<p>Can somebody explain the differences between a quarter system versus a two-semester system? Obviously, the former is divided into four and the other is divided into two, but are you expected to take the same number of classes under the quarter system? Are the credit hours different? Etc. etc.</p>
<p>@ atrophicwhisper</p>
<p>The quarter system has on average three terms (fall, winter and spring). You take three sets of exams in an academic school year. A quarter usually lasts 11 weeks so the classes may seem faster-paced and intensive. Students usually take 3-4 classes per quarter whereas students take 4-5 classes per semester.</p>
<p>The semester system is longer (15 weeks) and there are only two sets of exams in an academic year. You can take more breadth of classes in a quarter system. If you have to drop a course before the deadline, it is easier to make it up another quarter. (I went to a college on the quarter system).</p>
<p>If you would have taken five courses per semester at another school, you'll probably take four per quarter at a quarter-system school (Northwestern is one example). So that's 12 courses per academic year - a good value if you're looking for breadth. Of course, you have to deal with the fact that exams seem to come up very soon after midterms. Furman is an interesting variation (unless they've changed in the last year or two) - eleven- or twelve-week fall and spring quarters with an eight-week winter quarter in between, during which you take only two courses.</p>
<p>50% more bang for your buck at schools on the qrt system. Most qrt requirements are just a semester's work crammed into 11 weeks, instead of dragging on for 15 or 16. Many schools did away w/ the qrt to save $$$, but if you don't might ending your yr in early June it's something to consider.</p>
<p>Not all schools on the quarter system work the same way. </p>
<p>Carleton and Dartmouth:</p>
<p>A single quarter course is the equivalent of a full semester course. Usual load is 3 courses per term, 9 per year (similar total yearly course number to most semester based universities, more than usual for semester based LACs). </p>
<p>Northwestern and U Chicago:</p>
<p>Typically each quarter course is the equivalent of a little less than a comparable semester sequence (occasionally this is not the case and work covered is very similar). Course load is 3-4 per term, 9-12 per year, with requirements of 42/45 courses to graduate from Chicago/Northwestern respectively.</p>
<p>A few more clarifications:</p>
<p>AFAIK, only Dartmouth can really call its calendar a "quarter" calendar because of its quarter off/ summer quarter. Chicago calls its trimester system a quarter system just to confuse people.</p>
<p>I would say that a typical load at Chicago is not 3, but 4. Or, rather, a student might take 3 in a quarter where he or she will be having a major internship/ playing a varsity sport/ performing in a play/ taking one class that will take up more work than usual. Out of 3 quarters in a year, students will typically take 4 courses for two of them and 3 for one of them. I could easily imagine a student frontloading 4 courses for three years and then sliding into 3 a quarter senior year. Some students never take 3 courses.</p>
<p>Profs don't announce that the material is going at a faster pace than the semester system, so I have no idea if 1190's assertion is true or untrue, but I do know that every class counts, and missing one class is missing A LOT. It stinks if you get sick, but it's great if you get bored easily.</p>
<p>Unalove:</p>
<p>I agree that referring to a quarter rather than a trimester system can be confusing. Outside of Dartmouth, the only other time I can think of quarter truly coming into play is when the summer term is used for study abroad. For example, the Economics in Cambridge program Carleton sponsors is completed in the summer and must substitute for another regular school term (why would I suppose most opt out of the winter quarter?).</p>
<p>My reference to a single quarter system course's workload at Chicago/Northwestern as slightly less than or equal to a semester arrangement is primarily based on curricula in the sciences and math where comparing their apples to other schools apples is a bit easier than in the humanities/SSs (course curriculum tends to pretty much parallel standard textbooks which commonly overlap at schools). Entry levels sequences, e.g. General Chem and Organic, at Chicago and Northwestern are typically 3 courses over one year. The work covered is very similar to the 2 course, one year curriculum found at similar level semester schools (e.g. Cornell/Columbia). Obviously each quarter course covers 33%, not 50%, of a year's workload. </p>
