OT - Did universities even have a choice not to open in person? (Twitter novel on why they didn't)?

Submitted by kehnonymous on August 19th, 2020 at 12:09 PM

I saw Brian retweet this and thought it worth sharing with the board.  Lots of this is out of my ballpark as someone who has been out of a university environment for 25 years, but the author does a pretty good explanation for how COVID has exposed the house of cards that is the financial paradigm of our universities.  (As a side note, I paid attention to this thread because I was already familiar with Deveraux from his very entertaining blog treatises on how popular films and movies like LotR and GoT get pre-firearm combat right and wrong)

 

So everyone is talking about UNC's COVID-19 mess - and all that criticism is perfectly valid.

But we also need to talk about why the uni-administration probably had no choice.

Buckle up and let's talk about university finances and the 4 horsemen of the academipocalypse. 1/lots?

— Bret Devereaux (@BretDevereaux) August 19, 2020

UP to LA

August 19th, 2020 at 12:35 PM ^

But the thread is less about whether "choice" exists in any formal way, and more about how structural factors of university administration strongly push the choice in one direction. And that discussion is really important, not because it exculpates administrations from putting students and staff in danger, but because Baumol's Cost Disease, the businessification of campuses, etc. are extremely important and extremely damaging outside of pandemic crisis response, and they inform what an adequate response might look like.

mackbru

August 19th, 2020 at 3:56 PM ^

Because science demands it. Because the pandemic threatens lives. Because football is the enemy of social distancing. Because players are amateurs. Because it isn’t in any way the school’s biggest moneymaker. Because legal liability is a real thing. Because ethics trump entertainment. Because football doesn’t run real colleges. Is that enough for you?

Wendyk5

August 19th, 2020 at 7:43 PM ^

I'd love to hear from data people on this: would it be possible to compare the Covid-19 pandemic to the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, taking into account 100 years of medical advancement? Given that we are better equipped medically just due to basic progress, is it safe to say the numbers are comparable (I know we are not at the end of this pandemic and the numbers will continue to go up)? And then add in those "Draconian measures" which have assuredly prevented the numbers from being even greater, is it fair to say that these are similar pandemics? I only ask because I've heard many deniers say, "This ain't no Spanish flu," and I'm wondering if, in fact, it is. 

Njia

August 19th, 2020 at 11:18 PM ^

Actually, that data does exist. Adjusting for the increase in population, the cases and deaths are fairly comparable at this point in the pandemic. The 1918-20 Pandemic had three waves. The second one, beginning in August of 1918, was far deadlier than the spring wave. In the U.S., 292,000 people died of the flu between September and December, compared to 75,000 deaths in the January - June period.

mjv

August 19th, 2020 at 3:32 PM ^

The overall concept of the thread has some merit.  There are specifics that are probably misplayed.

The driver of the tuition is the readily available student debt. It has made it possible for the cost of attendance to run rampant.  If students couldn't afford to pay more in tuition and fees, the tuition and fees would not have gone up for all schools.  That allowed for the rock climbing walls and the such. 

Growing up in Michigan, the funding for the public universities has been in steep decline since the late 1960s / early 1970s (likely tied to declines in the auto industry).  So to hear that this is a more recent phenomenon was unanticipated.  

There is probably a lot of nuance around how endowment funds and proceeds are utilized that could provide additional context to the thread.

CC

August 19th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^

As a parent I will still pay to send my kid to college as the degree opens doors.

The real question is if 20-30k for private HS is going to be sustainable online.  McDonough school (near where I live) is +/- 25k per year and will be 100% remote with no sports... why pay 50k plus post tax $ so they can basically be taught at home?

1989 UM GRAD

August 19th, 2020 at 1:39 PM ^

My oldest - current U of M sophomore - went to a private high school.

My youngest - heading in to 11th grade - went to public school and is switching to a private school (not the one our son attended) this fall.

That being said, I love the reference to "Precious Crotch Fruit" and may even start referrring to my kids in that manner!

(By the way, we have had substantive reasons for sending our kids to private schools!)

Dix

August 19th, 2020 at 12:23 PM ^

I can't believe I read all of that, but am kinda glad I did. It was an interesting articulation of problems that are perceptible even to people who don't really care and are hard to nail down without thinking too hard about it. Thanks for the post. 

