For a change, I don’t disagree with most of what you just said, and I don’t want to dwell on the remaining differences for this post.
I did have personal experiences with both. Some courses are perhaps better suited for one system than the other, but it doesn’t really make much difference for most of them as course contents are adjusted to accommodate them. For some students who experience quarter-length courses for the first time, there might be a surprise when the midterms are coming only a month into the quarter, but they get used to it pretty quickly. I don’t think course rigor, or the amount of coursework, is increased or decreased, as the result of the choice of the school’s calendar.
OK I think this presentation is helpful. I’m wondering how the C/S major itself is distinct from other places. Perhaps more “theory” and less “application?” Less focused on the physical science side of the discipline? I think there may be some collaboration with the Engineering school and perhaps the MEng major allows for some interdisciplinary exploration. I don’t know much about this field. But my impression about UChicago’s C/S major is that at least once upon a time, as one person described to me, the curriculum was more applicable to those applying to a C/S PhD program than a computer programming job.
The problems for them are that at a school like Caltech, there’re few places (i.e. majors) to hide if they couldn’t handle the required materials, even assuming they got past the required core courses. Its econ courses, for example, all start with the assumption that the student knows calculus, linear algebra, probability and statistics, among other things, so they’re heavily mathematical.
I think a few Caltech students may be interested in the UChicago’s professional schools as they’re allowed to take courses there.
The advanced humanities coures are all writing intensive. However, not all social sciences courses are, and only some of them are designated as such. So, unless a student wants to take all writing-intensive courses in advanced humanities (in which case they would take more than the required minimum number of advanced humanities courses), they have to select some social sociences courses with the writing-intensive designation.
The additional lower level writing course is primarily for international students whose native language isn’t English. Doesn’t UChicago have some of those students? Doesn’t it offer special English class for them?
BTW, I don’t know if you know this: Caltech students also have the highest verbal scores (in some years and among the highest scores in other years) of all colleges on standardized tests.
This may be true for some students, but not for others. To me, it’s more about personal preferences. From the college/educational perspective, I actually think it’s better for STEM students to take some H/SS courses each year.
Actually, those I know who are faculty and went through this transition said that course rigor does, indeed, slow down in a semester system. Faculty in general seem not to like it, although this impression can vary across the disciplines, I suppose. This might also vary by institution; a research institution might have a different overall viewpoint than an LAC, for example.
UChicago just went through a comprehensive examination of their academic calendar and the feedback was clear: faculty there prefer the quarter system. As conflicting goals were also 1) keeping September open for dedicated research (conferences die down after August) and 2) finishing up by 6/1, they opted to keep the quarter system and remove two weeks of it so as to end earlier! There will be no change in content so the pace will increase. We know this because, while this new plan was supposed to be put in place beginning Autumn '21, the pandemic allowed the university to begin quietly implementing it a year early. The College - and the university - are currently in the midst of a nine-week quarter. My son is enrolled in part II of his Civ sequence, and the content can’t be altered because the information is cumulative. That’s particularly true for math, sciences, econ and any other discipline that builds on the previous course.
So, no other way around it: pace has to pick up when you shorten the term. It is any wonder it would slow down when you lengthen it?
I seem to recall reading that some part of Stanford - was it Law? - moving to quarters from semesters about 10 years ago. Law schools are so very regulated w/r/t content and also seem to run on their own schedule anyway, even on the quarter system (Chicago law school is Exhibit A). I wonder if they found that the pace of learning had to change? They made the switch in order to better coordinate classes and programs with the rest of the university.
If a college switches its calendar (from quarter to semester, or vice versa), it’d certainly have an impact because of the amount of adjustments needed. I only know one college, UC Berkeley, did this a couple of times. I’m sure the transitions weren’t completely smooth. But after a period of adjustments, I don’t think the calendar makes much difference.
Colleges seem to be more likely to move quarter → semester than semester → quarter these days, probably because fewer terms per academic year means less administrative and calendar overhead.
In terms of quarter courses slowing down when converted to semester courses, that can happen, but if the credit values are changed appropriately (e.g. a 4-5 quarter credit course being converted to a 3 semester credit course), then the workload - credit relationship should not change too much. Also, a three quarter sequence may be converted in a two semester sequence (or vice-versa) covering the same material, but just sliced into courses differently.
“chose Chicago knowing what that means (i.e. taking the Core), for whom these H/SS studies are not a bug but a feature”
This is a generalization of STEM students that doesn’t hold up at places like MIT, Stanford Cal Tech UCB etc. These colleges select kids that have done well overall, not just in STEM. As one adcom told me from one of these places, we look for kids that can do as well in engineering as English. Yes they like stem more but it’s not a bug to take non-stem.