<p>Outside the sciences/math (or at higher levels in these departments) I agree individual course depth/workload/pace is certainly much harder to predict and much more dependent on where an individual professor sits on the empathy/sadism scale.</p>
<p>I, for one, remain a quarter/trimester fan.</p>
<p>Oh, I see, yeah courses like Calc, and GenChem are indeed full-year courses, just divided up into third and not halves.</p>
<p>I too am a huge fan of quarter system (I think CalTech calls them "terms" but they are the same 10-week nibbles) for the reasons mentioned already. School seems to go even faster, and my spring break only comes after my finals are done.</p>
<p>Another difference I've noticed from schools on semesters vs. quarters is vacation schedules.</p>
<p>Semesters: Normally start late August and finish a week or two before Christmas. Then, restart for spring semester in mid-late January and finish in May.</p>
<p>Quarters: Normally start in mid to late September, have a shorter Christmas break, and then finish in June.</p>
<p>sry, unalove, but Chicago is on a true quarter system, just like every UC ('cept Cal), and Stanford. Frosh Chem is all year, whether three quarters or two semesters.</p>
<p>Dartmouth's quarter system is different; for example, Frosh Chem is only two quarters.</p>
<p>I can add a little more details on the science/math based on my experience at NU.</p>
<p>The 1-yr science series run at the same pace, unless you pick the accelerated version which covers it in 2 quarters and is fairly popular. The 3-semester Calculus series takes 4 quarters at Northwestern, so it's a little faster at NU. I was in engg school and for core courses, one quarter covers the same material as that in one semester.</p>
<p>I was at Stanford for one year and I took a course with a prof that Stanford just hired from Michigan State. In the middle of the quarter, he mentioned to us it's gonna be very difficult to squeeze what he wanted to cover in one quarter. I think he ended up omitting some chapters but we probably still got most of what he planned. He gave the same test he used before at Michigan State. He had never seen perfect score before while in this class, 4 students achieved that and he was pleasantly impressed.</p>
<p>^ Paying Stanford prices for a Michigan State education...priceless.</p>
<p>oh geez..it's you AGAIN!! thanks for reminding me of that!</p>
<p>^ Lol...:D</p>
<p>
[quote]
have a shorter Christmas break
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i admit this sucks!</p>
<p>I refute that that sucks sam. I much prefer being here than being home.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I too am a huge fan of quarter system (I think CalTech calls them "terms" but they are the same 10-week nibbles) for the reasons mentioned already. School seems to go even faster, and my spring break only comes after my finals are done.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, they're still called quarters here.</p>
<p>I went to Carnegie Mellon for my undergrad where we ran on the semester system, and now I'm at Caltech learning on the quarter system, and I have to say I like semesters a whole lot more. Quarters tend to force you to just cram information into your head, only learning just what is needed in order to do well in the course. In the semester system there'd be more time to explore interesting aspects of the material and possibly expand into what the professor teaching the class usually researches. I find that's when you really find what's useful about the material you're learning instead of just learning pages and pages of derivations and proofs.</p>
<p>@ RacinReaver</p>
<p>I think the quarter system is much more suitable for undergraduate education where breath of courses is good. Graduate school is a time where students need to absorb more material and take more advanced courses in their field. I personally enjoyed the quarter system in college, but I would definitely recommend the semester sytem at the graduate level.</p>
<p>Yeah, I could have definitely seen it being useful in undergrad. In my major at CMU we had things called "minis" which were pretty much a half-semester class which contained the full content of a semester long class. They were hard as heck, but they let us get into "upper-level" classes in just one semester. Quarters have been fairly frustrating in grad school since advisers in my department don't even recommend stepping foot in lab until the summer rolls around because we're all taking a full load of classes (and getting wrecked since we don't have a lot of the prereqs for classes, so we have to catch up doubletime).</p>
<p>The quarter system does look a little lame.
However, while students at semester schools are doing work over breaks, those at schools on the quarter system (or atleast at UChicago) will be relaxing on a work-free (though shorter) break.</p>