<p>I've only ever been on the semester system, but am most likely going to be on quarter next year!</p>
<p>So, it's 10 weeks instead of 18 weeks, ya? And, does that mean that they present the exact same material to you just super crammed, or is it a little less indulgent and a little more superficial? Like, do the courses not delve as deep? (I guess there's no way to know if you don't take the exact equivalent in the sem system!?)</p>
<p>i suppose it varies from class to class but my cousin is on the quarter system at UCLA and she described it to me by the example of her ochem series. </p>
<p>The same information is cut up different ways. If the 10 chapters of material needs to be covered (not necessarily meaning both schools use the same book, just the same material covered), the students on the quarter system will do chapters 1-3 in fall, 4-7 in winter, and 8-10 in spring (or some variation of that). The students on the semester system will do chapters 1-5 in fall and 6-10 in spring. </p>
<p>The same material is covered, just sliced up in a different way. </p>
<p>From what I understand, testing is different as well. Students are often given midterms earlier on the quarter system because there is less time between the start of learning and X% through the semester. Again, probably varies from class to class.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t worry about it though, both seem to have benefits and pitfalls that outweigh each other.</p>
<p>What I’m going to like about the quarter system is:
-if you don’t like the professor it’s over quick
-less info to remember for final, and you only have to remember it for a few weeks
-less potential scheduling conflicts imo
-depends on class but the faster the pace the less inclined I am to procrastinate</p>