“Ancient Greek Philosophy focuses just on Plato’s Republic rather than introducing the wealth of texts, only a few of which need be selected for critical inquiry on the origins of western philosophical and political thought.”
This may be a shock but kids at the colleges I mentioned are as good, maybe better (gasp!) at humanities and social sciences then some students at Chicago. The cross-admit rate of Stanford vs Chicago (parchment, save the comments) is 68 to 32. Are you saying the 68% of kids that choose Stanford did it because they wanted a fluffy curriculum?
UCs switched from semesters to quarters in the 1960s. UCB (not other UCs) switched back to semesters in the 1980s. UCM opened with semesters in the 2000s. All other UCs with undergraduate programs are still on the quarter system.
The CSU system has been trying to get its campuses to switch to semesters (several have recently); CPSLO appears to be the holdout on quarters.
Three of California’s over 100 community colleges use the quarter system.
Cal Tech is one of the best places in the world for econ.
Like Booth? that surprises me. BEM is more rigorous than Bus Econ. There must be class options I’m not thinking of. Or maybe the professional option for Medicine - that might make more sense.
If they do offer special classes for internationals it’s not listed and I haven’t read or heard it mentioned. I think UChicago has a higher proportion from foreign countries than does Cal Tech but not sure how that plays out w/r/t English speaking ability (other than that they have to take the TOEFL, of course). I had read that about Cal-Tech’s verbal scores before on this thread. Currently UChicago is about the same; however, that data may be impacted by “test optional” policies which also impact Cal Tech going forward. So it’ll be hard to measure. They are both at “nosebleed” levels, IMO.
Agree. And I believe that each institution designs these general eds in a way that works for them. I have no issue with MIT’s or Cal Tech’s generals - I think they do a better job with those than many lib arts programs do!
We on this board appear to be arriving at agreement. If so, that might be a manifestation of the near approach of a great singularity extinguishing intelligent life on cc.
Our local state flagship (decent - not Cal Berkeley) did this as well - in fact, not all that long ago. I remember when Cal was on quarters and it was known for two things: 1) rigor and 2) grade deflation. Interestingly I had to do my Macroecon. Theory at Cal over the summer one year because I was on study abroad when I’d normally take it. I got an A+ LOL. Highest grade I ever got in Econ! I know for a fact that Cal has unrivalled departments in many fields - including the humanities! And in Econ. I was just gratified to know that my own more obscure little LAC was keeping up . . .
Yes - Dean Boyer’s “relentless pace of the quarter system” referred to administrative issues as well as academic. UChicago is safe for the time being, and that might have to do with the preference given faculty in driving these decisions. That doesn’t happen everywhere. But, as I said, some faculty might prefer it. As a parent, budgeting out quarters can be a real pain but I’ve become used to it! My kids at UC love quarters and having real breaks. It’s intense but they feel it’s the right amount. However, others on campus disagree.
The administrative overhead is that scheduling and registration must be done one extra time per year.
The calendar overhead is that two 15-week semesters plus one 8-week summer session = 38 weeks, versus four 10-week quarters = 40 weeks. Then add an extra final exam week, etc. to the quarter system, so the calendar over a year gets more cramped.
It does not, however, necessarily mean that the classes or overall student workload is more intense.
Stamina and quality of the learning process over the duration needs to be taken into account. You seem to be holding that constant. I’m not sure that makes sense. IMO this will depend on the individual institution, the degree program, the approach to education, and so forth.
Discussing this issue over the years with faculty, I’ve heard the repeated comment that the 10-week term is long enough to teach the amount you want/need to teach; after that diminishing returns set in, students and faculty start to tire of the subject and of one another, and the quality of learning declines. So that’s one perspective from faculty.
Now a perspective from the students: Looking at my kids’ schedule, it’s very hard to see how a semester system can accommodate the sequence choices and options for fulfilling the Core and major courses by going on semesters at UChicago. For example, one of my kids fulfilled six of eight core subjects as a first year because the quarter system allowed for the completion of one sequence and ability to move onto another during two points in the academic year: winter, and spring. Let’s face it, the more you divide up the total class time, the more choices you can opt for. Now, if they moved to semesters then - sure - they can reconfigure with “minis” or some such but isn’t that really just the same thing as quarters? The other alternative is to make all sequences an entire academic year; however, that will compromise flexibility in the schedule. Major courses that faculty designed for intense, deep study (my daughter enrolled in quite a few of those) will need to be lengthened or extended; others might have to be dropped. Even if not, the impact is fewer choices of longer duration. I don’t see that working very well for those who enjoy the variety currently offered.
