying to address a deity you may believe. I'm still just working on the assertion that "Yahweh does not meet the criteria for what it is to be God" and the assumption that we know "the criteria for what it is to be God". I think you've made me chuckle once before with something like that because. It sounds like you are "no true Scotsmen"ing God and the idea makes me giggle.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 10 2020, @06:20AM (4 children)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 10 2020, @06:20AM (#1018978) Journal

                          This all looks tiresomely familiar...didn't you attempt this as an AC last time?

                          Most hilariously of all, your objection "Because some person defined perfection that way?" hits at an even deeper problem with the Yahweh mythos: his believers do indeed "define perfection" in some way, mostly to suit them. I am not assuming to have experienced perfection directly; rather I am pointing out that *by the very definitions these people use,* Yahweh cannot be perfect. That is, even granting the definitions of "perfect" a Jew, Christian, or Muslim uses, Yahweh fails to measure up.

                          Do you get it now? However you define perfection, it's part of these arguments that a God *is* perfect and nothing else is. Show that this is not the case given the *other* things a believer attributes to their God, and the game is up.

                          And I have to say the majority of your post is simply irrelevant. Your bullet points show that you didn't understand the things I said; a perfect God *could* ponder imperfections, it would just have no reason to. "Imagination" does not enter the picture. "Static" (and "dynamic") have no place here since, among other things, there is no need for time as we understand it, perhaps not even causality.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @07:46AM (2 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @07:46AM (#1018984)

                            I would like to offer this as a tip from someone who does this professionally: You need to stop adopting burdens of proof unnecessarily. It makes things complicated for no reason and having your additional premises fall just allows the opportunity for your opponent to claim victory when they haven't met their burden either.

                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday July 11 2020, @12:52AM (1 child)

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday July 11 2020, @12:52AM (#1019294) Journal

                              Yes, that is a big problem: for all my cynicism i still tend to assume that anyone able to argue coherently has at least *some* shred of good faith left in them :/

                              --
                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2020, @03:48AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2020, @03:48AM (#1019369)

                                It isn't even a good faith/bad faith dichotomy either. As I said, it can complicate the issues involved and people can lose track of things. It is easier to just avoid the issue completely.

                                By way of example, I was discussing with an acquaintance a highly technical issue between trivalent/MVL logic and intuitionistic logic. The topic of fuzzy systems was brought up by him, completely in good faith. Eventually, the analogy between values broke down and we both agreed I was right and the discussion concluded. Except, and this only occurred to us the next day, that we never actually reached the conclusion as to the original discussion. The reason why neither of us saw it was because the shifted burden onto his fuzzy systems completely obfuscated the underlying argument and we both got confused as to what inferences were discharged from discourse by the failed premises.

                                As another example, my reply attempts to minimize the introduction of new premises, so that way when the resulting contradiction arises is more likely to discharge the "correct" assumption and prevent their failure. That is why I didn't adopt your argument directly, stuck to particular god concepts in question, defined terms to the extent necessary to draw the requisite inferences, used already entailed or scholarly-accepted facts or conclusions, and allowed room for disagreement without necessarily proving fatal to the general discourse nor to its domain set while maintaining proper burden adoption. I also attempted to be as precise and accurate as possible to the defined terms and arguments without being overly complex or verbose given the limitations of this forum.

                          • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday July 10 2020, @01:54PM

                            by DeVilla (5354) on Friday July 10 2020, @01:54PM (#1019058)

                            I don't I post AC last time, but I didn't debate anything either. I just asked if you were really "no true Scotsmen"ing God and left it at that.

                            I get now that you are using a definition of *these people*. I'm not confident if the folks I know who are among *these people* would agree with your definition. Well among the ones I know who have actually considered any of this at any kind of depth.

                            About the rest, I guess I'm guess a bumbling idiot. Thanks for clarifying that.

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:00PM (3 children)

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:00PM (#1018200) Journal

              you still get to vote after you're dead.

              Only if you're going to vote Republican.

