UChicago making changes to academic calendar, classes done by June 1

To: Members of the University Community
From: Ka Yee C. Lee, Provost
Subject: Academic Calendar Changes
Date: February 26, 2020

As part of the University of Chicago’s commitment to support the academic experience and well-being of our students and the work of our faculty, we will implement several adjustments to the academic calendar beginning in Autumn 2021.

These adjustments result from a comprehensive review of the academic calendar by a committee composed of faculty, academic staff, and undergraduate and graduate students, who worked at the charge of Dean John W. Boyer with support from the Office of the Provost. The committee’s recommendations were reviewed and discussed by the Council of the Faculty Senate, the College Council, and the Committees of both Councils. They also were reviewed by and received wide support from the deans of the University.

The committee’s report, which is available here, reaffirmed the importance of the quarter system and suggested that minor adjustments to the current calendar would provide numerous advantages to students and to faculty. Such benefits include increased flexibility for students to schedule coursework, a better coordinated conclusion to the spring term across all units of the University, and better alignment of the calendar with a range of summer opportunities including research, internships, and summer study.

The key recommendations are:

  • Conclude all coursework and exams by June 1
  • Institute a week-long break for Thanksgiving
  • Reduce each quarter’s instructional period from 9 ½ to 9 weeks
  • Establish a three-day Reading Period, extending from Saturday of the final
    instructional week through Monday of Exam Week
  • Administer exams Tuesday through Friday of Exam Week
  • Introduce a three-week September term with limited on-campus course offerings,
    modeled after study abroad programs and Summer Session

I would like to thank the members of the committee, chaired by Martha T. Roth, the Chauncey S. Boucher Distinguished Service Professor of Assyriology in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, for their work in developing these recommendations. The Office of the Provost will work with an implementation group to put these changes into effect and address any related issues.

Overall, I applaud the changes UChicago has made though they will only impact my kid’s senior year starting Fall 2021.

Ending the spring quarter at the end of May will make summer internships more accessible to UChicago students especially the more structured programs that start the beginning of June or earlier. Last year, my D had to ask profs to let her take early finals before the spring quarter even ended so she could join the company’s other interns at their internship orientation week.

And as a parent of a student a flight away from home, I like the idea of a week long break for Thanksgiving.

I’ll be curious how many students take advantage of the early September term. I know my D would have enjoyed going back to school closer to when all her friends at other colleges had gone back by the end of August.

Is the three week term optional? 9 weeks/quarter times three quarters plus 3 week Sept. term = 30 weeks. Subtract out a week for TGiving and you have 29 solid weeks of instruction under the new plan.

Currently they get 30 less six days for reading less another two for TGiving. That’s about 28 and a half. So the new system adds in a few more days unless they are giving everyone a few days off after sept. term.

So how can S-term be optional?

Good question @JBStillFlying. The stated rationale for the calendar changes was to reduce student stress. The new calendar would seem to align more closely with other schools traditional begin and end dates w/the addition of September term and a June 1st end of the academic year. If the September term is mandatory with 1 course presumably meeting every day, then all UChicago students would be on campus by early September like most other colleges. Would the expected course load for the regular fall term then become 3 classes rather than 4?

You missed the reference to the faculty*.

IMO, there is absolutely no way that shrinking the number of class days/term improves the well being of students. Students are already stressed, and unless The College is gonna corresponding reduction in work… Just defies common sense.

To me, this is just dumb. ~80% of other colleges are on a semester system; UoC (like Stanford and Northwestern) is on the quarter system – embrace it. Vive la difference. Or just change from quarter to a semester system, like Berkeley did in the 80’s.

*Dartmouth moved its fall quarter to start in early September to finish by Thanksgiving. As I understand it, the impetus was primarily faculty-driven.

It’s very likely that UC faculty showed little-to-no support for a semester system. Boyer had mentioned last year that there was lack support for it.

Based on the provost’s letter (admittedly, I read very little of the faculty report so someone is free to correct or clarify), this new calendar seems to increase options but will change little for those who enjoy the current system. Those who wish to may spread their course load out over the academic year, taking 1 course during the accelerated S-Term and then 9-12 courses during the rest of the year. Some - perhaps many - might gravitate to a 1+3+3+3 schedule for Years 2-4, while taking 9-12 courses during first year, depending on the number of AP brought in. Such a schedule will not only allow you to graduate, but you will be able to lighten your load a bit in order to accommodate a particularly tough sequence. Now, your quarter is also cut by a few days (and a full academic week in the fall) so, assuming that faculty isn’t re-doing the curriculum, things will be a tad more accelerated compared to the current pace. But you also have one fewer class.

However, for those who enjoy the current pace and can even handle a bit more, the S-Term allows them several options including: 1) Early graduation (12 courses in year One plus 13 in years Two and Three = 38 course enrollments; add four course-equivalents from AP/IB and you graduate a year early). 2) The chance to add another major or specialty to your repertoire because you can cram another nine or so courses into your schedule; 3) Three-week study abroad at a great time of year, without needing to sacrifice any instructional time on campus.