So sure - it’ll “work” - if a university believes that its administrative function somehow superscedes the process and quality of learning. Fortunately, there are many options for students to choose from for quarters vs. tri-mesters vs. semesters. But when it comes to the administration’s issues, I don’t buy that everyone else needs to change to accommodate them. They work to serve the academic mission of the university. The learning process should drive the administration’s schedule, not the other way around.
Though it is we Chicagoans who are always accused of triumphalism, it seldom fails at some point in these discussions that someone with loyalty to another school makes the point that the kids in that school are either smarter than Chicago kids or that the school does better in the cross-admit wars with Chicago or that Chicago is just not as “rigorous” as it claims to be. Thelonius makes all these points just as if they hadn’t been made hundreds of times.
No, I was not asserting the contrary of any of these things on behalf of Chicago. Careful reading like careful writing is a virtue honored more in the breach than the observance on this board.
Let me say it again: I was asserting that the extistence of the Core has a high appeal for a certain kind of kid (not all such kids, please note) with a scientific bent. I gave some reasons for this. I was not saying that such a kid couldn’t get interesting courses in the humanities and social sciences in other schools; I was not saying that it is rare for a kid with scientific interests to have these other interests; I was saying nothing at all about rigor or the intelligence of kids at any of these schools (l take a high degree of intelligence at all of them for granted).
Why isn’t it possible to make observations distinguishing the cultures and student bodies of particular schools without turning these observations into yet one more boring, repetitive, and frankly philistine discussion of pecking order?
That’s just my hunch. Come to think of it, a few econ majors may also be interested in some courses in macroecon and behavioral econ.
Caltech is likely to be less impacted by the policies. Test scores, especially the more recent versions, haven’t been very useful for Caltech for years. It can rely on some other data points few other schools have. Because of its relatively high number of faculty for its size, its faculty members (who are better judges than AOs, IMO) are more involved in student selection than likely elsewhere (with the exception of Oxbridge, of course). It, in fact, has gone test blind for reasons of equity for this and the next admission cycles. We’ll see what happens.
No - but that Ancient Greek Course wasn’t from Stanford’s bulletin - it was from Cal Tech’s. I’d expect Stanford, as a rigorous liberal arts institution, to have a comparable Ancient Phil course to UChicago’s! If they don’t, shame on them.
Not sure it makes sense to generalize without data either, Thelonius, for a few reasons: 1) you might be wrong; 2) you might be right but “some students” here being better or worse than “some students” there is not a very meaningful observation; and 3) kids at Stanford might, indeed, be better but how is that relevant? Students show up at UChicago actually to learn something. If they’d already learned it, then, well, maybe there are indeed other “better-fit” places to go to. However, in all of this thread, I don’t believe that we have really been focusing on the student population, and I think that’s wise. The ethos, naturally, will be reinforced by who shows up on campus, but I don’t hold the students responsible for having opinions, whether right or wrong, on what should be taught to them. They are students - what do they know? The responsibility for providing a mind-expanding proper education actually rests squarely with the university and its leaders: faculty, undergraduate curriculum committee, etc.
If the admission process is data-driven, they should be able to see how useful test scores are. However, I don’t always trust admissions’ ability to model this properly. Hopefully Cal Tech faculty are more likely to get it right. Understanding things like conditional vs unconditional probabilities are important when using admitted student data to predict success in the wider population.
I think Cal Tech has a few good game theorists. I dont’ think they have any macro people but could be wrong. So yes, that would make sense to come to UChicago and make use of some of the higher level econ or even the more rigorous business courses.
Chicago faculty may have optimized their courses for the existing quarter system over the years; faculty at other universities may have optimized their courses for their semester systems. So there could very well be faculty elsewhere who prefer the semester system because that is how they have built their courses.
In terms of more “smaller” courses that can be done on a quarter system, note that Chicago’s 1 course (100 units) = 5 quarter hour credits means that a standard (at most other universities) 15 hour credit load each quarter would mean 9 courses per year. A typical semester system school which has mostly (or all) 4 semester hour credit courses would typically mean 8 courses per year – not too different. Quarter system schools with mostly 4 quarter hour credit courses would have a normal load being about 12 courses per year. Schools with lots of 3 hour credit courses would increase the number of “smaller” courses taken, whether on the quarter or semester system.
Chicago students take significantly more courses because Chicago requires 42 rather 36 courses to graduate, and equivalent of 210 quarter hour credits instead of the usual 180. Since all or almost all Chicago courses appear to be the same credit value, Chicago students normally take the equivalent of 15 quarter hour credits (3 courses, a normal full time load) or 20 quarter hour credits (4 courses, usually considered an overload) per quarter. A Chicago student would need six 3-course quarters and six 4-course quarters to reach the 42 courses in twelve quarters. Perhaps that extra workload is why fun goes to die there.