              Dead people who vote any other way don't get to vote after death.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:14PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:14PM (#1018216)

                At least they were real Americans when they were alive. It's the busloads of Mexicans driving around and voting in every single State that the President needs to protect us from.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:41PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:41PM (#1018256) Journal

                Dead people vote whichever way the Board of Elections wants them to.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:38PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:38PM (#1018329)

                You only have to be brain dead to vote republican.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:28PM (#1018223)

        Like the flu, it is only a significant risk for the old and infirm.
        The rest of the country needs to keep on living.
        Stay at home if you wish. But don't expect the rest of us to pay for you to cower in fear of a fact of nature.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:49AM (#1018091)

    Reopening soon with in-person classes. The greatest university. F-1 and M-1 approved. Early bird discounts available now.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:59AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:59AM (#1018095)

    IMHO, the sane and proper way to handle this is to treat online classes as in-person classes if the school would have held them in-person before the pandemic.

    For example, if Harvard goes all online, you're still OK if you were enrolled as an in-person student there previously. OTOH, University of Phoenix online doesn't qualify because it was online before the pandemic.

    Of course that makes too much sense, and it would be fair to a group of people that Trump doesn't like; so it won't happen.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:40AM (2 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:40AM (#1018097)
      I'm not sure this is really fair either; if you had a visa and were already resident, then you should be able to stay in the US and study regardless of whether your course was online already or not. What this rule doesn't consider is that overseas students can often be several timezones out of sync with the University, so expecting them to return home (which is basically what this is really about; most of these students are Chinese, Indian, and Mexican) is potentially going to mean an extended period of severe misalignment with the local diurnal cycle to interact with their fellow students which, in turn, puts them at a considerable disadvantage to US-based students. I expect that to crop up a LOT when students inevitably start to sue for a refund of some - or all - of their fees.

      For students signing up *now* to do a course, knowing full well that it's online only, then sure - no F-1 or M-1 visa for you. If you really want to study overseas, I guess you could still find some options for a resident study course in the US, but if not then there are plenty of other countries that have highly ranked Universities to choose from, and some of those counties even have their Covid-19 outbreaks pretty much under control as well. Really, it's just another couple of factors to consider in your selection of Alma Mater. It might rule out a highly favoured preference, but there are always other options.

      Also, for someone who (rightly or wrongly) seems to have a serious beef with the potential for fraud with mail-in voting *and* a strong preference to get the US economy back to normal while denying Covid-19 is still a problem, doesn't it seem rather strange that Trump wouldn't have a similar beef with the huge potential for, say, paying someone more competent to sit exams for you that having courses online presents?
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:03AM (1 child)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:03AM (#1018101) Journal

        some universities are managing the risk [dailymail.co.uk]

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:37AM (#1018119)

          I don't like this approach at all. I was bothered by iClicker's mobile app using GPS to "verify" that a student is actually physically present in a classroom instead of participating from their dorm or apartment. Using GPS in that manner isn't necessarily effective, either, because GPS can be spoofed. While that was draconian enough, but this seems even worse.

          Perhaps assessments should be less about recall and more about higher levels of work than remembering and recalling information [vanderbilt.edu]. Even if classes and exams move online during the middle of the semester, students could be given 3-4 weeks to complete an assignment that tests higher levels of learning and substitutes for the exam.

          Another approach for smaller classes is to have an oral final and administer it via Zoom. My PhD advisor used oral finals and released a pool of questions prior to the exam. That way, there's no advantage to taking the exam later and asking students who took it earlier about the questions. It allows the instructor to ask students follow-up questions if they're uncertain, to really assess what the student knows. The instructor can also provide a bit of assistance if a student doesn't remember a detail. This benefits the students because if they get stuck on one small aspect of a question, they can get help and still demonstrate proficiency in other aspects of the question. Such an exam could be administered via Zoom and really isn't prone to cheating because the instructor should be able to tell pretty quickly if the student understands the material or not. It only works for smaller classes, but it seems like a good idea.

          Rather than turning to draconian and creepy approaches, instructors should be designing better assessments for their classes.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:04PM (2 children)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:04PM (#1018172)

      Not entirely disagreeing with you OP, but I graduated 15 years ago from a blended school where you could randomly take any class live in person or online with very few exceptions (public speaking, performing and some fine arts, most gym classes...)

