Remote Class Camera Policies

[CheeseToast]

I don’t think its a huge ask to have cameras on. I sympathize with those profs who want to create as classroom-like an environment as possible. Zoom school is unnatural and alienating. The commentary surrounding equity strikes me as a bit exaggerated given that they are faced by a minority of students who can easily turn their cameras off temporarily should an issue arise.
The vast majority of students simply don’t have the issues you allude to and leave their cameras off because its the easy thing to do. It’s amazing that within my ~60 person section we had ~80% attendance in the fall semester yet only ~20% regularly have their cameras on. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

I can't tell if I'm impressed you managed to display your complete lack of knowledge around the concept of equity in a mere two sentences or shocked that someone who is in law school still thinks "most people don't have equity-related issues" is a compelling counterargument to equity-related issues. 

This is like saying "most people aren't disabled, so why do we have to install automatic doors in public place; the vast majority of people don't have disabilities and use automatic doors because it's the easy thing to do". 

[CheeseToast]

7 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I can't tell if I'm impressed you managed to display your complete lack of knowledge around the concept of equity in a mere two sentences or shocked that someone who is in law school still thinks "most people don't have equity-related issues" is a compelling counterargument to equity-related issues. 

This is like saying "most people aren't disabled, so why do we have to install automatic doors in public place; the vast majority of people don't have disabilities and use automatic doors because it's the easy thing to do". 

And I'm impressed that a practicing lawyer would willingly demonstrate their lack of understanding with respect to my comment, which really isn't that hard to grasp and a bit more nuanced than your absurd analogy. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

The thing is your comment wasn't nuanced. It was just a greatest hits mashup of the three most common arguments against policies that increase equity: (i) some people will take advantage of the equity increasing policies because, by their very nature, most equity-increasing policies remove barriers; (ii) most people don't have equity needs anyways; and (iii) I think people could easily solve this equity issue by themselves if they needed to (which of course ignores that for many of the examples I cited, they can't be solved in the manner you suggest).

People with an interest in increasing equity won't find your arguments compelling because they are essentially tropes. People have made argument (i) above in relation to voter ID laws and exam accommodations. People have made argument (ii) above in relation to announcing bus stops and installing ramps into buildings. People have made argument (iii) in relation to... well.. basically every equity-increasing policy ever proposed.

Anyways, I am not terribly interested in a prolonged debate about the equity issues related to camera policies and lectures. There is a lot of information out there about this issue, and it's strikingly easy for educators to craft equity-minded policies on this. So you are free to have the last word, if you want it 🙂

Edited January 14, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois

[SlytherinLLP]

I think his/her point was that given the large number students that don't turn on their camera, it's demonstrably not because of equity-related issues but because they are lazy and uninterested and that's the impression the instructor is getting. 

[Mountebank]

Yeah, I expect most of the desire not to have the cameras on is non-equity related. A lot of low-stakes student complaining, in which case let the prof decide how to run his class.

Then again, students are also being robbed by the school for the cost of tuition, so maybe they should be able to consume the product they're buying however they like.

Either way, I couldn't give a fig!

[CleanHands]

There's nothing law students love more than finding any absurd context to advocate for the world of Harrison Bergeron before taking jobs with starting salaries of $160k/year and never touching a pro bono file or helping anyone who earns less than themselves ever again (except to the extent that their firms pay them to do it for social washing purposes).

[Pecan Boy]

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

There's nothing law students love more than finding any absurd context to advocate for the world of Harrison Bergeron before taking jobs with starting salaries of $160k/year and never touching a pro bono file or helping anyone who earns less than themselves ever again (except to the extent that their firms pay them to do it for social washing purposes).

Super valuable contribution to the discourse

[CleanHands]

Just now, Pecan Boy said:

Super valuable contribution to the discourse

It was such a great discourse and it's such a shame to ruin it.

[Goblin King]

9 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

There's nothing law students love more than finding any absurd context to advocate for the world of Harrison Bergeron before taking jobs with starting salaries of $160k/year and never touching a pro bono file or helping anyone who earns less than themselves ever again (except to the extent that their firms pay them to do it for social washing purposes).

1. The Vonnegut reference had me cackling. 

2. Maybe @CheeseToast is in a different section, but I was curious how moving to online would affect participation. Participation has gone down markedly, especially in small groups, but about 75% of people keep their cameras on in large groups (60 students) and only 2-3 people had their's off during small groups (20 people). People are "lazy and disinterested," and profs know this. The cameras being on don't seem to help much -- especially since most of our profs are using slides and can't see us when we raise our hands anyways. So at least we can be lazy and disinterested with bedhead now that we start at 8:30. 

[CheeseToast]

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

The thing is your comment wasn't nuanced. It was just a greatest hits mashup of the three most common arguments against policies that increase equity: (i) some people will take advantage of the equity increasing policies because, by their very nature, most equity-increasing policies remove barriers; (ii) most people don't have equity needs anyways; and (iii) I think people could easily solve this equity issue by themselves if they needed to (which of course ignores that for many of the examples I cited, they can't be solved in the manner you suggest).