ThePonyConquerer

August 19th, 2020 at 12:24 PM ^

"Sometimes I wonder if Shea and Sparty are actually my friends. I mean, one day both of them just came over and said that they're my newest best friends. And I just went along with it."

RGard

August 19th, 2020 at 2:48 PM ^

Yes, I do.  He has negative points, but he keeps posting as long as the mods let him.  He's playing with house money.  He could just crawl away but he doesn't. 

Some folks take themselves too seriously.  He obviously doesn't.  That's cute.

Double-D

August 19th, 2020 at 12:26 PM ^

The smart financial choice is to take on line community college courses that you know will transfer to the University of your choice. Especially if you are an incoming freshman. This semester and likely this year is a waste for University life and education. 

Naked Bootlegger

August 19th, 2020 at 12:46 PM ^

Community colleges should benefit from this situation.   They're a budget friendly option that know how to teach in an online environment.

Interestingly, a handful of just-graduated high school seniors in my area are opting for gap years and capitalizing on the home-school emergency by tutoring basically full time this year.   Strange times.

blue in dc

August 19th, 2020 at 1:10 PM ^

My daughter took the defer and tutor/nanny path.   For at least some schools, if you defer admission for a year, they won’t give you credit for any classes taken during that time.   Since she got into the program of her choice with an academic scholarship which she wouldn’t be guaranteed if she reapplied, the defer and work option made much morse sense.  If you are planning on going to a school you are comfortable getting into if you reapplied, the community college root makes a ton of sense.

Carpetbagger

August 19th, 2020 at 3:38 PM ^

I did the CC route as well. I have no idea why anyone would pay full freight for the first two years of what is honestly high school review. I know it's been 30 years, but it was 1/3 the cost back then, I can't imagine it isn't even more of a savings now, plus usually you save room and board.

I know some people are more advanced, and would need the 300 and 400 level classes in those years, but if you could certainly save a year or so of expense.

My GPA was about the same in CC and University, and actually higher in grad school. Grades are generally more about effort, at least in my experience.

momo

August 19th, 2020 at 12:26 PM ^

This is an OK analysis but pretty thin on some key points (including the role of gov't subsidies which he gets totally wrong IMO).

There are plenty of actual education specialists out there who cover this stuff a lot more thoroughly.

UWSBlue

August 19th, 2020 at 12:37 PM ^

The Dean of the UNC School of Public Health (which would have a pretty good read on handling pandemics) wrote a piece on the decision-making process and basically said the Board of Governors mandated the school be open (see excerpts and link below).

"... the Board of Governors, the governing body for the UNC System, of which UNC-Chapel Hill is part, issued directives to campus chancellors, including ours."

and 

"I was sympathetic to the different viewpoints, but saw angles they sometimes did not see, including the first-year students who wanted a real college experience, the parents who demanded it, the BOG which commanded it, and the financial crisis that would be exacerbated if there were large decrements in housing and meal contracts, sports and other sources of support for university operations."

https://mondaymorning.web.unc.edu/campus-decisions-who-makes-them-with-what-consequences-and-when-to-change-them/

This is same board that was caught earlier this year secretly giving $2.5 million to the Sons of Confederate Veterans relating to a statue on campus and a new HQ.  The donation was cancelled once it became public.

 

ThisGuyFawkes

August 19th, 2020 at 12:39 PM ^

TL;DR - There is always a choice -- especially for universities with significant resources (such as Michigan).

The author's callouts of contributing factors (poor business model, funding cuts, etc.) is correct, but I feel like he only partially explores the real "choice" universities had and doesn't discuss the impact myopic decision-making has had in painting the universities into the corner they are currently in. Let me try an analogy - Walmart came in and kicked retailers asses because they were ruthlessly efficient, squeezed suppliers and could offer everything at a lower / same cost as competitors. If you are another retailer and you want to compete with Walmart you typically don't want to start a price war. Yes, you may want to copy some aspects of Walmart's operations but you need to provide something different (e.g., quality) to customers. 

