Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Except that they didn't expel them. Northeastern sent them home from the program, and they will be allowed back on campus in the spring. So if your preferred option was sending them home for the year, I expect your next post will be that you support what Northeastern did.
DP. I think pp meant send them home to DL for the year. It seem Northeastern kicked them out for the semester and kept their tuition money. That's an extremely steep penalty for eighteen year olds.
It’s only steep if you weren’t told a million times by the university exactly what the consequences are. They knew, they risked it and now they will have to deal with the consequences.
I doubt they'll keep the $20,000 tuition payment for the fall semester. It's all bluster. It would be totally unethical to do that, especially for students who took out loans to make that payment.
how is it unethical?
are they going to spend the semester expelling kids? If they leave it to the 11, is it fair to make an example of them? If they keep the tuition, I'm sure they'll end up in court defending the decision and I'm sure they reasoning for choosing those 11 will get a lot of scrutiny
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Except that they didn't expel them. Northeastern sent them home from the program, and they will be allowed back on campus in the spring. So if your preferred option was sending them home for the year, I expect your next post will be that you support what Northeastern did.
DP. I think pp meant send them home to DL for the year. It seem Northeastern kicked them out for the semester and kept their tuition money. That's an extremely steep penalty for eighteen year olds.
It’s only steep if you weren’t told a million times by the university exactly what the consequences are. They knew, they risked it and now they will have to deal with the consequences.
I doubt they'll keep the $20,000 tuition payment for the fall semester. It's all bluster. It would be totally unethical to do that, especially for students who took out loans to make that payment.
how is it unethical?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Except that they didn't expel them. Northeastern sent them home from the program, and they will be allowed back on campus in the spring. So if your preferred option was sending them home for the year, I expect your next post will be that you support what Northeastern did.
DP. I think pp meant send them home to DL for the year. It seem Northeastern kicked them out for the semester and kept their tuition money. That's an extremely steep penalty for eighteen year olds.
It’s only steep if you weren’t told a million times by the university exactly what the consequences are. They knew, they risked it and now they will have to deal with the consequences.
I doubt they'll keep the $20,000 tuition payment for the fall semester. It's all bluster. It would be totally unethical to do that, especially for students who took out loans to make that payment.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Anonymous wrote:“ Northeastern has dismissed 11 first-year students after they were discovered together in a room at the Westin Hotel in Boston on Wednesday night, in violation of university and public health protocols that prohibit crowded gatherings.”
No refunds of tuition will be provided.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/09/04/northeastern-dismisses-11-students-for-gathering-in-violation-of-covid-19-policies/
Good for Northeastern. Massachusetts didn’t shut down so Logan airport could open up and let the students come in to party.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Except that they didn't expel them. Northeastern sent them home from the program, and they will be allowed back on campus in the spring. So if your preferred option was sending them home for the year, I expect your next post will be that you support what Northeastern did.
DP. I think pp meant send them home to DL for the year. It seem Northeastern kicked them out for the semester and kept their tuition money. That's an extremely steep penalty for eighteen year olds.
It’s only steep if you weren’t told a million times by the university exactly what the consequences are. They knew, they risked it and now they will have to deal with the consequences.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Except that they didn't expel them. Northeastern sent them home from the program, and they will be allowed back on campus in the spring. So if your preferred option was sending them home for the year, I expect your next post will be that you support what Northeastern did.
DP. I think pp meant send them home to DL for the year. It seem Northeastern kicked them out for the semester and kept their tuition money. That's an extremely steep penalty for eighteen year olds.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Except that they didn't expel them. Northeastern sent them home from the program, and they will be allowed back on campus in the spring. So if your preferred option was sending them home for the year, I expect your next post will be that you support what Northeastern did.
Anonymous wrote:
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone is arguing students can have it both ways. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime. Does it? Expelling kids is a dramatic act. Why expel rather than send them home for the year? Does expelling kids for something like this serve as a worthy example to other students, or will it only cause outrage and a sense of unfairness due to the excessive nature of the punishment.
Northeastern isn't coming out looking well.
Anonymous wrote:If you want students to go back in person, these are the measures you need to accept. If they were lenient about it, they risk a wider outbreak that shuts down the entire program for all students. They've paid for the hotel space and calculated a budget based on a certain amount of tuition payments - you can't have it both ways.