Consequences of a
Two-Semester Calendar
Report
of
the
Calendar
Committee
January 22, 2001
I.
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
II.
Critical Academic Issues........................................................................................................................................... 5
Course Content/Pace......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Study Abroad/Field
Courses.......................................................................................................................................... 6
Variety of Courses
Offered/Electives....................................................................................................................... 7
Research/Sabbatical Time............................................................................................................................................... 7
Teaching Load and
Pedagogical Issues....................................................................................................................... 8
Interdisciplinary
Programs............................................................................................................................................ 8
III.
Additional Topics Considered by the Committee................................................................................. 10
Time to Attend
Professional Meetings.................................................................................................................. 10
Academic Requirements for
Students.................................................................................................................... 10
Administrative Items...................................................................................................................................................... 10
IV.
Critical Non‑Academic Issues............................................................................................................................ 11
Admissions............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Alumni.................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Athletics.............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Bookstore............................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Career Services................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Dining Services.................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Law School........................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Lenfest Center................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Special Programs............................................................................................................................................................... 13
University
Services/Physical Plant.......................................................................................................................... 13
Student Affairs................................................................................................................................................................. 13
V.
Student Opinion............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Variety................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Focus........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Relaxation........................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendices.............................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Appendix A: Priority of
Calendar Factors by Committee Members......................................................... 17
Appendix B: Faculty
Survey......................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix C: Faculty
Survey Results........................................................................................................................ 21
Appendix D: Colleague
College Calendar Comparison................................................................................... 22
Appendix E: Sabbatical
Leave Policies.................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix F: Supporting
Materials............................................................................................................................ 24
This document summarizes the findings of the Calendar Committee. Its charge was to identify and analyze as many consequences as possible of a change to a more traditional two-semester calendar, focusing on the W&L academic program and curriculum, but with significant attention also to the requirements of the athletic program and other potentially affected areas like study abroad, career placement, internships, etc.
The University’s Comprehensive Strategic Plan, 1998-2005 includes a number of strategic directions designed to prepare the academic program for the twenty-first century. One of these concerns the calendar: “Just as our general education curriculum has served us well over the last twenty-five years, so has our distinctive academic calendar. The calendar has twice been the subject of exhaustive review by the faculty and has been reaffirmed as appropriate to the realization of our academic goals. As our curriculum continues to evolve it will be necessary to ensure that our calendar remain clearly advantageous for promoting its goals.”
In light of this objective in the strategic plan, Dean Larry Boetsch appointed a faculty/student committee to begin the initial phase of the study of the academic calendar. The committee’s members were: George Bent, Roger Crockett, Linda Hooks, Chuck O’Connell, Kip Pirkle, Maryanne Simurda, Sam Langholz ’02, Anne Ritchey ’03, and Barbara Brown, chair. In his charge, the Dean noted that the committee's report would be the principal document for the faculty to use in a broader discussion of a calendar change which would continue this academic year.
The committee expresses its deep appreciation to Registrar Scott Dittman, who served as an ex officio member of the committee, to Tom Williams who shared his experience as chair of the 1990 spring term review committee, and to Robert McAhren, chair of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee and Sylvia Kirgis for their invaluable assistance with the faculty survey.
The committee met weekly throughout the fall term, 2000. Initially, we conducted a brainstorming session to identify all the possible calendar factors that we could think of, and then we assigned each factor a priority. That prioritized list appears as Appendix A to this report. With that list in hand, we next identified sources of information which would help us understand the importance of these factors. We had the results of the senior exit surveys for 1999 and 2000 in which questions about the calendar were asked. The Registrar provided data about peer institution calendars and sabbatical policies and number of unique courses taught in spring term. We conducted interviews with key departments and solicited comments from other departments via e-mail. A list of all those contacted appears in Appendix F.
Early on we determined that while we had an abundance of survey data from students, we did not have current data from the faculty regarding the consequences of a calendar change. The development of a faculty survey became a significant portion of the committee’s work.
The committee identified several objectives to achieve through a faculty survey. First, we wanted to know which calendar consequences the faculty thought were critical. Whether positive or negative, we thought that identifying these critical consequences would help focus the subsequent broader discussion about the calendar. We wanted to get the faculty thinking about the calendar early in the year so that they would be better prepared for the continued discussion and subsequent vote at the end of this academic year. And finally, we wanted the survey to collect as much practical information as possible, rather than serving as a referendum on the calendar.
Linda Hooks and Kip Pirkle took the lead in drafting survey questions, using those factors on our list that we had identified as of particular interest to the faculty. We consulted with Bob McAhren on the form of the questions and the administration of the survey. The survey was distributed via the Web on November 7, 2000, with an e-mail notice to all faculty about its availability. A reminder e-mail was sent out on November 13, 2000. 129 responses were received. A copy of the survey appears as Appendix B.
