Pro Quarters
Under quarters, UCLA has become a world class research university and without
question the most distinguished university founded in the last century. UCLA attracts
more undergraduate applications than any other university in the country. Students who
apply to UCLA do so, in large part, because of the favorable views they have learned
from others regarding the quality of education they will receive, if admitted.*
Faculty at UCLA find the quarter system an effective structure to support both teaching
and research. Most faculty view the quarter system ideal for teaching and research. The
quarter system makes it convenient to schedule sabbatical leaves to pursue research
interests around the world. In addition, Senate faculty are able to schedule “light
teaching quarters” when they can catch up on writing and research or pursue funding
opportunities. Graduate student support packages and class schedules can become
flexible enough to permit 3-month terms when research is pursued without interruption.
Under quarters, UCLA graduates have had great success gaining entrance into top jobs
and postgraduate opportunities. UCLA faculty has been very successful with funded
research, and switching to semesters would not be expected to change that in any
measurable way.
Greater Variety with Quarters
Under quarters students are exposed to a greater diversity of subjects by taking one-third
more courses, presumably with exposure to one-third more instructors. Emphasizing this
advantage can lead to endless disagreements between those who prefer depth versus
breadth. Yet, diversity and depth can be achieved under either academic calendar.
Opportunities for diversity are particularly important within complex departments or
interdisciplinary programs. Within the Life Sciences, for instance, we see many examples
wherein students can “sample” courses in departments given by specialists in those fields.
Further, nothing prevents programs under quarters from requiring A+B courses (20
weeks) to achieve depth, and nothing prevents semesters from combining two courses (15
weeks) or having half semester courses to achieve diversity.
Coordinating Prerequisites
A notable difference between quarters and semesters is in coordinating prerequisites for a
major with courses from other departments. With quarters it has been possible to get
students to enter upper division in the Life Sciences (LS), and thereby become involved
in research labs, by the junior year. Under a semester format, prerequisites in math,
chemistry, and physics delay entry into many degree programs. Indeed, the redesigned 4course Life Sciences core, which has been in place since 1996, was engineered to move
students more efficiently into upper division after receiving a broad introduction to the
major approaches in the Life Sciences. The LS core would not translate well into either 2
or 3 semesters and still satisfy all constituents. This core was carefully conceived and
coordinated with other departments.
1
Semesters Won’t Eliminate Large Classes
The teaching faculty has many reasons to be proud of our undergraduate programs which
are extremely efficient and successful in “preparing and educating” students via large
classes in quarter terms, although UCLA has been criticized because its undergraduate
programs relay on large introductory courses. One may personally abhor large classes as
learning venues, but during 2002 there were 101 undergraduate courses (28 departments)
that had AY enrollments of more than 450 students (max. 1544), and 210 courses had AY
enrollments of 100-450. Assuming that most of these required courses and enrollments
will persist, even if in some altered form, under semesters the same enrollments in those
courses would have to be accommodated in 2 rather than 3 terms. Each department needs
to decide how to meet these instructional needs, and each must calculate for semesters
what it would take to increase faculty teaching loads, TAs (ala union guidelines), and
laboratories or discussion rooms, calculations done by assuming class sizes that
professors can effectively manage.
In many fields there would have to be 50% more labs or discussions scheduled, and some
departments (e.g., Chemistry and other sciences) are already either operating at or limited
by lab capacity. In 2007 there will only be 19 large general assignment lecture halls (10 =
293–419 seats; 9 = 157–239 seats), with little prospect of building new ones. Under
semesters in 2007, when UCLA will be admitting more than 4,700 students as a freshman
class (10% more than today) plus transfer students, our necessary reliance on large
classes is predicted to create the ultimate nightmare for fitting these courses into rooms
and a sensible work week for faculty and students. Already scheduling large classes in
lecture halls is difficult. If semesters are being proposed to improve the quality of
undergraduate education, forcing the campus into larger classes is probably not the
correct trajectory.
Leaving quarters for semesters in the abstract has many dangers, because the devil is in
the details. Are there adequate rooms of each size class for the changeover? We have had
losses in campus rooms for decades while now entering a growth phase. Will departments
be able to field enough additional instructors to teach the perceived extra lectures of
lower division and GE courses? Will additional funding be provided to augment TA
support for the extra discussions and labs associated with large courses? What will be an
expected or standardized teaching load?
