California State University Campuses Closed This Fall
Another poster mentioned the possibility of this in the MAC thread and it’s official now. I can’t imaging that UCLA and Cal etc. are going to be able to put a football team on the field if the campus is considered unsafe. With this news I’ll be really surprised if we end up getting a football in the fall.
Political? What a completely foolish comment
Not at all political. I’m doing work for a school district right now. You can probably understand how difficult it is, especially with budgets dropping severely, to plan for Fall. And educators at all levels are committed to delivering the best education possible given the circumstances. It’s literally impossible to plan for three completely different scenarios? One for open with safeguards, one for distance-learning, and one for a hybrid? The planning and logistics for just one of these options is daunting.
Most schools are thinking it’s 50-50 as to whether or not they can open safely in the fall. Or, 50-50 as to whether or not they’re even allowed to open. But the reality is 50-50 is probably hopeful thinking considering what is happening on the science front. January is the more likely target and even that is a stretch.
So making a decision is smart. Cal state is the first of many. They will have a head start on delivering a successful educational plan.
Adding: So nothing political about it. It’s basically science and math, combined with pragmatism and people committed to doing their job as best as they can. Political fake red herring comments like yours are uncalled for and disrespect everyone that is working hard. They deserve our respect.
You help paint the choice more starkly. Focus on a plan for normal and have limited resources for your backup online plan or focus on a really good distance learning plan sacrificing the opportunity to come back in the fall because you haven’t done that planning.
That’s right.
To be clear I’m not directly involved in this education planning side.
I do think educators in general do not want to have to make the hard decision that distance learning is the more likely outcome in the fall. There are all kinds of reasons they would want to put off that decision even if it’s the most likely one.
Similar to your comments, if for the moment we assume that distance learning is even the slightest more likely outcome in the fall, it makes much more sense to plan first for that outcome. This is because distance learning needs the most work to make it successful. If on the other hand we miraculously have a situation where kids can go to school we already know how to deliver that kind of education successfully.
The challenges are real. I’m sure it’s tough getting everyone on the same page. What’s the definition of open safely and what’s going to change between now and Spring semester? And after that?
These kids are not at risk. Some of the adults on the staff and faculty are. Find ways to protect them. There is no infallible solution. If we keep staying at home at this stage that carries plenty of risk.
Kids are at risk. Teachers are at risk. Transportation is at risk. Safe measures would likely include required distancing in all locations, masks, and lots of plexiglass. But also remember how schools are the biggest source for where communicable diseases are spread to the community. So that’s a bigger health issue.
The other bigger issue is the false assumption is that the SIP causes the economic recession. And that’s not true. The pandemic, via fear, does. Without the SIP, now or in the future, cases/deaths/panic would be higher and people aren’t shopping, using public trans, etc because of fear. You cant force them. Also a loss of trust in politicians that lie and say its safe will backfire. The level of fear with SIP is actually lower than it would have been otherwise. The economy can only rebound if people feel safe when they go back to work, school, shop, eat, and drink. So focus on what it will take to get there, more testing and tracing, quarantines at the border, and dropping case loads, rather than on politics.
The basic way to think of the difference between the UCs and the CSUs is that the UCs are prestigious and research-driven enough that they would pretty much make up the academic equivalent of the Big Ten if California were several states instead of one.
CSUs are the MAC-equivalent universities.
But yeah, it's hard to imagine the UCs not following. Nothing about their situation that makes them more prepared to go ahead.
Correction, CSUs are the Michigan State equivalents
I know this is meant as a dig at MSU more than praise of CSUs, but Fresno State is a lot more like Ball State than it is like MSU.
There are certainly better and worse CSUs, of course. SDSU, SJSU and Chico are probably near the top, but it's still just a different thing, especially with regard to research and campus life.
On the other hand, the only two UCs with P5 sports are Cal and UCLA, and UCSF doesn't even have undergrad, so it's a crude analogy.