For those interested in using September to do a Trek or similar Career Advancement activity, the new end date in early June now allows you your full 10-12 weeks of summer employment/internship, and if S-Term is, indeed, optional you can always stretch that out into the fall. For those earning money for college, that might be an especially good thing because it means you might not have to work during the school year.

The only question would be whether faculty are willing to condense the current syllabi into a bit less instructional time. My guess is that they are. In fact, they are likely to be very happy about this opportunity to condense their instructional time because it leaves more time for research, conferences and other professional endeavors.

The full report makes clear that the September term will not be mandatory. Among other things, the report recommends that the September courses be limited in number and only be for subjects for which it is pedagogically appropriate to do by short-term intensive instruction. The report also talks about the September term becoming more popular and growing over time, so obviously not everyone will be doing it right from the start. The term is intended in part to relieve stress by allowing students to take three courses in each of the following three terms, but also to permit for deeper exploration of topics warranting intensive study, participating in off campus programs, and the like.

This is a big, really positive change. Very student-friendly, from my perspective. It offers choice and flexibility, and also makes summer work more feasible.

@bluebayou - how would this actually increase intensity? Profs could try to cram in more in 9 weeks, but the number of instructional days decrease, in favor of breaks/study days. As I recall from my Chicago experience, it wasn’t just the out-of-class work that was tough - the in-class experience was grueling, too. Moreover, if there is more break (like a week for thanksgiving), more reading period days, and flexibility to take 3 rather than 4 classes, this all seems to strike a nice balance between rigor and awareness about the student experience.

I love the idea of a 3 week September term - and the ways it can lessen the crunch during the full academic quarters in Fall, Winter, and Spring. Overall, this seems so positive - I’m almost surprised the Chicago admins and faculty came up with this!

I agree with @Cue7 about it being less stressful for students, not more. The changes actually make the schedule quite similar to Dartmouth’s (other than U. Chicago students have a block of time available in September, and Dartmouth students have it in December). My older son is at Dartmouth, doing very well, but he doesn’t seem to be particularly stressed by the schedule. Dartmouth students typically take 3 classes per term (or occasionally 4, but that’s really not the norm), and it’s very doable.

^ Going off what @soxmom is saying in #6, Sept-Term sounds like it’ll fit a non-sequential course and perhaps best suited for an elective (either open elective or w/in the major). Hopefully they won’t restrict the number just to a few choices at first because Classes of '22 and '23 should be able to take advantage of the new schedule as well.

Does anyone know how tuition will be impacted? Is the Sept. Term “extra” the way that Summer tuition is, with no decrease in Fall-Spring tuition, or will Fall and Spring now be decreased to account for fewer instructional hours and (most likely) a smaller course load?

Lots of questions on the financial aspects! IMO, it might now be most prudent to charge by course, since the options and resulting variability in course load have only increased.

“Does anyone know how tuition will be impacted?” That is a key question. Either way, there will probably be add-on for room and (still mandatory?) board.

^ Since they only recently changed to the two-year on-campus requirement, it’s highly doubtful they will change that again.

They are running out of things to tweak! Let’s see: build new and shiny dorms near campus and dining, Check. Increase College Yield and lower admit rate, Check. Attract a more diverse student body, Check. Force undergrads to stay on campus, Check. Shore up the lagging PhD programs, Check. Complete Huge Capital Funding Drive, Check. Reach out to the vast majority of your alums and get them to donate, Check. Fix Semester vs. Quarter problem, Check.

What BIG NEWS do they have left, other than Zimmer and Boyer retiring and naming their replacements?

I don’t get it (or maybe I do).

They took away 1-2 class sessions per course, and basically eliminated reading period. That’s supposed to be good for students?

They added three more vacation days, a month before a long vacation. That will make the (shorter) fall quarter perhaps less stressful, but it won’t do anything about the other two (more compressed) quarters.

They created another revenue opportunity in the fall, offering courses in a format that doesn’t fit lots of courses, and will depend on getting faculty to teach five days/week in September. Maybe yes, maybe no for students. One of my kids took an intensive class during a summer term, and it was a pedagogical air ball.

They addressed a problem I think was more of perception than reality, matching summer internship schedules with other colleges. It will be a plus for some students, probably, and a big plus for marketing to the kind of prospective student who is going to worry about getting the “right” internships.

The big wins are revenue, and marketing. A lot of the rest is, well, marketing.

Stanford is on the quarter systems that finishes mid-June and they don’t seem to have an issue obtaining the “right” internships. But there is probably a geographical difference here in that many CA high schools still start after Labor Day and don’t finish until late June (but that is changing). So, the many CA kids attending Stanford know of no other academic calendar system.

Yes, for some reason if you go to the Stanford page on CC, you never see people say that Stanford’s calendar puts them at a disadvantage for getting desirable internships. Things are different with the University of Chicago, and people say things like that all the time.

I’m not going to say it has never been a problem for anyone in the history of the world, but I don’t think it has been a big problem for a lot of people. Something’s lost and something’s gained in living every day. It doesn’t keep Chicago graduates (or Stanford graduates) from succeeding.