Conclusion
We end where we began. Would switching to semesters improve education and research
at UCLA? What do we know with confidence? First, there is no empirical evidence that
semesters are pedagogically superior to quarters—it's simply a matter of taste. Second,
UCLA has made a substantial investment in the development of a curriculum designed
around a quarter calendar. Switching to a semester system will require many hours of
curriculum review and development to retrofit current quarter courses into a semester
format (see the comments of UC Berkeley faculty on this issue). Research and teaching
workload assignments will need to be renegotiated to adjust to the semester format. It is
2
unclear that the enormous effort and risk involved in switching to semesters is warranted
by the limited pedagogical gain proponents of the semester system claim will result.
The issue facing the faculty is not whether we are opposed to change, but whether the
enormous investment in completely restructuring our instructional offerings, a burden
primarily carried by us, is justified to move to a new calendar.
_______________________
*Admittedly, few students select a campus based on quarter or semester. Among the top
reasons for selecting a college this is, no doubt, in the lower 100. The choice of semester
or quarter is a matter of taste. Yale, Brown and Berkeley use semesters; Stanford,
Chicago and UCLA use quarters. It is unlikely that more than a dozen students on any of
these campuses were influenced in their campus selection by the academic calendar. In
fact, most probably were not even aware of the calendar the campus used when they
made their choice. The same can also be said of faculty.
Pro Semesters
Very soon after the UC campuses were forced to adopt quarters in 1966, a sporadic series
of initiatives began, especially at Berkeley and UCLA, to move back to semesters.
Berkeley finally moved back in 1983, but UCLA failed to do so and has gradually
become more settled into quarters. In the past decade or so, whenever the calendar issue
has been rejoined at UCLA, fierce opposition has been mounted, sometimes by the
administration but more often by members of the academic senate, who like to imagine
the push to return to semesters is coming “from above.” We are now, in effect, a broken
campus, with some units operating on semesters (Law since 1978 and Medicine since
1987) and the rest on quarters.
The move to quarters was ill-considered in many respects, the spawn not of academic or
pedagogic concerns but only of perceived practical necessities (stemming from Tidal
Wave I and the push for a year-round calendar). The frustrations of operating on
quarters—at least in the classroom if not administratively—have been for many
enormous and without respite. Through quarters, some have come to argue, we offer a
wider variety of goods. But these are more cheaply fashioned, and delivered as if tossed
off a moving vehicle—not because we don’t care, but because driving the vehicle takes
too much of our attention.
All of us have tried to make quarters work, with differing degrees of success. Many have
found a way to work effectively within this structure, and when this happens the slight
administrative advantages offered by quarters seem all the more compelling. But there
are entire categories of courses that cannot be well taught in quarters, including the very
3
ones through which UCLA aspires to be ranked among the finest research universities in
the world.
Graduate seminars under the quarter system always seem to end with a panicked dash to
the finish line, leaving most projects incomplete, unpolished, or otherwise disappointing
of their promise, leaving behind a battlefield strewn with the corpses of abandoned
enquiries, undigested essays and books, and sometimes brilliant ideas left to wither
through lack of attention.
In undergraduate courses under quarters there is no time to focus adequately both on the
material being covered and on the difficult path (which many may be undertaking for the
first time) toward contributing something of value to the scholarly discourse, whether
through research or writing. The quarter system does not allow enough time for students
to consult adequately with faculty, to share developing ideas with a larger group, or to
bring more ambitious projects to a satisfying conclusion within a process involving
sustained creativity and the too often neglected phases of revision and polishing. Courses
that require both the assimilation of material and the realization of a larger project based
on original ideas should be the ones to define the UCLA experience, not the many
content-rich courses that squeeze more easily into quarters, important though the latter
might be.
From the local perspective of those who have found their way with quarters, it may seem
unfair to be asked to redesign curricula (which will be mandated in any case by other
pressing concerns, such as Tidal Wave II). But these we must respectfully ask to look
around at the persistent and vast amount of discontent with quarters among colleagues. Is
it really plausible that converting from quarters to semesters could result in a parallel
phenomenon (thus, under semesters: “If only we had less time to pursue this ...”)? It is,
on the face of it, a far easier thing to run a “quarters” course in semesters than the reverse.
