4—The Daily Collegian Monday, March 15, 1982 Are semesters right Editor's Note: The following Is the transcript of a report dealing with the University's scheduled switch to a semester calendar, written by a committee of University faculty members. Because of the possible Importance of the report to the community, The Daily Collegian is publishing the report In full. Footnotes have been eliminated because of space limitations. We believe It is imperative that all faculty, students, administrators and trustees of Penn State take the time to give careful thought to the attached document titled "Are Semesters Right for Penn State." The career of every faculty member and every student at Penn State will be profoundly affected if implementation of the semester decision.takes place. The decision will work a major change In the entire structure of the University and affect all of its missions teaching, research, Commonwealth campuses and community service. We believe that the following points about the semester decision are now clear. • The pedological and research missions of the University will be adversely affected. • The effect upon many major problems and challenges facing the University in the decade ahead is unknown. • Vast quantities of University resources have been used in an attempt to implement this decision and a continuing sizeable allocation will be needed for years to come. We believe there is no shame in changing a decision once made. The shame lies In failing to change a decision when it needs to be altered. For the good of Penn State It is time to halt the conversion process. I. Introduction On Sept. 9, 1980, Dr. Oswald sent a letter to the Penn State Community in which he stated: I am inclined to conclude that Penn State should return to a semester calendar ... I am further persuaded that broad support exists for conversion ... The purpose of this letter Is to advise the University community that'a conversion to an early semester calendar, effective In the summer of 1984, seems probable although not certain. Later, in the Penn State Intercom (Oct. 30, 1980), Dr. Oswald reacted to considerable criticism that his letter of Sept. 9 all but Indicated that the decision was already made and that the call for interested parties to submit recommendations by Dec. 1, 1980, was mere window dressing. He said: "While predisposed to the early semester calendar, I am open to persuasive evidence and data against that system..." Accordingly, Dr. Oswald made it clear from the outset that he was merely advising the Community that while the final decision had not been reached in the matter, the decision-making process had progressed to a point where anyone who held contrary views would have to present, in Dr. Oswald's words, "persuasive evidence and data against (the semester) system." Despite this clear signal that faculty Input was not part of the decision process, but merely an adjunct to its conclusion and despite the fact that the faculty was given only two and a half mohths to garner the persuasive evidence and data against the semester system, it appears that a vast negative faculty response was heard. Although the responses or their exact nature were never made public, investigations over the past months show whole departments opposed conversion, many colleges sent negative reviews, at least one petition was hastily circulated to nine departments in three colleges and came away with more than 100 faculty signatures In opposition to the change, and individual faculty wrote extensive Indictments of the Idea and forwarded them to Dr. Oswald This opposition last year was based upon assumptions more favorable to a semester change than exist today. The proposed 15 week semester has been cut to 14 weeks. The idea that class sizes could be kept within present bounds is no longer realistically considered. The hope for course review has not materialized and the need to reduce course offerings available to the students has become apparent. Numerous faculty members continue to be distressed at the unilateral nature of the decision; many are downright outraged. But, this discontent stems out merely from the breach of faith with the faculty and the violation of the participatory role of the faculty in such decisions as called for in Perspective on the 'Bos. it stems also from the common belief which appears to be held by an overwhelming majority of the faculty, even those who personally like semesters, that no rigorous evidence exists to support the notions advanced by Dr. Oswald in support of change. Furthermore, the faculty recognizes that the major issues identified in Dr. Oswald's Sept. 9 letter: teaching loads, availability of laboratory and large classroom space, faculty research, faculty contracts, conversion of courses, curricula and schedules were never resolved prior to the decision announcement. Moreover, they remain unresolved now, more than a year after they were identified It is also now clear that Dr. Oswald's list of major issues is but the tip of a very large iceberg of unresolved issues and problems. Furthermore, immense quantities of faculty, staff and administrative resources are being diverted to this process of change without any concrete - notion as to the dimensions of that change process; and, without any budgetary restraint. Millions upon millions in unbudgeted funds are clearly turning Into sunken costs over a decision which lacks basis in fact and which has the potential to. severely injure Penn State and its prograrqs. Because of this ongoing threat to the integrity of the University, a core group of senior faculty with considerable collegial support, held a meeting in late November to initiate action aimed at recalling this decision now To that end, the Faculty Committee on Semester Review has developed this document. With the available information, this document reviews the reasons for the proposed change and measures those reasons against reality. It looks at the conversion process. And, it examines the effects the change could have on the University, Its students, its faculty, its programs, its missions. The document is not exhaustive, but it is designed to address major points and issues. We believe this document to be required reading for every student, professor, administrator and trustee. 