@JHS - the specific stressor might change, but that’s about it. With a semester system, the wigging out will be over five days of midterms at Week Five, or falling behind, or having to write a major paper over spring break. They can change the timing all they want to, but the amount required to be crammed into the brain at a given time won’t let up.
A more common sense solution to the stress might be to make sure these kids are getting enough sunlight or taking D3 supplements. Vitamin D deficiency is a real problem among college students and has been found to be highly correlated with emotional health issues.
History and symbolism are important in the culture of a university. The quarter system has both those things going for it. Let’s say that on that basis there’s a presumption in its favor. That would suggest that the committee will have to discover some really significant reasons favoring semesters and disfavoring quarters.
Students could appropriately be canvassed on this subject, but judging from the views being expressed in this present discussion by current and former students, and by parents channeling the views of their students, the prevailing sentiment actually seems to run against conversion.
Concerning whether to change the “pace”, the real determining factors are going to be curricular. It appears that the College has worked with the various academic departments to introduce a number of options for a wide spectrum of learning paths - for instance, non-major sciences, or three different calculus sequences, or several tracks available for popular majors. If they decide to slow down the actual pace (say, 45 weeks rather than 30 to complete Calculus) it’s possible that some of these choices will disappear. Why teach 130’s if 150’s is now slower?
However, whether to slow down Calculus - or any other subject, for that matter - is a curricular decision over which the College administration doesn’t have much authority. It’s the academic department that makes that decision. The most obvious reason for changing the pace of something like Calculus would be that students coming out of the 30-week-long sequence are somehow ill-prepared for higher math or for other subjects requiring the completion of Calculus. Is that really the case? While we’ve all been discussing many criticisms of the quarter system, I’ve yet to read that particular one. Absent substantive evidence of this sort, Calc. 150’s is going to remain a 30-week sequence no matter how to slice or dice it. The same applies to any other crucial sequences, including those in the Core. (Would Boyer propose that Sosc. be stretched out to 45 weeks or scaled back in content and writing requirements?)
And if the curricular pace does NOT change for key subjects, then the big question is whether it makes sense to alter the term length at all. 15 weeks at the same pace w/o a break sounds even more relentless than the current system!
@JBStillFlying you are consistently misinterpreting what I write. (It's my fault, I know. I use a lot of irony.) I agree with you completely that people who feel academic stress are going to feel it in a semester system, too. As plenty of kids do today. Changing the term shape is more cosmetic than real.
That said, it’s a consistent element of Chicago folklore, at least, that Chicago’s 10-week courses are the equivalent of everyone else’s 15-week courses, so that Chicago students actually learn 50% more (or maybe 25% more, depending) than their counterparts at semester schools. If that’s true, then maybe the quarter system does create extra stress . . . but many students like it that way, like learning the extra bits. Or like the freedom to take more electives, or to go deeper into their major, or to do a second major.
Either way, changing to a semester system feels like a solution in search of a bona fide problem.
The real problem with Chicago's calculus curriculum in a semester system is not fitting three 10-week quarters of calculus into two 15-week semesters. Most fourth graders can solve that equation. The big problem is that right now only 20 weeks of calculus are required for the Core and the majors a sizable portion of the student body choose. In a semester system, they would either have to let some people learn less math, or they would have to require everyone to take the equivalent of 133/153 or higher, something that does not happen now and might very well degrade the quality of the classes covering introduction to higher math for the people who want to take them.
There’s also a smaller issue with placement. Right now, first-years can place directly in to 152 or 153. Presumably some of those who place into 152 would not place into semester-152, and they would be forced to start with semester-151, ensuring boredom and resentment.
Every department would have some version of that problem. There would have to be a lot of restructuring of existing courses and requirements. It makes me tired to think about it. I suspect others will react the same way.
@JHS - I know we are on the same page. I don’t think I misinterpreted you (except that maybe you didn’t have a solution to the “OMG” problem LOL. Mine: Vitamin D).
I think that the Core would have to be retooled but you can perhaps take care of the Calc. problem by introducing Mini-semesters. So someone wishing to complete the equivalent of 151/152 would take 21 weeks (3 mini’s) rather than 20 weeks (2 quarters). Otherwise, you are correct that when you lengthen the term you make everything less divisible. And my point was also that something like Sosc - which contributes to the reputation of “relentlessness” as much as anything else - might have to change as well. Doubt that even Boyer wants that.
Agree that no one’s going to restructure the existing curriculum if they don’t see a problem.
My kid finally finished up today so I was able to her about the quarter system. She actually enjoys the pace. So she’s in the “ain’t broke” category. Honestly I think she’d be bored if everything slowed down. My son has no opinion whatsoever, given that he hasn’t started college yet. Term length never came up when he was figuring out his list of schools; both quarter and semester systems were in his set. His primary academic concern was that the school have an intellectually challenging liberal arts curriculum.
Given all the ironical, psychological, historical, logical, emotional, pedagogical, therapeutical and analytical subtleties evoked by this subject it’s no wonder that misinterpretations abound. Only @kaukauna approaches the gold standard of @Chrchill - ian succinctness.
Personally disagree with virtually everything in it but it is nevertheless a fresh perspective. In particular, the last paragraph: “I know that when pressure builds in my chest after a harrowing exam, or when I start my fourth cup of coffee of the day to make sure I can stay up long enough to finish an essay, it helps me to take a deep breath and remind myself that I came to the University of Chicago in the hope that one day, I can use the skills and network I gain here to make the world a better place. I have said this before, but it warrants repetition: Our school succeeds when its students go on to do great things in the world—discover cures, spur social and political movements, create life-changing art. That is only possible when the school that chose us for our drive, passion, and ambition recognizes the struggles that can accompany these qualities and gives us the tools we need to succeed.”