Cal Poly-SLO is a pretty good school and largely serves as the exception of the CSU schools, while UC Merced is on the other end of that spectrum (with the heavy caveat that it is a newer campus and their mission is a little different than the other campuses)
Yeah, SLO being part of the CSUs is almost an accident of history. It's considerably older (1901 v. 1960) than any other school in the system. Hell, CP-Pomona is older than the CSU system.
Cal Poly SLO > Moo U.
As a Wolverine and Gaucho, I can attest that the Cal Poly Mustangs are a far less obnoxious (and much smarter) rival. I think, however, there's a joke about cow pies that applies to both.
I’m really struggling to see how there is any possible scenario in which college football is played this fall. I’d say this pretty much settles it.
I don't see how it's difficult to understand. The schools that choose not to play, don't. And the schools that choose to play, do. San Jose State, Fresno State, and SDSU aren't the lynchpins that make the whole football season function. We'll move on without them, maybe with new schedules or more byes, but we certainly don't need them.
I understand that, just a feeling that many others will follow suit as well. You have a point though.
Further proof of this is that Alabama and TCU are already working on a plan to schedule a game against each other in case their Pac 12 opponents back out.
https://twitter.com/MichaelWBratton/status/1260207699800850432
Jesus Christ. Let’s just give up on educating our kids for a couple years. They still have 4 months to figure out a way to make school work. I’m sure the fucking politicians won’t waste any time slashing education budgets though. Don’t worry though they won’t dare touch the selfish ass baby boomers social security.
California is going to have to absolutely ravage their budget to pay for all the damage this has done to their tax payers. Things like Medicaid and higher education are going to see significant budget cuts. But it's okay though because some of their senior citizens will get to live a couple years longer.
How can we make sure all the full professors and senior administrators keep their jobs while doing jack shit to try and overcome the challenge of opening up campus and giving the next generation the same opportunity we had? Got it. Let’s offer some half ass on-line classes, charge the full rate, and claim we had no choice
ndscott50 - Please explain to me how baby boomers are "selfish" by asking that the money they PAID INTO a government program be PAID OUT of that program when it's time?
Because they did not pay In enough to cover the expense and have known this for years. Also they have been in charge of the federal government for years and all they did was cut taxes and run up huge deficits. We were running a trillion dollar deficit at the height of an economic boom when we should have had a surplus. Now this happens and we will hear a bunch of shit about how we are all in this together but not one fucking cent will be cut from social security and Medicare well everything else get slashed. Meanwhile we will have bullshit like 4 days school weeks and no sports for our kids
The cost of higher education will continue to spiral out of control despite the fact that more and more classes are taught by adjunct professors and TA’s while the top administrators pull down huge salaries.
The US was massively in debt after WW2. It rebounded because the US had no real competitors for a decade as Europe and Asia were recovering from WW2.
The blame goes to the US for deciding upon a Cold War and racking huge debt in numerous fighting wars of choice since 1945. WW2 fits in their as well, but that is for another day.
That's not really a fair comparison. There are certainly valid arguments about Keynesian economics and the merits of deficit spending (although Keynes himself advocated a more limited approach than what is advocated by most proponents these days - there is book just out about this that is interesting), but those arguments are for a national government and not a state. The difference is that the US has full control over its monetary policy (and literally prints it's own money), so it can control/mitigate the risks of deficit spending. States (including CA) cannot do this - they can run massive deficits but there is no implicit guarantee to be backed by the federal government on it. We have already bankruptcies for medium sized municipalities (cities and counties), yet we have not yet seen what happens when a major city gets to that point - let alone a state. It might be a "too big to fail" moment or it could be an economic bloodbath - hopefully we never need to learn the outcome.
I actually don't blame the boomers entirely, the silents and the Greatest Generation that came before them are the ones that started slashing taxes and running massive deficits.
Total debt was less than 1T in 1980. It was over 3x that by 1988.
Although, it was a boomer that decided to further cut taxes and put 2 wars on the national credit card.
if 'boomer' = 'the house of representatives' then you are correct. the house sets the budget.