Calendar reform would unquestionably affect the Washington and Lee community most dramatically in the classroom. Positive aspects of such a reform would include a slower pace to conduct courses, the greater opportunity for deeper learning, and the benefits of conforming to calendars used by the vast majority of peer institutions and study abroad programs (as well as the Law School and VMI) which attract our students' attentions annually. For faculty in particular, longer terms could mean a one course reduction in teaching load and longer sabbaticals, particularly in the second semester (which could extend from January 1 to the end of August, rather than January 1 to April 15). Yet reforming the calendar also brings with it substantial sacrifices. If the faculty's size remains substantially unchanged, curricular offerings in W&L's catalog would be reduced by roughly 1/8. Should the college decide to require students to take a 15‑credit load each term, class sizes would almost certainly increase beyond what they already are. Some faculty would no longer have the luxury of teaching specialized courses based on research interests, meaning they would have to teach only survey or "track" courses. Some departments might lose key components of their curriculum, namely field courses for Biology and Geology and internship programs for Politics and Journalism. While it is true that other institutions with two‑term calendars have addressed these problems, questions remain as to the effectiveness of their solutions.
Should the college ultimately decide to implement a two‑semester system, the Board may well be faced with the task of allocating new money to the expansion of the faculty, particularly in areas where student demand has risen beyond the limits of departmental capabilities. This is true for small departments and for others experiencing new demand.
The following list of issues, and the positive and negative effects a two‑semester system would probably have on them, outlines some of the comments made by faculty in the electronic survey conducted in November and by students, faculty, and administrators in interviews conducted during the autumn 2000. In the course of discussion, the committee used a working calendar model of two 14-week semesters and a 3-3 teaching load to help focus the issues. Appendix C contains the survey results discussed below.
Pros of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Students would have more time to digest material.
· Faculty would no longer need to teach accelerated courses in efforts to get to vital material at the end.
· Semesters would allow more time for discussion, videos, guest speakers, field trips, etc.
· All courses, and surveys in particular, could be given greater depth.
Cons of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Some faculty might be required to spend time reworking the content and flow of their current courses.
· Lengthier courses, with more content, might require adoption of different texts.
Conclusions: In the faculty survey, 68% indicated that course content was an important issue, but only 43% thought pace was important. Although switching to a new calendar would force some faculty to spend time altering their syllabi, the benefits appear to outweigh these short‑term costs. A semester system would enhance the academic content of course offerings, allowing for more rigor in both breadth and depth of material. Faculty would have more time to develop their courses and students would have more time to digest material. Under the current calendar, some faculty simply go faster, some meet 4‑5 times per week, and others use the full two‑hour block of time. Some disciplines cannot cover their list of recommended topics or cannot offer courses that meet the standards required of model curricula. Regardless of the legitimacy of spring term, the course content of the other two terms is impacted negatively by the current calendar. Although reworking courses is no minor task, the benefits of semesters appear to outweigh the costs relative to course content.
Pros of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Consistency with other study abroad programs: easier for student to match courses and credits.
· Study abroad programs would be instantly enriched and intensified by a longer study abroad.
· Faculty leading W&L study abroad programs could go for four months instead of one. Greater potential for faculty development.
Cons of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Intensive spring term Biology and Geology field courses and Journalism and Politics internships are lost. Difficult to reintegrate these items into longer courses, although study of peer institutions should be conducted to learn how other colleges do this.
· Faculty unable or unwilling to leave W&L/Rockbridge County for more than six weeks (for personal or professional reasons) must find alternate ways to lead study abroad programs.
· Small departments would lose ability to run their own study abroad programs.
Conclusions: Sixty-one percent of the faculty ranked an increase in study abroad through non-W&L programs as an important outcome of a switch to two semesters. However, 74 percent agreed that a two-semester system would decrease study abroad and field courses offered by W&L faculty. Sixty-three percent thought this, too, was an important consequence. It is difficult to conclude whether the costs of going to a two-semester calendar outweigh the benefits here. Programs led by W&L faculty would be eliminated or reorganized, and only faculty capable of leaving W&L for an entire semester would be able to conduct any new, longer programs. Spring term field courses for biology and geology and internships for journalism and politics would be altered dramatically or eliminated. On the other hand, students would have new opportunities for study abroad through non-W&L programs, since the W&L academic calendar would better match the calendars of other programs. These longer programs would provide greater depth and intensity.
Pros of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Two additional weeks of instruction create room for greater variety of material and methods to be employed within each course.
