It may seem the debate on a possible switch to semesters is
over, as faculty members voted overwhelmingly to stay on a quarter
system. Chancellor Albert Carnesale, however, has made it clear
from the beginning that the final decision is an administrative one
and that he might not go with the Academic Senate’s
recommendation.
In this case, he shouldn’t.
Carnesale ““ who came to UCLA from Harvard University,
which, like nearly every other top university, is on semesters
““ should take the lead on this question and push for a
calendar change. Though he won’t say now which system he
supports, he does seem to favor semesters; he has said on the
record that nearly all faculty members he’s spoken with
either believe a semester system is better for student learning or
are indifferent about the debate.
And those who favor semesters are right. A semester system would
allow UCLA students opportunities they don’t currently have
““Â opportunities to explore their class topics in depth.
The current system ““ under which students often have midterms
from the third through seventh week in an 11 week quarter
““Â leads to cramming for exams, tersely written papers,
and the repetitive completion of problem sets. Students don’t
have time to reflect on what they are learning, or to probe deeper;
there is always another test, paper or lab coming down the
chute.
There are other advantages to a semester system as well. Being
on the same calendar as other universities would provide more early
summer internship and work opportunities for students. The football
season wouldn’t start four weeks before the school year.
Also, without the constant stress of midterms, students would have
more time for activism ““ to explore what UCLA has to offer
outside the classroom.
Possibly the best argument for semesters is that it would allow
for a more comprehensive penetration of subjects covered in class,
rather than an understanding that is barely deep enough to fill a
bluebook. Why, then, would the academic senate be opposed to a
change?
Many faculty express concern about the process of the change,
not the change itself. They cite the difficulty of rewriting
syllabi, replanning lectures, and restructuring departmental major
requirements. But the benefits of a longer learning period outweigh
the difficulty of changing to a new system.
The university would endure quite a few administrative headaches
with a switch, but ultimately the change would make things easier.
Everything from signing up for classes, to applying for parking, to
paying student fees, to filling out financial aid applications
would happen twice a year, rather than three times a year.
Though he is tight-lipped about what system he personally
favors, Carnesale must see some good in making a change, otherwise
he wouldn’t have called for an investigation. The chancellor
was wise to let people know from Day 1 that the final decision was
in his hands. And he should make the decision based on what he
thinks is best for the university and its students.
Carnesale has a record of building consensus. He rarely
stretches out on a limb, taking a controversial stance. But now, it
may be time for him to do just that.
And if he does, the faculty will follow his lead. Some may drag
their feet, complaining about the additional work they’ll
have. But if Carnesale knows he has the right vision, he must have
faith that others will fall in line.