People with an interest in increasing equity won't find your arguments compelling because they are essentially tropes. People have made argument (i) above in relation to voter ID laws and exam accommodations. People have made argument (ii) above in relation to announcing bus stops and installing ramps into buildings. People have made argument (iii) in relation to... well.. basically every equity-increasing policy ever proposed.

Anyways, I am not terribly interested in a prolonged debate about the equity issues related to camera policies and lectures. There is a lot of information out there about this issue, and it's strikingly easy for educators to craft equity-minded policies on this. So you are free to have the last word, if you want it 🙂

This has been a bizarre exchange. None of the three strawmen you've put forth represent what I said, nor have you addressed the fact that you can temporarily turn off your camera and/or have a blurred background over zoom easily, which largely solves the problems you've laid out. But of course you want to go off on a tangent about equity so you, the bay street lawyer, appear as the good guy. 

[SlytherinLLP]

18 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

There's nothing law students love more than finding any absurd context to advocate for the world of Harrison Bergeron before taking jobs with starting salaries of $160k/year and never touching a pro bono file or helping anyone who earns less than themselves ever again (except to the extent that their firms pay them to do it for social washing purposes).

Can confirm this is the case but you forget that a) the firms will donate 0.00000000000000000000001% of profits to equity initiatives and b) have hired equity consultants to teach their incoming lawyers how to behave.

[Of course it goes without saying that senior partners who berate their associates or have a reputation of acting inappropriately are exempt - for "reasons"] 

Edited January 14, 2022 by SlytherinLLP

[CheeseToast]

41 minutes ago, Goblin King said:

2. Maybe @CheeseToast is in a different section, but I was curious how moving to online would affect participation. Participation has gone down markedly, especially in small groups, but about 75% of people keep their cameras on in large groups (60 students) and only 2-3 people had their's off during small groups (20 people). 

I must be, because I think the max I've seen in my large group is 10-15 (25%).

To be clear I'm not advocating for a mandatory cameras-on policy. However, I do think my fellow students are being dickheads by not at least semi-regularly having their cameras on. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by CheeseToast
spelling

[GGrievous]

We are being dickheads but we’re also asked to do a lot of dumb time wasting shit. It’s a two-way street. 

[СлаваУкраїні]

26 minutes ago, SlytherinLLP said:

I think his/her point was that given the large number students that don't turn on their camera, it's demonstrably not because of equity-related issues but because they are lazy and uninterested and that's the impression the instructor is getting. 

Furthermore, there's a question of benefit and cost here. @CheeseToast weighed the tradeoffs and came to the conclusion that even if there are equity issues, those don't outweigh the benefits of having cameras on. You can agree or disagree with it, but it's not the unnuanced strawman @BlockedQuebecois presented.

[GGrievous]

23 minutes ago, Pecan Boy said:

Super valuable contribution to the discourse

It really was. I wish I had the Nelson in me to have said it myself. 

[Goblin King]

16 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

I must be, because I think the max I've seen in my large group is 10-15 (25%).

To be clear I'm not advocating for a mandatory cameras-on policy. However, I do think my fellow students are being dickheads but not at least semi-regularly having their cameras on. 

I just don't think classroom environment would markedly improve with cameras on. Your section has no cameras and it's bad; mine has cameras and it's bad. So in terms of cost-benefit analysis, we have equity and privacy issues on one hand and limited benefit on the other. 

Edit: equity concerns are usually countered by the tangible losses they impose. There don't seem to be substantial tangible losses here. Online school sucks. You can try putting lipstick on a pig, but you'll be equally disgusted waking up in bed next to it in the morning with or without makeup. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Goblin King
typo

[CheeseToast]

22 minutes ago, Goblin King said:

I just don't think classroom environment would markedly improve with cameras on. Your section has no cameras and it's bad; mine has cameras and it's bad. So in terms of cost-benefit analysis, we have equity and privacy issues on one hand and limited benefit on the other. 

Edit: equity concerns are usually countered by the tangible losses they impose. There don't seem to be substantial tangible losses here. Online school sucks. You can try putting lipstick on a pig, but you'll be equally disgusted waking up in bed next to it in the morning with or without makeup. 

The equity and privacy issues raised are negligible or non-existent IMO. The ability to temporarily turn off your camera and blur your background are sufficient safeguards for most, if not all equity concerns no matter how badly others wish to believe in the indigent, constantly breast feeding mother of 4 living with an abusive person who barges into their room every 30 seconds.

I'm surprised the usual suspects haven't brought up how forcing people to show up to class in the first place is a discriminatory! 

[Goblin King]

Just now, CheeseToast said:

The equity and privacy issues raised are negligible or non-existent IMO. The ability to temporarily turn off your camera and blur your background are sufficient safeguards for most, if not all equity concerns no matter how badly others wish to believe in the indigent, constantly breast feeding mother of 4 living with an abusive person who barges into their room every 30 seconds.