· Reducing electives causes a streamlining of the curriculum, essentially separating the wheat from the chaff in a natural selection process.
Cons of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Going to a semester system would reduce the number and variety of courses offered.
· Some faculty would lose opportunity to teach alternative or non‑survey courses currently in their rotation.
· Numbers of electives available for a major would probably drop; unless Gen Ed requirements are altered (i.e. lowered) students would take fewer classes outside of their majors.
Conclusions: In the faculty survey, 54% ranked the number of electives as important and 58% said the variety of courses would decrease. Only 43% ranked a decrease in total credits for GEs as important. Costs appear to outweigh benefits. Under the current spring term, topics can change from year to year, keeping life interesting for students and faculty. Students would have a basic curriculum without the more specialized advanced courses currently available -- although some faculty have indicated that this streamlining effect would actually be a good thing. Faculty would teach survey courses more often and would lose the opportunity to explore special topics related to their research. Study abroad and interdisciplinary courses (which are well suited to the shorter spring term) would be much harder to structure and work into the students' schedules. Team‑taught courses involving undergraduate faculty would be more difficult to coordinate, though probably easier with law faculty. Students could more likely take classes offered at nearby schools, opening up topics not available at Washington and Lee, thus diminishing the impact of losing courses in our catalog due to a calendar change.
Pros of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Ending the academic year three weeks earlier, with commencement in early‑ to mid‑May, gives faculty that much more additional time for summer research projects. This is particularly important for those whose research cannot be conducted in August, when some libraries and archives close.
· Collaborative projects with specialists from other institutions may be enhanced with a calendar consistent with most colleges in United States.
· One semester sabbaticals could be lengthened by three weeks in the second semester, and could continue into summer months ‑- resulting in eight months of continuous research, rather than only three.
Cons of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Earlier start time (probably late August) would truncate research in late summer, a problem for those whose work depends on late summer developments.
· Eliminates spring term "springboard" for summer research.
· Eliminates opportunity for taking consecutive spring term sabbaticals.
Conclusions: In the faculty survey, 57% rated summer research time as important or very important. 54% of the faculty said an increase in time between sabbaticals would be an important consequence. Benefits seem to outweigh costs here, as increased research time in summer months for all faculty overshadow the possible problems caused for some. W&L's sabbatical program is in the middle of the range for our peer institutions. See Appendix E for comparable data. There is no reason to believe that the period between sabbaticals would be altered in either direction.
Pros of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Teaching load would be reduced to 3‑3.
· Elimination of spring term would relieve faculty from burden of preparing three "start‑ups" each year.
· W&L might be able to attract to campus prospective students who turn away from us due to its reputation as a "party school," enhanced by the “Goshen term.” Classroom dynamics would be improved by higher yield of quality students.
· Course content could be expanded.
· Longer semesters would allow for more "digestion time."
· Faculty could standardize courses to follow textbooks written for 14‑week terms.
Cons of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Without significant additions to faculty, curriculum would be reduced by roughly 12%.
· Some faculty's teaching load would be reduced entirely to survey courses.
· Class sizes might be increased, but only if W&L requires five courses per term.
Conclusions: In the faculty survey, 57% ranked teaching load as important or very important. Benefits seem to outweigh costs here, as a reduced teaching load and a tightening of academic focus might be worth the sacrifices of increased class size and a reduced curriculum in what is currently an lengthy course catalog. W&L's teaching load is currently higher than those of peer institutions, in some cases by 40%. There is no reason to believe teaching load should be expanded ‑- although an argument could be made to have it reduced to match those of comparable colleges. One question remaining to be answered for a few faculty is whether a 3-3 load for two semesters is actually a heavier load than 3-3-1 for 12-12-6? (Note: Some critical non-academic issues have an impact on pedagogy. See that section, beginning on p. 11.)
Pros of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
· Allows for increased pedagogical and research collaborations with Law School faculty and other faculty.
· W&L could now collaborate with VMI to create additional curricular offerings ‑- thus making up for some courses lost in catalog.
· Broadens and deepens interdisciplinary courses, which by definition ask much from students.
Cons of moving to a 2-semester calendar:
·
Faculty interested in
teaching interdisciplinary courses will need release time from departmental
loads, thus reducing courses taught in department.
Conclusions: In the faculty survey, 46% ranked consequences for interdisciplinary courses as important or very important. Benefits seem to outweigh costs here, as W&L gradually increases its commitment to interdisciplinary programs. Most programs offer their interdisciplinary courses during full terms now, suggesting that a switch to two semesters will not affect them. However, some department chairs and heads will be forced to make decisions about release time when faculty request a one‑course "reduction" to teach or team‑teach an interdisciplinary course. For small departments, this could be a problem. While interviews with Law School personnel suggest that the issue of parallel calendars is not of primary concern, the potential benefits of collaborating with the Law School and with VMI should not be underestimated.