Similarly, just because many universities got on this hedonistic treadmill of adding amenities and upgrading facilities, does not mean that all (or even most) had to follow. A significant investment in reducing class sizes, increasing teacher to student ratio, better integration of digital tools and remote learning technologies --- are just a few examples of things that would have left universities better positioned to adapt to this disruption. And yes, hindsight is 20/20 - but many of these changes have been obvious yet ignored for a long time.

My general takeaway is that the author feels that this was inevitable because of funding cuts, increasing costs and a poor business model. All of these things may be true, but does not absolve university administrators for the series of poor and short-sighted choices and investments they have made over decades

MgofanNC

August 19th, 2020 at 1:14 PM ^

Keep in mind though, you're selling your "product" to 18 year olds who often want the education sure, but aren't super interested in where their teacher's PhDs are from and what their dissertations and other published research is focused around. They are interested in that new dorm or the swanky gym, or that they might take a class with X future NFL player, etc. etc. 

I teach roughly 100 mostly Freshman and Sophomores every semester at a Public University. I have never been asked what my research is about or what my teaching philosophy is or really much of anything regarding my teaching or academic work. I know they want a good education but they don't know what that means when they are picking a school (neither do their parents for the most part). 

ThisGuyFawkes

August 19th, 2020 at 2:11 PM ^

Your point is well taken, although I'd add that often times it is the parents who are paying the bills and thus are almost equal customers as compared to the students. And while job placement, average starting salary after graduation, alumni network may not be top of mind for most 16-18 year olds deciding on schools, it does carry significant weight for parents who can help guide the decision. It also helps if you can sell swanky facilities and great sports programs :)

901 P

August 19th, 2020 at 3:36 PM ^

I teach at a small liberal arts college so I sometimes have occasion to talk to students' parents. They have never expressed interest in my research, sometimes a bit in the courses I teach. But in reality many parents who are interested in the academic reputation of a school simply check the rankings from US News or some other outlet. Based on the campus tours that I observe it doesn't seem like academics is a big part of the pitch, except for maybe showing one up-to-date classroom space. I think many families have a vague sense of academic reputation and then look at all the other things the school offers--sports, activities, support system, dorms, dining options, etc. 

bronxblue

August 19th, 2020 at 1:28 PM ^

I agree with your take, but would like to point out (like the author somewhat did in the thread) that the administrators of these schools aren't necessarily the same that used to run schools; his joke about how Harvard is an investment bank acting like a University is spot-on.  The people running these schools are, largely, fundraisers and business types.  They imported this particular business model because it's what they know, and those administrators who didn't follow suit were replaced with those who would.  So in a sense, they did what they were supposed to do - keep the customer headcount up and the budget flowing.  I doubt most administrators have a particularly strong feeling about the mechanism by which they teach students; if students wanted more remote learning (and did so with their wallets), they'd have gone that way.  And many of them did try to integrate some degree of technological integration and remote learning into their course offerings, only the customers weren't necessarily buying it.  So at some point we shouldn't absolve administrators but we also shouldn't absolve customers paying for the education.

ThisGuyFawkes

August 19th, 2020 at 2:19 PM ^

Totally agree that administrators are largely doing what they are expected to do (keep enrollment high and maximize profits). And while we could argue whether the model they selected is the best at doing that, my main point is that we should not look at many universities "push" back to in-person learning as inevitable or a pre-determined fate, but rather the result of short-sighted and myopic decision making that is ongoing and pervasive across colleges and universities.  

How much of the blame should go to administrators, fundraisers, students, parents, and others is a much trickier question to answer? I tend to over-index on the administrators because they are the leaders of these institutions and have the most choice on what "product" they offer to consumers

WestQuad

August 19th, 2020 at 12:50 PM ^

But just because markets work in *some* things doesn't mean markets work in *everything*...31/41

I think the guy has a good take on the whole thing.  With all of the hulabaloo over the post-office I think it is important to note that there are a lot of things that increase the public good much more when they are *not* run as a business.  Libraries.  Education.  Churches/Temples/Mosques/Religious Compounds for Cults.   The military.  Roads.  This list goes on.    Retail/online stores work much better as capitalistic endeavors.  Cars are most often much cooler when capitalists make them.  Not sure on oil, but I doubt that the government would have had as much determination as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood