The COVID-19 effect on admissions & funding

[Dwar]

U of Arizona Retracts PhD Offers

sad news out of the philosophy department over at Arizona. Hoping this doesn’t become mainstream. 
 

[Paulcg87]

1 hour ago, Dwar said:

U of Arizona Retracts PhD Offers

sad news out of the philosophy department over at Arizona. Hoping this doesn’t become mainstream. 
 

... wow. 

[Dwar]

2 hours ago, Paulcg87 said:

... wow. 

A few of the comments in Reddit mention how it’s against the CGS and that they are going to file official complaints. Hopefully that works? 

I personally think that U of A will get away with it because of the “extraordinary times” we are in. 

[sad pepe]

12 hours ago, Dwar said:

U of Arizona Retracts PhD Offers

sad news out of the philosophy department over at Arizona. Hoping this doesn’t become mainstream. 
 

WOW.

But they did say they'll allow those affected to defer until next year or have their applications considered in a more favorable manner should they decide to decline and reapply. I mean it still sucks for those affected, but given the situation that the world is facing right now, I'd say it's somewhat understandable? Or am I being too lenient?

[needanoffersobad]

“only applies to students who have not already accepted our offers. Those who have already so accepted will continue to be funded according to the terms of the original offer”

Why dont they just cut the number of incoming students next year instead of reducing the current funding? It seems like they are legit to do that since a contract has not yet been signed. But, still, it sucks. 

 

Another East Asian background here... Got my I-20 and scheduled an appointment for visa in May. Not sure whether it will be cancelled or put off. I highly doubt it 

[Dwar]

Inside Higher Ed is now reporting it. 

“The University of Arizona is withdrawing funding packages to accepted graduate students who have not yet committed to the institution.”

[Paulcg87]

I just read a paywall NYT update (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/coronavirus-updates-usa.html) about projected summer infections in the USA. If you don't have access to a NYT subscription, what it basically says is that even with this 30 day shut down in the USA that started a month ago, the US government (DHS, HHS, CDC) is currently projecting a series of smaller peaks or spikes, likely with the largest in late August that will result in approximately half of Americans having been infected and 750,000 to 1 million needing to go to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), which also implies they'll need to go on the ventilator to breath. 

Not to get negative folks but if this is accurate, and there is a large spike expected in August in North America, we're not going to be starting in-person classes in early September. Full stop. No university is going to take on the medical or legal liability of having tens of thousands of people together on a campus in the weeks right after the largest spike in infections and hospitalizations on the continent. I sincerely hope this projection is wrong. I do not want this. But you should plan on the possibility of online classes and/or delays/cancellations. I think it will depend on the school and the available resources more than anything else. 

[Dwar]

55 minutes ago, Paulcg87 said:

 

I just read a paywall NYT update

 

I saw that article too, but the thing that struck out to me was that it seemed to be just one projection. And as everyone keeps on saying, projections are just as good as the assumptions you put into them. From what I understood in the article, it said that if we had lifted the stay at home orders after only 30 days then we would have a massive uptick in august. But that clearly hasn't happened. Most states and the federal government have increased the stay at home orders well past the original timelines. The federal one is in place until around April 30, and I fully expect it to be extended by at least another 15 days or so beyond that. As this was an internal government report that the NYT is citing, I would say that it was created as an attempt to show the administration that they needed to extend the order beyond the original 15 days. 

ALSO, not to rail against the media or wear a tinfoil hat or anything, but I personally think that it is wildly irresponsible of the NYT to publish something like that the way that they did. If this projection was accurate and up to date then I would hope that the federal government would put It out. Or if it was accurate then I would think that any of the other private/university projections would say something similar, which they haven't. I'm not saying that the NYT is fear mongering, all I'm saying is that they are in the business of selling news and as of now, corona news sells. Especially with a big flashy headline like that. 

[Paulcg87]

7 hours ago, Dwar said:

I saw that article too, but the thing that struck out to me was that it seemed to be just one projection. And as everyone keeps on saying, projections are just as good as the assumptions you put into them. From what I understood in the article, it said that if we had lifted the stay at home orders after only 30 days then we would have a massive uptick in august. But that clearly hasn't happened. Most states and the federal government have increased the stay at home orders well past the original timelines. The federal one is in place until around April 30, and I fully expect it to be extended by at least another 15 days or so beyond that. As this was an internal government report that the NYT is citing, I would say that it was created as an attempt to show the administration that they needed to extend the order beyond the original 15 days. 

ALSO, not to rail against the media or wear a tinfoil hat or anything, but I personally think that it is wildly irresponsible of the NYT to publish something like that the way that they did. If this projection was accurate and up to date then I would hope that the federal government would put It out. Or if it was accurate then I would think that any of the other private/university projections would say something similar, which they haven't. I'm not saying that the NYT is fear mongering, all I'm saying is that they are in the business of selling news and as of now, corona news sells. Especially with a big flashy headline like that. 

Valid points, particularly the last sentence of your first paragraph. I don't disagree on that point specifically. With that being said, I will respectfully disagree re: the tone or suitability of the NYT publishing an internal government report. If this rationale is true, then someone leaked the report to the media. Personally, I'd rather have the media publish than not publish unless it is something that directly threatens someone's life (like a report revealing the identity/address of a confidential informant, or something like that). Without going too far into the weeds or venturing into politics (on a political science board, hey-o! "drumroll"), I'm personally very interested in what the government thinks and what HHS/DHS/CDC's projections are, and I don't blame the NYT in the slightest for reporting on it. It's not like they're the Daily Mail, the Sun or another tabloid that is speculating and just trying to scare people. As you already implied, reporting on leaked government projections should not be conflated with fear mongering because they are not the same thing. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Paulcg87

[Dwar]

13 hours ago, Paulcg87 said:

With that being said, I will respectfully disagree re: the tone or suitability of the NYT publishing an internal government report. If this rationale is true, then someone leaked the report to the media. Personally, I'd rather have the media publish than not publish unless it is something that directly threatens someone's life (like a report revealing the identity/address of a confidential informant, or something like that).

So thats definitely a valid statement and for the most part I do agree that more information is better then restricting and or limiting information. I guess I'm just kind of upset about the way the media is hyping this whole thing up in general. I totally understand how dangerous it is and yes it should be taken seriously. But at the same time, I think that some of the over coverage the media has been doing has also instilled a sense of panic and fear that is totally unhelpful in this crisis. There is no reason to go out and buy a months worth of food, but you wouldn't know that from the media coverage. Again, I'm not saying that under reporting is better than over reporting, but I just think that in many cases the Media is taking advantage of the current hysteria by stoking it to gain viewership. and thats what I think is irresponsible. 

[Sigaba]

I respectfully recommend that one not make any assumptions about the continuity of funding from private institutions before spending time looking carefully at available financial statements and then reading between the lines.

If a graduate student receives a stipend of $x.xx/month, that individual is drinking from a bucket that is filled from many different sources. If any of those sources are dependent upon the public sector, the stipend is at risk of being eliminated or reduced or reduced and then eliminated. (For example, what happens to Duke's academic programs if the ACC cancels football and basketball for AY2020? Loss of league revenue, loss of revenue from both concession sales and sales tax revenue of those sales ... )

From a day to day / semester to semester / year to year perspective, I would think long and hard before hinging my plans on assumptions about offers of admission and funding being pulled off the table even after the ink has dried. The pending legal battle over the force majeure clauses of contacts is likely to be global in scope and titanic in proportions. Current and aspiring graduate students who jump into that fray without deep pockets and an exceptional level of intellectual discipline and a lot of support may find themselves in a no win situation very quickly. That is, no funding to be had, dwindling resources, increased debt, uncompromising academic standards, and the ups and downs of public opinion. (Imagine a state government cutting funding to a public university for the stated purpose of saving lives in the face of a global pandemic as one of many "impossible choices." Will members of the general public, many of whom have already made anti-intellectualism the foundation of their political activity, and some of whom will suffer the economic impacts of COVID-19 understand the benefits of uninterrupted graduate education?)

The suggestion I'm attempting to phrase is that aspiring and current graduate students consider the benefits of a clear eyed guarded, provisional optimism. I also recommend that one strive for a sustainable balance between accepting the legitimacy of one's own feelings while having empathy for others. Absolutely, there are going to be administrators and staff members and professors who behave like asses by failing to comport themselves appropriately. And (not but) some of those same people may be overwhelmed by COVID-19 and its impacts in ways they cannot share. It's not about measuring the relative worth of one's life experiences against another person's. It is more about considering the possibility that, simply by the fact that older people are older, they have different sensibilities and cares--including the fear of illness and death. These different sensibilities can lead to decisions that are as appropriate to some as they are awful to others.

[Artifex_Archer]

On 4/10/2020 at 2:55 PM, Dwar said:

I saw that article too, but the thing that struck out to me was that it seemed to be just one projection. And as everyone keeps on saying, projections are just as good as the assumptions you put into them.

My understanding is also that the article claims that the model used was developed in early April [during which time the US began to show a slow-down in new cases and/or deaths], whereas it was actually developed using data from late March, thereby making the situation look worse than it’s now expected to be. 

 

On 4/11/2020 at 12:12 PM, Dwar said:

. I guess I'm just kind of upset about the way the media is hyping this whole thing up in general. I totally understand how dangerous it is and yes it should be taken seriously. But at the same time, I think that some of the over coverage the media has been doing has also instilled a sense of panic and fear that is totally unhelpful in this crisis. There is no reason to go out and buy a months worth of food, but you wouldn't know that from the media coverage. Again, I'm not saying that under reporting is better than over reporting, but I just think that in many cases the Media is taking advantage of the current hysteria by stoking it to gain viewership. and thats what I think is irresponsible. 

^ All of this. It also plays into a lot of folks’ political priors to push the narrative that this is As Bad As It Could Possibly Be and apportion blame accordingly. It’s beyond irresponsible when it stokes the sorts of social and political responses we’re seeing. But I digress. 
 

Essentially it seems that this is being mishandled on every level—including and beyond the universities who sent their possibly asymptomatic students back to their parents and hometowns [my office lost an intern who was forced to move out of her dorm and back to—wait for it—Shanghai]. My hope is that the universities who have rescinded offers of admission will permit students to defer for a year instead, although that also seems unfair to would-be new admits who are now going to be pushed out of next year’s running undeservedly. 

[Dwar]

10 minutes ago, Artifex_Archer said:

My hope is that the universities who have rescinded offers of admission will permit students to defer for a year instead, although that also seems unfair to would-be new admits who are now going to be pushed out of next year’s running undeservedly. 

I believe the Arizona Philosophy department is doing something along those lines, or giving priority consideration for applicants who were admitted this year but are forced to reapply next year. Personally, I would not want to reapply to a school that pulled their funding offer. While I understand that it's not the departments that's doing it, it shows systemic issues within the administration and the value that they place on grad students within the institution. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by Dwar

[uchenyy]

If it makes anyone feel better, I was told by a professor at the program I'll be attending in the fall that if classes cannot be held on campus, they will at least be held via Zoom (i.e., offers will not be rescinded). 

Edited April 14, 2020 by uchenyy

[needanoffersobad]

thanks @uchenyy for the good news. 

I got similar news as well. The professor, a prestigious one in my field, said there is no way the offer is rescinded. 

[Paulcg87]

I don't think offers of admission or funding will be rescinded for most of us; this appears (so far) to be an anomaly relegated to a few departments at a few schools but it isn't catching on like the wildfire that we were worried about. There was an interesting article today on CNN about US schools preparing for online classes this summer and fall: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/us/university-may-cancel-classes-fall-2021-trnd/index.html

Ultimately, whether we're on campus or online, I think it'll depend on the individual school and the city/state. Look at how wildly different the current travel restrictions are in the USA right now. POTUS is running the country in the true spirit of "states rights" in the sense that states are not only competing against each other for medical supplies, but have been free to make their own travel policies and restrictions. California is shelter in place while Oklahoma and Wyoming are business as usual. There hasn't been much of a coordinated federal policy, and there isn't reason to believe there will be. Canada is more coordinated but also extremely cautious. I expect we'll all get to start our PhD's this fall, but I think there is a strong possibility that some of us might be in online classes through the rest of this year. 

[Dwar]

2 hours ago, Paulcg87 said:

I expect we'll all get to start our PhD's this fall, but I think there is a strong possibility that some of us might be in online classes through the rest of this year. 

Question for folks: Let’s say during the summer your school announces online classes for the rest of the year, would you still move there? 

Personally, I am planning on moving to my school as long as the funding is still there. I’ve already given my notice to vacate for my current apartment (massive rent increase anyways) and I can’t imagine living at home with my family for more then two months without going insane. 