      All my math credits transferred so I didn't need to retake diffeqs, but I'd have taken math classes in person for the study group atmosphere, if I had to. I ended up taking most of my classes online and frankly did most of my daily grind type of classwork at work during lunch. Some have night school, I had lunch school. Plenty of writing C++ at 3am on the weekend of course, but day to day grind was during lunchhour.

      Anyway the point is for technological reasons even a decade and a half ago sometimes its not clear cut online or offline.

      My kids are getting older and this seems VERY popular now and is creeping into high school for obscure subjects. They can't get enough HS senior students in one school to run an Accounting III class but they can online across all the schools in the district, so ...

      I get this weird feeling that in a decade or two, schools will mostly be giant study halls and study group rooms and maybe some wandering teachers to keep the peace and keep the kids on track but traditional instruction might completely disappear in favor of videos, at least for middle school and up. Which will be convenient if we're still fighting covid outbreaks 25 years from now. My kids school district is being weirdly quiet about next semester plans and the future might arrive in September this year, who knows? I can imagine something like "show up on campus if you have group project that can't be done on video, or if you're behind on getting work done as a punishment, otherwise don't show up". I donno if that's online or offline on the short term. Its online today if he needs help on his math homework, and its offline tomorrow if he's doing fine on the homework.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:34PM (#1018250)

        Are your kids at least more enlightened than their father? Or are you steering their heads towards their butts?

      • (Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:20PM

        by quietus (6328) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:20PM (#1018344) Journal

        For the love of everything I hold dear, I cannot understand this whole video instruction thing. It is as dumb as those breaking news scrollbars underneath an interview or news report. The prime requirement of learning is focus, and focus is best achieved in isolation, no?

        I think this joke of everybody being famous for at least 5 minutes has gone way too far.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:47AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @07:47AM (#1018098)

    Just as importantly, how does this affect graduate students? Many of them can still be making progress toward their degrees by doing research, even if classes are online only. In many cases, they can still access university buildings and labs to continue their research.

    This is a needlessly evil policy, particularly when colleges and universities are willing to keep parts of their dorms open to accommodate students who can't return home during a shutdown. But I wonder if it can be circumvented by having a few in-person classes like labs and performance classes while everything else is online only.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:59AM

      by Opportunist (5545) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:59AM (#1018125)

      This is the usual deflection politics where we can bash foreigners to distract from the atrocious death toll the inapt reactions to the crisis led to. It's actionism at its finest, "look, we do something" grandstanding without effect, but since it only affects those pesky foreigners that can't vote anyway, it's a great tool.

      Welcome to the election year.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Dr Spin on Wednesday July 08 2020, @10:10AM (9 children)

      by Dr Spin (5239) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @10:10AM (#1018126)

      This is a needlessly evil policy,

      Needlessly evil policies are what you elected Trump for.

      --
      Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:14AM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:14AM (#1018141) Homepage Journal

        Nah, if we'd really wanted needlessly evil policies we'd have elected Hillary or Bernie. They both had far more of a desire to control the populace than Trump. I fear good intentions more than pretty much anything else in my government officials.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @03:27PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @03:27PM (#1018677)

          Great strategy: "I'll vote for the guy that is upfront about the evil things he wants to do. People that claim to want to do good things just creep me out."

          How's that "Fiscal conservatism working out for you?":
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/01/18/trumps-big-win-the-largest-budget-deficit-with-a-strong-economy/ [forbes.com]

          Note: this was BEFORE Covid tanked the economy.
          If the guy couldn't keep us in the black with a good economy, just imagine it now that his lack of a response to Covid has given us a bad one.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 11 2020, @03:58PM

            Yes, it is. More evil has been done in the name of good intentions than in the name of selfish evil by a hell of a long ways. Especially among politicians.

            I didn't vote for Trump, dumbass. His economic performance casts no blame my way. It does yours though because you obviously support a party that ran someone so ass-suckingly terrible that they lost to Donald Trump.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:45PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:45PM (#1018163)

        I worked for a sad old man whose only joy in life was political maneuvering to make people do things they didn't want to do. He hired me straight out of college, and a bunch of other people too - some of them very good at their jobs, then 6 months later he was running out of money because his sales projection figures were fantasy. Instead of facing reality, he spent the next 3 months trying to make _everybody_ he had hired look bad. It took a while, but I eventually got his job and he "retired," eventually finding his niche as a University professor with the reputation of: "do anything you can to avoid this guy, he will waste your time and make you miserable in the process."