Moreover, we all stand to gain tremendously from the decrease in the administrative
wheel-spinning that occupies us at each term’s beginning- and end-points, which would
be reduced by a third under semesters.
In considering our place in the historical trajectory of the quarters experiment, and
knowing that our decisions have consequences for many generations of students and
faculty, we ought to base this particularly important decision on some kind of vision of
the future. To be sure, moving to semesters will involve a great deal of work, and we
should not commit lightly to undertaking that work. But this isn’t just about us as
individuals, toiling away, blinkered, in narrow furrows defined by habit and convenience.
It is about us within an institution, increasingly integrated with each other and our
colleagues at similar institutions. And, as the report of the joint committee makes clear,
both students and faculty stand to gain in myriad ways from being on what has become
increasingly entrenched as the default calendar, since many events and programs
(conferences, education abroad, internships, etc.) are planned with semesters in mind.
4
As a rudimentary form of visualizing UCLA’s alternative futures, we might pretend that
we have already made the choice now before us, and try to imagine a future UCLA,
perhaps twenty years from now:
Assuming that we now move to semesters; would there at that later date be a strong effort
on campus to reopen the question of the academic calendar? As documented in the report
of the joint committee, national trends are overwhelmingly in the direction of semesters,
with no initiatives on the horizon for semester schools desiring to move to quarters.
Since this kind of effort is not evidenced at semester schools now or in the recent past,
the answer would seem to be: “Clearly not.” Moving to semesters would effectively
close the books on this issue.
Assuming that we decide to stay with quarters; would there be a strong effort on campus
twenty years from now to reopen the question of the academic calendar? Can anyone
seriously doubt that there will be? This is not a problem that will simply go away.
Among some of our colleagues, we have sometimes heard a version of the “argument”
that semesters may well be better, but that it is too much work to convert. In our view,
this is a shamefully irresponsible position to take; imagine a campus full of professors
approaching their individual work in this way, not caring to take the trouble to improve it
even though the path toward doing so was clearly marked before them! UCLA is our
collective work, and the legitimate focus for our well-earned pride. We should not shy
away from the effort required to make it the best it can be, and at the very least a place
where we can offer the full range of courses expected of a major research university.
UCLA TODAY - Staff and Faculty News
Semester system merits a serious look
BY CHAND VISWANATHAN
Dec 10th, 2002.
The report addressing the effects of converting from a quarter to a semester calendar,
presented by a joint committee of faculty and administrators including College of Letters
and Science Vice Provost Judith Smith and Undergraduate Council Chair Raymond
Knapp, provides an objective and balanced picture of the issues involved, pointing out
the benefits and drawbacks in both calendar systems.
The supporters of the quarter system cite greater flexibility in scheduling, wider choice of
courses and range of subjects, and higher intensity as advantages of the quarter system.
On the other hand, the backers of the semester system argue that it offers more time for
thinking and acquiring new knowledge. It is, they say, more conducive to promoting
5
reflective and deep thinking, and provides for independent studies under the supervision
of faculty members and greater opportunities for interacting with faculty. The pace
allows for catch-up if one should get behind, they point out.
The arguments offered by both sides are equally valid, and a high quality education can
be offered using either calendar, provided curricular revision is done properly. The
number of hours of instruction required for graduation did not change from 1,800 hours
in the semester system (40 courses x 15 weeks x 3 hours per week) when the switch to
the quarter system occurred (45 x 10 x 4). However over the last several years, class time
for many four-unit classes in the quarter system was reduced from four to three hours.
Additionally, in many departments courses are being “re-united” to five units to reflect
the student workload.
The University of California is a single university with multiple campuses. We have one
Academic Senate and one president to preside over the 10 campuses and represent the
university in Sacramento. A single calendar for all the campuses is advantageous and
desirable. The benefits cannot be ignored. Being on the same calendar would mean better
systemwide planning and reporting, uniform graduation requirements and more. It would
be more convenient for students who want to take courses at other campuses or do special
projects under a professor whose expertise is not available at the local campus. An
exchange of visiting faculty members between campuses would be easier.