I personally think UChicago undergrad isn’t really stressful even if you take two Honors courses etc. or grad courses. It’s all down to time management and the ability to intensely focus.
^ Um, that writer struggles with anxiety. Hard to compare experiences unless you have the same challenges. BTW, my D’s academic advisor also left before year-end her first year and it caused a needless hassle. They need to do a better job keeping those academic advisors around. Quality academic advice is kind of required at a school that’s supposed to be as rigorous as UChicago.
The skinny on academic advisers is that the College won’t hire replacements for any who leave until the new academic year. We start the year with the smallest number of advisers the College thinks they can get away with. Then someone gets a new job in Charlotte, someone gets pregnant, someone returns to Seattle to look after a sick family member, and suddenly you have overworked advisers and slower response times. It’s like clockwork.
Also helping matters, the powers that be are trying to cut spending while boosting enrollment. As of last fall, any new position needs to be approved by a three-person committee (including the Provost). No such committee to decide if Nondorf should overenroll the class of 2023. And overenrolling happens to be a key component of the university’s plan to balance the operating budget by 2020. So the administrative hurdles to hiring more advisers (and other staff) are far higher than the barriers to adding students, and the incentives are pushing in opposite directions. Not a great mix.
Also, I’m befuddled by the fact that academic advisors aren’t committed to an academic calendar. Faculty can’t just up and leave in the middle of their teaching commitments (unanticipated sick/maternity leave notwithstanding). Why are academic advisors treated differently? My daughter’s first year advisor had a PhD and had taught one of the Core sequences. She was clearly “academic caliber.”
Also, said advisor never posted a letter to her students announcing her departure (at least my kid never received one) which is kind of rude. She just disappeared one day and D was re-assigned and her appointment delayed past Week Seven (which caused all sorts of problems with registration but we won’t go there . . ). It was most unprofessional and disheartening. So perhaps there is a quality issue in who they are hiring. Perhaps they should raise the salary and hire fewer - and better - people who are more knowledgable and can process the students through quickly. This isn’t rocket science.
Yes, pay is also an issue for staff in general. That leads to higher turnover and hurts institutional memory. The College doesn’t pay enough to ask for a full-year commitment. I assume the goons who dreamed up this system typed a bunch of salary numbers into an Excel spreadsheet while holding qualifications, productivity, and turnover constant. It’s like a bad parody of the studies at Booth and elsewhere showing that low wage rates ≠> lower labor costs.
I’ve had the same adviser for 2.5 years, and really enjoyed working with her. She has a Master’s framed on a wall somewhere, and could well have other credentials. She strikes me as someone who could handle any number of jobs and happens to like this one.
I do think leaving without notice to students is fairly unusual. That leads me to believe this wasn’t a planned move - health issues, litigation with the university, or something in that vein might be involved. The University’s already looking at one class-action suit for violating HIPAA, so I doubt they’re in any hurry to disclose medical information on employees. Litigation gets everyone to clam up. Or there may be some other explanation.
No idea who’s pushing semesters. The meme page’s take (which is the furthest thing from authoritative) is that Dean Boyer has a telescope trained on Cambridge, MA, and just caught a glimpse of a certain school’s calendar.
Personally, cramming for 15 weeks’ worth of content seems kind of exhausting, and I like being able to shut my brain off during Christmas break. So count me among the quarter system’s defenders.
I agree that switching to semesters is a solution that is looking for a problem.
However, there is a perceived problem that was brought up at least 3 times during orientation this year by “helicopter parents.” That problem is “Will Johnny be able to get an internship or summer job if his summer goes from mid-June to the end of september when other colleges have most of may through to early August.” The career office answer of “We are UChicago and companies and public organizations realize that the benefit of having a UChicago student intern by far outweigh the minor inconvenience you as a company will have to endure.” didn’t really strike a good note.
There are some “high profile” public internships in DC that seem to have this calendar in mind when they say a 10 week internship starting in May. However, I know from a pretty good source that UChicago students still land these and the schedules are easily flexed. However, one person’s perception is also reality in their mind. If students (and parents of students) are not picking UChicago because of this, then I can understand looking at options. However, pretty soon you have to play to your strengths and realize you can’t please everyone. If UChicago is where it is today in a quarter world, what gain is there from making the switch. In the end, it very well could be the opposite of a gain.
I graduated from a semester school and did my MBA at a quarter school and can tell you I noticed little difference, other than I enjoyed my spring break more at the quarter school.
Per my daughter it’s one a year after first year (?) at least that’s what she thought applied this year. Once they have completed the core and are well into their major it’s not clear why they would need a general academic advisor. Most of the academic advising at that point would be major specific wouldn’t it?
Not sure what requirements are re: meetings after first year. But in re: uses for an academic adviser, they can be helpful with various foibles of the campus bureaucracy - forms, independent study, exchange programs, leaves of absence, declaring a specialization within one’s major (where relevant), etc. And having everyone check in once in a while is a good safety net to keep students on track.
Email from the university this month: “I want to remind you to meet with your College Adviser this quarter. Please take time this week to make your appointment through our online appointment system[.] Although it is no longer required for you to meet with your adviser during your second year, I highly encourage you to do so.” Last year, they were told in writing that one a year was REQUIRED (plus one every quarter first year). That policy apparently changed w/r/t second year now. No problem here, as they were not useful for my DD anyway. So long as they have an advisor who can answer a quick question via email, I’d say it’s maybe a good thing not to require kids to go if they don’t have anything to talk about?
Academic advisors are somewhat useless. They can slash 70% of them and it honestly wouldn’t really matter. Your major’s undergraduate contact will be way better and help you far more. Academic advisors are for people who don’t know how to read the course catalog.