I'm surprised the usual suspects haven't brought up how forcing people to show up to class in the first place is a discriminatory! 

Well if the equity concerns are negligible and the benefits are negligible, then clearly it shouldn't matter if people keep their cameras on or not. Also, have you not noticed that sometimes our profs have terrible wifi and having cameras off actually improves performance. There just seems to be no practical basis for mandating cameras be on other than some arbitrary politeness standard. 

[GGrievous]

22 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

The equity and privacy issues raised are negligible or non-existent IMO. The ability to temporarily turn off your camera and blur your background are sufficient safeguards for most, if not all equity concerns no matter how badly others wish to believe in the indigent, constantly breast feeding mother of 4 living with an abusive person who barges into their room every 30 seconds.

I'm surprised the usual suspects haven't brought up how forcing people to show up to class in the first place is a discriminatory! 

I think the privacy issues are quite significant, but only when it comes to a forced camera policy, which would then have to apply to microphones as well. The equity concerns can be better solved through providing accommodations. When you enrol  in school you’re expected to have certain things, many people simply can’t afford them. But this isn’t a novel issue with online school. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Barry

[CheeseToast]

14 minutes ago, Goblin King said:

Well if the equity concerns are negligible and the benefits are negligible, then clearly it shouldn't matter if people keep their cameras on or not. Also, have you not noticed that sometimes our profs have terrible wifi and having cameras off actually improves performance. There just seems to be no practical basis for mandating cameras be on other than some arbitrary politeness standard. 

I don’t think the benefits are truly negligible, and I think a lot of people are shooting themselves in the foot by dicking around on zoom but I guess we’re on a curve so what do I care. It does suck for the professors though.

My prof’s wifis have been fine tbh and I think it goes beyond politeness, this is law school for christ’s sake and people can’t be bothered to turn on their cameras? Cmoooon.

10 minutes ago, Barry said:

I think the privacy issues are quite significant. I tend to agree on the equity issues, at least the ones raised in this discussion. 

Feel free to articulate the privacy and equity issues that aren’t solved by the ability to blur one’s background and/or temporarily turn it off. Should we even have to show up to class at all? Doesn’t that raise equity issues? Why should university admin even know our names when we have a perfectly fine student ID number! 
 

[epeeist]

Interesting topic generally but some of the discussion has gotten off-track. And that's me saying that!

Long time out of law school but have done e.g. extended 6-month-long group weekly courses in Covid, so have at least that perspective (plus business meetings online). Thoughts:

1. Anything that forces you to pay more attention is good, even if you don't like it. And I see cameras on as, at least for me and a handful of people I've spoken with, as encouraging one to pay more attention. I'm reminded of discussions of, in live learning, people not liking policies that discourage them using phones and laptops (though there the issue is also distracting others, not just the individual using the device).

2. Of course some people have good reasons to turn cameras off, either for whole time or sometimes. Those reasons might be privacy, equity, technical problems, anything.

3. But agreeing with @Mountebank that while some people have genuine reasons, for many I suspect it's simply a shortsighted preference (shortsighted because learning better with cameras on generally per #1 above).

[Goblin King]

9 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

I don’t think the benefits are truly negligible, and I think a lot of people are shooting themselves in the foot by dicking around on zoom but I guess we’re on a curve so what do I care. It does suck for the professors though.

I mean we have comparator groups here -- it doesn't look to be the camera issue that makes online school difficult, given my class uses their cameras and are often being forced into breakout rooms. Participation just doesn't seem to happen. It's kind of a cow's opinion (a moo point) in our case as we're returning the 31st.  

 

[CheeseToast]

8 minutes ago, Goblin King said:

I mean we have comparator groups here -- it doesn't look to be the camera issue that makes online school difficult, given my class uses their cameras and are often being forced into breakout rooms. Participation just doesn't seem to happen. It's kind of a cow's opinion (a moo point) in our case as we're returning the 31st.  

 

I’m not saying it’s strictly a camera issue that makes zoom school suck but rather that it amplifies its suckiness for everyone. That is true though and I look forward to being back in person (though I don’t look forward to trudging across campus).

[Goblin King]

Just now, CheeseToast said:

I’m not saying it’s strictly a camera issue that makes zoom school suck but rather that it amplifies its suckiness for everyone. 

I think we're probably getting into a line of argumentation where it would be difficult to prove anything effectively bc it's just so heavily based on preferences, but in my experience and based on my own preferences, cameras being off don't tend to amplify the suckiness by any significant factor. Comparing parts of my undergrad where it was a sea of black screens to classes with nearly 80% participation rates, the suck factor is the same for me, and clearly less for those with their cameras off. Of course, YMMV.

 

4 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

(though I don’t look forward to trudging across campus)

Yeah, I'd take breathing in mold at Weldon before being forced to rub shoulders with undergrad plebes.