By converting to a semester system, UC will fall in line with the majority of the member
institutions in the Association of American Universities, which functions on a semester
calendar. Our students will be able to compete for summer jobs and internships at the
same time students from semester schools apply for these positions. The concerns such as
sabbatical leave, loss of about two weeks’ summer salary during the transition year and
budget implications can be worked out through careful planning.
The transition will bring with it a one-time cost, but the operational costs are expected to
be lower under a semester system due to the decrease from three to two registration and
enrollment periods in each academic year.
In the long run, conversion to the semester calendar is a worthy investment that will
ultimately enhance the quality of undergraduate education.
Viswanathan is professor of electrical engineering and former chair of the UCLA and
systemwide Academic Senate.
Copyright 2002 UC Regents
Professor's perspective: Quarter system best for students, faculty
By Robert S. Kirsner
Professor of Germanic Languages
Jan 28th, 2003
6
The Daily Bruin has recently run an article on the possibility that UCLA might abandon
the quarter system (under which it has operated since 1966) and return to the semester
system.
Yet there are two striking defects of the semester system, which can be seen in the Nov.
1, 2002, report of the Joint Academic/Administration Committee to Study the UCLA
Academic Calendar.
The report states, "The typical experience at other institutions that have switched to
semesters is that the number of course offerings is reduced significantly in the process of
conversion."
All else being equal, this means students would be exposed to a potentially less diverse
set of course offerings, with less time to explore crazy or exotic fields outside the
students' majors.
As someone who teaches two languages and three literatures usually considered highly
exotic in the United States, I anticipate that any switch to a semester system would
effectively reduce the number of students willing to take out some time to explore such
unusual areas.
Under an enrollment-driven system such as ours, this means unique courses that draw in
fewer students might eventually be phased out. Hence, in the long run the semester
system would seem to foster decreased intellectual choice and increased academic
timidity.
In the worst case scenario, the students would simply trundle through the system
efficiently, taking standard, average, ho-hum, run-of-the-mill general education and
major-fulfilling courses, looking neither to the right nor to the left, and having few
chances to explore anything really off-the-wall, to emerge on time with diploma in hand.
They would become (to use a phrase of Oberlin College's Wilfred T. Jewkes from 40
years ago) little pasteurized, homogenized and standardized "B.A. batter-cakes," rolling
off the assembly line and plopping (ka-thunk) into the job market, ready to be consumed.
The other thing one notices as a faculty member at a major research university such as
UCLA is that under the semester system, there would seem to be measurably less time for
faculty to do their research.
It takes nine quarters (three academic years) to earn one non-teaching quarter (10 weeks)
of sabbatical time at full pay, whereas it takes nine semesters (4.5 academic years) to earn
one non-teaching semester of sabbatical time (14 weeks) at full pay.
In other words, it would seem that a 50 percent increase in the amount of teaching time
(going from quarters to semesters) before a professor is eligible for sabbatical yields a 40
percent increase in the amount of "free" time for research.
7
As I must assume that the foundations of arithmetic have not changed in the past few
weeks, I would characterize this at first glance as an impoverishment of research
opportunities.
If we professors had wanted an environment with systematically less research and
systematically more teaching, wouldn't we have opted for the California State University
system rather than the University of California system? Why, after all, is one of the
prized awards from a UCLA dean to a faculty member a "non-teaching quarter"? In three
decades at UCLA I have never heard of a faculty member at UCLA being rewarded for
intellectual or administrative achievement by being given additional "teaching quarters."
I know the current discussion of semesters versus quarters is just beginning, but how
many times in the past have we already considered this same question?
I encourage all readers of the Daily Bruin – students and faculty alike – to actually
procure copies of the report and really consider the multitude of issues it raises. For
example, in what is presumed to be a meticulous, detached and impartial view of the
question of semesters versus quarters, why is there no case study in the report of an
institution such as the University of Chicago, which, in contrast to the report's example of
the University of Minnesota, has not changed from the quarter system to the semester
system and apparently sees no need to?
Finally, something else to think about is that any switch to the Semester system will take
a great deal of time and effort and cost somewhere around $6,000,000, according to the
report.
At least the switch from quarters to semesters would thus give all of us – again students
and faculty alike – a magnificent opportunity to watch our tax dollars at work.
8