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:21PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:21PM (#1018220)

          That must have been UCLA right?

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:15PM (2 children)

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:15PM (#1018175)

        I was promised four years ago that if Trump were elected all the Jews would ashes in death camps right now so "we" have to do everything we can to prevent that. That strategy didn't work on me, for several reasons.

        Anyway, I'm just saying being promised over and over that we'll have full ovens isn't quite the same as an anti-loitering policy of "if you aren't going to school, you should go home".

        My kids middle school has the same policy, they're not a day care and don't appreciate the insurance liability so officially you can't hang out unsupervised at that middle school after hours. Very much unlike a college campus, but just pointing out its not unheard of to have an educational institution with an anti-loitering policy.

        They say a masters degree today is like a HS diploma in the boomer's generation, so I guess maybe treating college kids like middle school kids isn't all that ridiculous.

        Also the strategy four years ago of insane levels of trump derangement syndrome dramatically helped his election, so I often wonder at seeing hyperbole this time around; what percentage of those displaying symptoms of TDS are actually wearing MAGA hats and laughing along with me? Ha ha ha yeah the biggest kisser upper to Israel in a decade is evil, ha ha ha thats +2 percent votes to trump right there lol ha ha.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @02:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @02:52AM (#1018499)

          Well you do have an unknown number of abducted children not being tracked (unknown, because official policy is to not count them) being held in concentration camps by ICE and CBP, so nobody knows how many mass graves there are, so... glass half-full?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @03:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @03:55AM (#1018524)

          Batshit crazy, you are past expired.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:00AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:00AM (#1018100)

    the rules say there must be one in-person class.
    universities can easily generate new classes that only contain a few students.
    weekly journal-club type classes, which would serve for people's emotional well-being as well (because they can easily turn into a large cofee-break).
    not even required for technical sciences, where they can simply arrange for an in-person lab course every semester.

    annoying that it needs to be done, but it could be a good thing in the long run even if not strictly needed for paperwork reasons.

    best aspect? this class can be made optional, such that US citizens can actually stay home with their parents and only take the obligatory classes if they so desire.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:19PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:19PM (#1018178)

      not even required for technical sciences, where they can simply arrange for an in-person lab course every semester

      A quarter century ago at a state U I was required to take a chemEng class that was essentially eight hours per week mandatory butts in seats of chemEng word problems. No new content and no new textbooks just sit in a small group and brainstorm how to turn "mixing shit in a tank" into a diffeq problem and then solve it.

      Now it was excruciatingly boring and I'd sit there thinking how much I wished I was sitting in my mandatory for *eng majors programming class and thats how I ended up xfering all over into a BSCS.

      Anyway the point is it would be a trivial administrative activity to create study group classes. For COVID reasons they could even make them optional attendance.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:18AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:18AM (#1018104)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:17AM (#1018115)

      "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

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:51AM (#1018149) Journal

        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

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:48PM (#1018164)

      How can we trust that the university has competent people making these decisions?

      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

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:28PM (#1018184)

      universities will seek to indemnify themselves from liability

      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.

      Students and faculty generally prefer in-person instruction.

      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)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:05PM (#1018201) Journal

      This task force seems very secretive. [...] 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?

      How can we trust that the task force actually exists?

      Although I have no doubt that the funding for it is quite real.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:33PM (#1018376)

        How can we trust that the task force actually exists?

        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)

      by bussdriver (6876) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:53PM (#1018264)

      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

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:00PM (#1018309)

        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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:34PM (#1018377)

      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.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:55AM (15 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:55AM (#1018150) Journal

    College tuition in an age of online learning seems to me an opportunity for the mother of all class action lawsuits. The millions of students who paid full tuition for use of the full educational resources of their colleges, and then were denied access to those facilities, have been massively defrauded. From here, of course, they are on their own to shop around for a more affordable online degree program, and only have themselves to blame if they choose the wildly expensive ones that are attempting to carry the fixed costs of the physical facilities and staff that are no longer relevant, but the students who got short-changed this spring seem to me to have a really solid case. Sue those universities into smoking craters and then see how eager their trustees remain to pay administrators top dollar.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:08PM (#1018151)

      Sue those universities into smoking craters and then see how eager their trustees remain to pay administrators top dollar.

      I like the imagery, but I'd rather burn the admins for the purpose.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:09PM (6 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:09PM (#1018153) Journal

      The millions of students who paid full tuition for use of the full educational resources of their colleges, and then were denied access to those facilities, have been massively defrauded.

      What's the fraud in this case? Covid happened after all.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:22PM (5 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:22PM (#1018155) Journal

        They were charged to be able to access those facilities, and then were denied access to those facilities. The legally correct course of action would have been to refund that portion of tuition that covered the costs of those facilities. For example, is it right to charge a student for a space in a dormitory that you then deny him access to?

        To my knowledge, no university did refund any part of tuition for students they kicked off campus; they wanted to have their cake, and eat it, too. If I were a student who had paid a full semester's tuition and gotten only a fraction of the value of that transaction because of the actions of the university administration, I would be incandescent with rage.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:53PM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:53PM (#1018170) Journal

          The legally correct course of action would have been to refund that portion of tuition that covered the costs of those facilities.

          What of the increased cost from setting up online teaching for a single semester/quarter? Does that too get put into the cost equation. Or are the colleges supposed to provide at no cost to the student?

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:40PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:40PM (#1018189)

            What of the increased cost from setting up online teaching for a single semester/quarter?

            Its not 2005 anymore, I assure you my kids K12 school district didn't spend a penny. Everything like assignment collecting and grading has been online for all classes at least since the "everybody gotta iPad" fad maybe a decade ago. The teachers made free accounts on youtube and uploaded private videos or used the preexisting district wide chat system or just said F it and emailed assignments while stopping group teaching. My daughter's math teacher stopped teaching in a group sense and would only do 1 on 1 or very small group video chats IF the kid was unclear about a concept; hyper customized to each kid and apparently worked pretty well. My son's stagecraft teacher was like F-it make a power point plan and then build something at home and best of luck kids "peace out" and AFAIK everyone got an A, but its stagecraft, in person everyone got an A anyway. My daugher's choir class had kids sing into their ipads and get graded once a week. The point is it didn't cost ANYTHING extra.

            Now I donno what organic chem lab or ballroom dance class had to do, just pass everyone I guess. Did ballroom dance class have to mail everyone inflatable dolls? Maybe you got SOMETHING there, but ...

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:00PM

          by zocalo (302) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:00PM (#1018171)
          I agree with you, but I suspect we're going to be hearing the phrase "force majeure" an awful lot if/when these students get their time in court (which might be less likely if they've already been deported beforehand). Exceptional circumstances like pandemics are generally amongst the scenarios that organizations with competent lawyers explicitly itemise within their small print, and for good reason - they are an obvious example of a "known unknown".

          Ultimately, I suspect it would be very enlightening to be able to follow the money here. I wouldn't be at all surprised to a see a fairly large chunk of that surplus cash ending up in the hands of lobbyists, lawyers, politicians, and others than can make the problem of litigious students go away, and if "go away" can quite literally mean "overseas", then that's just fine and dandy.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:55PM (#1018210)

          AFAIK, our university requested students to leave the dorms and refunded room and board for those that did. Rules about involuntary eviction apparently permitted students who didn't want to return home to stay.
          Tuition refunds, OTOH are being demanded, but haven't been granted (yet).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:35PM (#1018379)

          Act of God, Phoenix666, or act of Trump. Not their fault. Due Diligence. No breach of contract. Why do you hate teachers so much? Catholic school in your past?

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:50PM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:50PM (#1018166) Journal
      Hmmm, let me give an example of why I don't like this idea. Suppose you stay in a hotel for a night and one of the neighbors goes nuts. Lots of shouting. Police are called promptly, but there's several more hours of shouting before the guy is hauled off. Your night is ruined.

      The smart hotelier will offer you a discount on your stay and apologize for the trouble you experienced. But they are under no legal obligation to provide you that discount. They did their part legally by calling police when the trouble started. They can't be held responsible for stuff beyond their control. Meanwhile you could have always moved out and demanded a refund. You stayed that night and used that room. Police might not be responsible either. They can't just shoot a guy for being crazy and he barricaded the door with every bit of furniture he had. And crazy dude was crazy. He didn't even know he was in a hotel room. Thus, you're in the common situation of being unable to sue anyone successfully for the troubles you've experienced.

      That's the same thing with that education. They can't just cancel and refund, because that's likely to delay everyone's education by a year (because many of the classes involved are prereqs and only offered once a year) and because international students are likely to get kicked out of the country by a zealous ICE. And they aren't saving money by "denying access to" "full educational resources of their colleges" because they have to develop that online presence for the full university on the fly. In other words, they can't be held responsible for stuff, like a covid pandemic or government-mandated closures, beyond their control, and they made reasonable accommodations for the stuff they couldn't control so that the students received as good an education as possible under the circumstances - certainly worth what they paid for it. That last bit might not be true, but if I were the defense lawyer, that's what I'd be selling.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:52PM (4 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:52PM (#1018169)

        you could have always moved out and demanded a refund.

        Ever "demand" a refund from a hotel? They don't work that way. As you say, no legal requirement - the smart hotelier might give you one so you don't get loud and upset the other guests, but legally? Nada.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:10PM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:10PM (#1018173) Journal

          Ever "demand" a refund from a hotel? They don't work that way.

          Did I say they always worked that way? FWIW, I do work in the hotel industry and yes, they frequently do work that way.

          As you say, no legal requirement - the smart hotelier might give you one so you don't get loud and upset the other guests, but legally? Nada.

          But you do acknowledge it does often work that way just for that reason. And the reason I said "no legal requirement" is because you stayed the night and fully used the service. If you don't stay the night, that's a very different ball game.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:59PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:59PM (#1018199)

            I guess my point is: if you're "demanding" something, you've got no legal ground to stand on, you can "demand" until the lawyers get bored and leave - it won't change a thing. I actually love watching people "demand" things that aren't going to happen, and I am disinclined to acquiesce to a "demand" which has no basis in requirement.

            You can "respectfully request" a refund in consideration for the extenuating circumstances, circumstances which you are prepared to let pass discretely if the hotelier is reasonable in their response to your request. There's a big difference, in my mind at least. Also, in the era of Yelp et. al. it's a lot easier to "get loud" about a bad experience. My mother runs a VRBO, occupancy rates in her area are 100% determined by reviews, even one less than 5 star review will dramatically reduce bookings. And, while the system is still possible to shill and fill with 5 stars, they do make it difficult.

            If you don't stay the night, that's a very different ball game.

            Again, depends on context. Small motels with low occupancy rates, cheaper operations in high demand areas that don't give a flip about one patron going hysterical, they'll still stiff a request for refund even less than an hour after payment, even if the door to the room was never opened - "so sue the owner if you like." (Personal experience.)

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:38PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:38PM (#1018380)

            Note to self: Do not ever stay in a hotel room next to a hotel room containing a khallow.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 13 2020, @12:39AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @12:39AM (#1020103) Journal
              It flushes the sheets down the toilet or it gets the fire hose again!
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:50PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:50PM (#1018168)

      the mother of all class action lawsuits

      I've been thinking from the start of lockdown that we've created a target rich environment for discrimination lawsuits - they'll probably pass some kind of law to shield the decision makers from all liability, just to be sure that the judges don't get a (bigger) power boost out of this crisis.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bussdriver on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:47PM

    by bussdriver (6876) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:47PM (#1018261)

    They are testing the waters with this one but I'm sure they are exploring (because it's been hinted at) playing with federal funding to universities that are not opening up again. If things weren't worse now they'd probably already be moving forward on that as well as making moves on public schools that are not fully opening up.

    They don't need the authority, as they've done in the past they will break laws and STALL for a very long time. To the extreme where they will literally kill people in some states by purposely withholding and delaying then give extra help to other states, like FL.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @05:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @05:44PM (#1018298)

    The White Nationalist Manifesto:

    https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=31425122 [thepiratebay.org]

(1)