Sure, but it also has to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.
And neither party has given a damn about the debt since Clinton was President. Say what you want about either of them, but Newt and Bill worked together and got our financial house in order.
And I do give Reagan credit for one thing. He modernized the Iowa class battleships and brought them back into the fleet. Battleships are awesome and we should still have some in the active fleet.
Rut roh.
.jpg)
A wonderful outcome of this would be the recognition of the value of community colleges. Attend for two years, then transfer to a larger school. Regrettably Michigan isn't very accepting of these (often underprivileged) students, but many are. The profs are fine, some are excellent. Knock out your basics, then go somewhere else for your major. Save boatloads of money.
If the school you wanted to attend is only offering on-line courses, it's a no brainer. The difference between community college online and state/private school online will be close to zero. You graduate from the 4 year school with that degree, and you never have to tell an employer you went to community college (if you care about such a thing).
I went to the University of Michigan.
A high school buddy went to OCC and got an degree in hydraulic/pneumatic technology. Got a job, got married, then got the bachelors degree. Yep, lots of money, smokin' hot wife, owns his own business, kids, (and now grand kids). Dude really has his act together and nice all around guy. If I had it to do over, community college would get a lot more consideration. Faster start, less debt.
I went to Monroe for 2 years before transferring into UM. One of the best decisions I ever made.
It's gonna be funny when there is college football being played on time as scheduled.
May not be in front of fans but it's gonna happen.
You have to wonder if schools like Arizona or Arizona State see this as an opportunity. Allow California students to attend their schools at in-state rates (if that isn't already an option).
Those schools have signaled their intention to open in the fall. And I'm sorry, if I'm a student I see an on-line education as being a bit inferior to being there in person.
California needs to be careful here. They're not operating in a vacuum, and people may start walking from the state. Whatever one thinks about Elon Musk threatening to move, that would have gotten my attention if I was Governor Newsom.
I honestly think Newsom thinks both (1) his political future and (2) his state are "bullet-proof", but they're not.
Newsom's regulations would have allowed Tesla to operate it's factory with common-sense safety precautions in place such as everyone having to wear a mask.
It's the county of Alameda's measures that were restricting Tesla from operating. I see a lot of people blaming Newsom/California rather than municipalities such as Alameda and LA.
The fact is the policies put in place by our governor saved lives, I choose to believe the science not the political party of the puppet in charge. Now he and others are moving to get the economy going again with common sense restrictions in place to stem the spread of the virus.
I would love for people to walk from the state, would make real estate cheaper :).
Nittany - +1 from me to offset whatever moron negged your post. Of course online is inferior in many respects. And you're right about Tesla. Why should I pay so Californians can stay home for another 90 DAYS!? Because SOMEONE is going to be paying!
This is going to get ugly. States which don't re-open will be (already are via Pelosi) asking for massive bail outs. The burden will be even heavier on the middle class as we head into the post COVID era.
If you're so worried about money going to California, maybe we should start making sure each state only gets back from the feds what they put in.
California pretty much funds the entire former Confederacy.
The notion that blue states fund red states is a fiction at worst, misleading at best, and only because Federal dollars as a percentage of state budgets is higher (on average) in "red" states. This is because blue states have bloated budgets (actual and per capita), making the denominator much larger, and thus the percentage of the budget from Fed dollars, lower.
When adjusted for this discrepancy, with equal budgets dollars per person, the fraction flips, and blue states receive more federal aid per citizen than red states.
Who said anything about the percentage of state budgets coming from federal aid? Why would that matter? This seems like a more reasonable question to ask:
https://www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/which-us-states-get-more-they-give
Notice it doesn't sort perfectly into Blue vs. Red.
If you want to look at the other side of the equation, how much a state's residents "give" is a function of what they pay in Federal Income taxes. Because we have a progressive tax code, those states with higher salaried workers pay more, both in absolute and in proportional terms than those in state's with lower per capita income. California and New York are two prime examples where both mean and median compensation is significantly higher. The cost of federal programs may be somewhat less to administer in low wage states, but not enough to offset the fewer dollars collected from taxes.