There are three categories of items that either were considered by the faculty in the survey to be less important or the items were not included in the survey. See Appendix C for survey results.
This item seems to be slightly less important to the faculty and probably varies from discipline to discipline and professional meeting to professional meeting.
· General education requirements
· Ability to pursue a double/triple major
· Credits required for graduation
· Co-curricular requirements for major
In discussing the two-semester calendar the committee considered the academic requirements for students to be important. The faculty, on the other hand, considered some of these items to be less important. In reviewing the survey’s results, the committee discussed that perhaps these items were less important to the faculty because they would be handled on a departmental level. However, it was noted in committee that the Accounting program has a required number of credits that it must adhere to for the students to be certified.
· Three registration, drop/add, grading, and final exam times during one academic year
· Number of classrooms
· Length of class day
In the Administrative Items only the number of start-times during the academic year was part of the faculty survey and this item was deemed less important to the faculty. The committee discussed the number of classrooms available and the length of the school day as being important to the operation of a two-semester system. If class sizes increase, so too will our need for larger classrooms or for more hours in the daily schedule to use larger rooms.
The Admissions Office does not believe that a change to a two‑semester academic calendar is an issue in recruiting prospective students; the office will deal with whatever calendar is in place. However, it was noted that the current calendar actually is a detriment to prospective student options in that W&L's April break falls during peak vacation times.
The main concern of the Alumni Office is the need to continue to hold reunion weekends while W&L is in session in order to facilitate the programs offered and to provide manpower. A change to a two-semester calendar would require coordination of dates with VMI and the Virginia Horse Center.
The impact that a calendar change would have on athletic programs would vary from sport to sport and season to season. The general consensus is that many of the changes would be positive and would solve some existing concerns and increase scheduling options. The major issue to resolve involves spring sports and their participation in conference and NCAA championship events relative to the placement of second term exams and graduation. It is likely that W&L would have teams and individual athletes competing in these events during these times. This would necessitate a re-evaluation of the policy on athletic participation at these times.
The FALL SPORTS would be able to begin their pre‑season practices and regular season contests on the same time table as our opponents. The current calendar puts W&L a week or two behind opponents in both practice time and contests played. This would allow for some additional contests, very likely against peer institutions, and would also allow a better balance of schedules over the course of a season, which could reduce missed class time. The earlier start‑up dates for pre‑season practices would impact housing and dining hall services as would a week‑long fall break. These issues, as well as the additional contests, would have budget implications.
The primary impact on WINTER SPORTS would be on the placement and length of a fall break and any changes in the length of the Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks. All these breaks would have an impact on housing, dining hall services and scheduling and each have budget implications. In addition, an earlier spring break could create housing and dining service issues with any winter sport athletes still training for NCAA championship events. It is also possible that some of the conference championship events, which now occur during the Washington holiday, would occur while W&L is in session and could result in missed class time.
SPRING SPORTS are affected the most by the current calendar and would also be affected the most by a move to a semester system. The current calendar forces us to begin practices in January and play contests in mid- to late-February. The current Winter Term exam schedule forces W&L to play a disproportionate number of contests in March. This results in too many weekday contests and missed class time during what is typically a rigorous academic time. A semester system would allow for a more balanced schedule of practices and contests even though it would result in the loss of the training trips taken during the Washington holiday. The timing of spring break would have a major impact on competition trips taken and scheduling. Even more than the winter sports, W&L would be involved in conference and NCAA championship events while still in session. This will result in missed class time. W&L would also face housing and dining service issues relative to teams and individual athletes competing in NCAA events after exams and graduation. This would be an additional budget issue.
A semester system would put our bookstore "in synch" with other institutions and would improve the timetable they follow to order, receive and return books. This could make books more readily available and, in the case of used books and buybacks, benefit students. There is the possibility of some space problems but these could be handled.
Career Services felt that a move to a semester system would facilitate their operations. It would have a favorable effect on fall interviews, which have become more important in recent years, by increasing the time available to have interviewers on campus. W&L is currently three weeks behind other institutions, a disadvantage to students. In addition, Career Services would be able to prepare our students for these interviews. The SLAC interviews would be held while W&L would be out of session and would address the problem of missed-class time endured with the current calendar. Career Services reported that they have moved away from using the current Spring Term for programming because of a lack of interest and involvement on the part of students.
The Dining Services staff felt they could work with either calendar. Their concerns center on start‑up and closing dates, the timing and length of breaks, the number of students to be fed during either term relative to off‑campus programs, special events during the school year, and the summer programs schedule.