^ The “revenue opportunity” comment in #12 seems like a legitimate issue, since we have no idea how they are going to charge tuition now. If overall instructional hours are about the same over the course of the year (including the S-Term) and you still need 4200 credits to graduate (3800 of which are done on campus or study abroad) then why should there be a tuition premium for the S-Term? But if you are opting not to do the S-Term, should you get a bit of a shave off your tuition bill? Currently, a full load is considered to be anywhere from 3-5 courses per quarter, and you pay the same regardless of how many you take within that range. So will the new calendar still allow you the same course flexibility w/o charging more? Also, it would be a shame if those who want to spread out their coursework into the S-Term have to pay a “dummy premium” in the form of higher tuition (especially as the more compressed quarters in Winter and Spring might compel one to enroll for September).

The report says that S-Term financial aid will be part of the academic year. That’s distinct from Summer Term which really is a separate “revenue option.” So let’s hope that the S-Term allows for more flexibility in choosing your courses w/o adding to the budget.

I don’t see the same problem with Room and Board, since that should be calculated based on weeks spent on campus. Based on what the report is saying, first years don’t seem to have the ability to enroll in S-Term. So they will spend, on net, about two fewer weeks on campus over the course of the year than they do currently (assuming that the dorms and food don’t shut down during T-Giving Break). Second years opting for S-Term will spend about a week more, on net. So over the two-year required residency, it looks like one will be on campus one fewer week. Should the housing cost be shaved a bit to reflect that fact? Or will the normal cost increase more than offset? At any rate, it’s not a huge differential.

Not sure I quite understand the math that permits the disappearance of two entire weeks at the end of the academic year. But any way you slice it, how do you do that without creating more rather than less stress? Someone must think so, but I don’t quite get it.

I don’t like the S-term for a different reason: it sets up a period during which only a portion of the student body will be in attendance. I always experienced the arrival at school and beginning of the fall term as a grand communal gathering of the tribe, an embarking en masse on the school year. Now the embarkation will come in two tranches. The drama of setting out is weakened accordingly. The summer session seems adequate to me for anyone who needs a fix of study between the end of one school year and the beginning of another. All hands should be on deck for the main event.

Finally, I liked the out-of-synchness of the UChicago year with that of most other Institutions - the feeling of still being out of school during the month of September when everyone else was in it and then the finishing it all up when you were still in school at a time when all others were out of it but with the freedom to desert the library and your room for the breezes of the Point or the shade of a tree on the Midway. You could feel half in school and half out of it. Those last weeks had a reflective summery quality about them that somehow tamped down the harriedness that was also part of the conclusion of the year.

The proposed arrangement is neither perfectly in synch with other schools nor quite so flagrantly out of synch; it dilutes the communal spirit; and it is hardly clear that it relieves stress. Write me down as a skeptic.

@Marlowe1 - as sympathetic as I am to your vision of the “grand communal gathering,” I suspect that after 2,000-2,500 returning College students show up in early September the rest of the university will need the several weeks to recover before dealing with the rest of the gang (many of whom will already be in HP but not necessarily taking courses yet). Also, I believe that other (graduate) divisions of the university will be under the new calendar as well, and will have their own Sep-Terms. Perhaps early September will become the new time of - if not a Grand Communal Gathering - then at least a pretty large one. Most of the College kids who trail in later probably won’t care much one way or the other.

According to the report, the Sep-Term offers a course to those who are likely to be in HP anyway (for the College, that would include 3rd and 4th years who have already moved into apartment living). It may well begin as a quieter “term” compared to the rest of Autumn quarter, but it wouldn’t necessarily be an obvious two-tranch start to the fall except, perhaps, for 2nd years who must return to the dorms. Some will possibly be arriving later than the others were there for the Sep-Term. I suspect, however, that most 2nd years will opt for Sept-Term, provided that it doesn’t cost “extra.” It’s a great way to get a course out of the way early on and allow you to go a tad lighter in the first year, perhaps having an easier time transitioning than many currently do (see the proposed schedules below).

While Summer term would normally suffice for those who wish to spread out their course of study, enrolling in summer will directly interfere with the ability to do a summer internship, especially one in another state. Not sure the College wants to make that an obstacle. Summer might also be more expensive whereas the Sep-Term - based on everything I am reading - appears to be part of the Autumn quarter (students do receive autumn quarter financial aid and credit). The read I’m getting from the report is that it probably won’t cost extra, but we don’t know that for sure yet.

Fall quarter essentially doesn’t change under the new plan, either in terms of effective instruction days or break time. Therefore, assuming no tuition or res. life rate increases for the Sep-Term, I can image a four-year schedule that’s something like 4-3-3 for first year, 5-3-3 for 2nd year and third year (where the fifth course in the fall is the Sep-Term), and then 4-3-3 again in 4th year. That’s 42 courses. While Winter and Spring are “compressed” quarters, they are also lighter loads at three as opposed to the usual four courses.