As an illustration, a teacher earning 35,000 per year in Mississippi will pay far less in taxes than a similarly experienced teacher earning $75,000 per year in New York. Now if the argument is that each state should receive an amount of government benefits equal to what it pays in to the system (after the government takes its cut for administration), then fine, but you'd be better off skipping the Federal government altogether and let the states administer the bulk of what now make up federal programs, while charging each state a fee for its share of things it can't administer such as the defense department. That would be a radical change, and I do not advocate it, but it would ensure the "fairness" as people seem to be using that term when they complain about red states vs blue states, in the utilization of federal/state funds.
Not really. The most straightforward way to assess who gets more than they put in is to actually look at who gets more than they put in. The following ranking is based on data for FY17 as summarized on p13 Table 3 of this report by the Rockefeller Foundation and the number on the right is the ratio of of dollars received for every dollar in federal tax they send to the U.S. Treasury (original table was ranked in terms of total delta between tax in/out but the ratio is a better measure). Here are the 11 states that break even or worse (i.e. send more to DC than they get back):
1. Connecticut 0.74
2. New Jersey 0.82
3. Massachusetts 0.83
4. New York 0.86
5. North Dakota 0.94
6. Illinois 0.97
7. Washington 0.98
8. New Hampshire 0.98
9. Nebraska 0.98
10. Colorado 0.99
11. California 1.00
That's a little purple, a smidge of red, and a lot of blue.
NH, NE and CO are surprising to see on this list....and no Texas or Alaska given the oil and gas industries there as well.
By all means share your work on this one because that doesn't match up with the numbers I've seen. A lot of the provider states have larger budgets because they have higher state taxes and the like to go along with larger populations, so they'll naturally have more money to spend but generally pay out more for each citizen in terms of services. And as someone who's lived in two of the larger provider states, I've seen some of that money obviously wasted but I've also gotten certain benefits that aren't general available to others. And not all federal money is the same - CA, NY, MA, etc. get a TON of federal research money via their schools and available facilities, which I guess could be considered "per capita" for citizens but isn't a handout either. Compare that to other states that rely do depend on federal funding to balance their yearly budgets (something most state charters require every year).
I don't begrudge any state or person when it comes to federal support; part of being a US citizen is understanding that if one part of the union fails it affects everyone. But I'm not getting any federal COVID-19 money because I live in a state where my decidedly middle-class, two-income home makes too much to qualify but I'm sure as shit expected to pay federal taxes for the very natural process of selling and buying a home. So save me this revisionist history line about how Kentucky is somehow funding me.
https://ballotpedia.org/Total_state_government_expenditures
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
Care to back any of that up with actual numbers?
They've been walking from the state for years... to Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona and Texas for the most part. Only an influx of people from across the border, both legal, and illegal, has kept the population up.
All the negs you're getting are absolute concrete proof that people hate seeing a fact that doesn't agree with their worldview, but are too cowardly to dispute it because they're afraid of being proved wrong.
https://www.ksbw.com/article/more-americans-leaving-california-than-ever-before/30905768#
California is projected to lose a House seat in the coming census, and between 2018 and 2019, California lost a net of almost 200,000 people in state-to-state movement. (500,000 moved in, almost 700,000 moved out.) Therefore, what you said is 100% true: any population growth that might have taken place during that time came in from over the border.
But people neg it because they just can't handle it.
This is easily verifiable stuff, man. You should probably stop, you're making a fool of yourself.
Yes, easily verified to be completely true.
ASU and Arizona are already huge....could they take more students?
...and Arizona is going to lift their stay-at-home order effective 5/16, saying that MLB (among other things) can start playing without fans on that date.
Since the owners have just started discussions about a July startup, I’m not thinking anymore is going to be ready for spring training in 4 days.