[sad pepe]

10 minutes ago, Dwar said:

Question for folks: Let’s say during the summer your school announces online classes for the rest of the year, would you still move there?

^What I've been pondering lately. It may not matter as much for those already physically in the US right now. But since I'm currently all the way in Asia, it'd be very hard to have classes online due to the time difference.

I'm just really hoping the quality of our education won't be compromised too much if we are forced to start our grad studies online

[uchenyy]

5 hours ago, Dwar said:

Question for folks: Let’s say during the summer your school announces online classes for the rest of the year, would you still move there? 

Personally, I am planning on moving to my school as long as the funding is still there. I’ve already given my notice to vacate for my current apartment (massive rent increase anyways) and I can’t imagine living at home with my family for more then two months without going insane. 

I was also thinking about this yesterday. I would most likely move.

Edited April 15, 2020 by uchenyy

[Paulcg87]

9 hours ago, Dwar said:

Question for folks: Let’s say during the summer your school announces online classes for the rest of the year, would you still move there? 

Personally, I am planning on moving to my school as long as the funding is still there. I’ve already given my notice to vacate for my current apartment (massive rent increase anyways) and I can’t imagine living at home with my family for more then two months without going insane. 

For me this question is about cost of living. If my program announced online classes for the year, I would definitely not move to Toronto. Toronto has about the same cost of living as NYC, SF and LA. So if your question is: 1) do I move to a place where I need to pay $2500/month for a one bedroom apartment even though I won't be able to go to classes in person, or 2) do I stay in Asia where I have a job and can go to part time and still take classes, or alternatively, 3) do I move back to the part of the country where I already own a condo and the cost of living is lower and just take classes from there.. I can tell you the answer is #2 or #3.

If you're going to a school in a smaller city or town, I think the affordability isn't as much of an issue. But if your school is in a big expensive city, and you're on a budget, I think it does make a difference and the cost benefit analysis is really important. Even with generous funding, I'd be saving a significant amount of money by not moving to the big city if my classes are online. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Paulcg87

[needanoffersobad]

18 hours ago, Dwar said:

Question for folks: Let’s say during the summer your school announces online classes for the rest of the year, would you still move there? 

 

Lets assume international flight gets back to normal and I can get a visa before this fall......

Talking from another international/East Asia/jet-lag background: If there is funding for the online class and I need to take up my TA/RA assistant work, I will probably move there. Doing all these things in a different time zone is insane. Suffering doesnt make me productive. Better be there, take my time to settle down for housing. 

If no funding for the online class and no TAships, I will probably stay at home for a bit longer. I can save some money and spend just a bit more time with families. Probably, I will try to take up some part time RA work in my home country as well. 

(Great discussions on this forum all the time!) 

[sloth_girl]

On 4/15/2020 at 3:17 AM, Dwar said:

Question for folks: Let’s say during the summer your school announces online classes for the rest of the year, would you still move there? 

Personally, I am planning on moving to my school as long as the funding is still there. I’ve already given my notice to vacate for my current apartment (massive rent increase anyways) and I can’t imagine living at home with my family for more then two months without going insane. 

We'd choose to stay in ID (with family, where we're originally from) or UT (where we live now). The Bay Area is very expensive, so if we could save on rent/childcare while things are taught virtually, we'd definitely go that route. 

[Theory007]

3 hours ago, sloth_girl said:

We'd choose to stay in ID (with family, where we're originally from) or UT (where we live now). The Bay Area is very expensive, so if we could save on rent/childcare while things are taught virtually, we'd definitely go that route. 

what program did you decide on if I may ask?

[sloth_girl]

3 hours ago, Theory007 said:

what program did you decide on if I may ask?

Stanford! Also, they just let us know our math camp is going to be online. They're still not sure on Fall Quarter. 

[Paulcg87]

On 4/16/2020 at 7:14 PM, sloth_girl said:

Stanford! Also, they just let us know our math camp is going to be online. They're still not sure on Fall Quarter. 

Congrats on Stanford :) Also, same here about the math/quant training. My school is being very ambiguous about the fall term but Canada is also significantly more cautious than the USA so if I had to bet right now it would be that we'll be online this fall and in person for the winter (spring) term. 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Paulcg87