11. Examination of the conversion decision The decision to convert to an early semester calendar and thereby plunge Penn State into a period of unknown transitional problems, unforeseen difficulties and unbridled expenditures was made by one person, the president of the University, based upon his assertion of authority. The reasoning used to support the decision has been announced in several letters and communications from the president to the community students, faculty and trustees. While authority appears to reside in the President to make adjustments in the calendar, it is clear that no authority exists for the president to make a change of the nature currently proposed. Furthermore, the reasons asserted as the motivation for the conversion are virtually without support in fact or foundation. This section will explore these premises. A. Authority of the President to Effect the Conversion In announcing his decision on March 12, 1981, to convert the University to an Early Semester Calendar, President Oswald stated as his authority: Under the policies of the Board of Trustees, the president of the University has the responsibility for determining the calendar of the institution but only after consultation with faculty, students and the University Council. While It is true that the president has been allowed to make changes In the existing term calendar from time to time, the Perspective on the 'Bos clearly isolates a switch to semesters as a calendar change decision requiring special action by the board. The motion . passed by the board in adopting the Perspective on the 'Bos clearly Isolates a switch to semesters as a calendar change decision requiring special action by the board. 1. Agrees in principle with the assumptions and the direction set forth in the perspective, including the agenda of actions which will be needed to implement them; 2. Requires that approval be sought for all speific changes which require board action; and, (emphasis added) 3. Requires that an annual review of the assumptions and implementation be conducted in conjunction with the five-year planning and budget process and its outcome reported to the Board of Trustees. The Perspective addresses the need to initiate review of the term system and of alternative calendars. It does not authorize the implementation of any alternative calendars. Since the Perspective is specific in its Agenda (Chapter VII) Indicating which of Its 103 items are to be implemented and In what way, the command to "intitate review of the term system and of alternative calendars" (Perspective, p. 80) Is clear. It authorizes review, not implementation. Furthermore, the Perspective required not only an exploration of alternative calendars but a•review of the term system as well. Beyond these clear statements that the Board wanted a thorough review is the equally clear requirement in the Perspective to "consult those affected by decisions, disclose criteria for decision making, describe the decision making process, and provide opportunities for reactions after decisions are made" (p. 73). Yet in Dr. Oswald's letter to the community of Sept. 9, 1980, the letter in which he first broached the topic, his approach was not to consult, as required by the Perspective, but to Inform: The purpose of this letter is to advise the University community that a conversion to an early semester calendar, effective in the summer of 1984 seems probable, although not certain. Less than nine months after the Bo . ard of Trustees had adopted the 10 year plan and without consultation, the president had concluded to a virtual certainty that Penn State would change to an Early Semester Calendar. He called for thorough discussion among faculty and administrators, but provided only 2 1 /2 months for that activity, later extended a month, to take place under the pall of the all but certain knowledge that such discussion was futile. The posture of the announcement destroyed any real attempt at discussion of the Issue and, therefore, clearly violated the mandate of the Perspective. Furthermore, it violated the Perspective's mandate by failing to allow for the review of the term system and alternate calendars to take place and it did a disservice to the entire community by failing to allow a sound foundation to be established for' the decision. Of equal concern Is the fact that the comment which was offered was based upon a semester calendar of 15 weeks and 50 minute periods to begin In 1984. The adopted calendar is a truncated 14-week schedule with a hodgepodge of 55 minute and 80 minute classes to begin in 1983 for which no consideration was given by the faculty. B. Validity of Reasons Offered for the Change The question that arises In faculty conversation most often about this decision Is: Why was it undertaken? Even those who believe a semester to be a "better" pedogoglcal time frame will usually admit they do not see the justification for the change now at Penn State. The only official pronouncements available are the few letters from the president which state his reasons. An examination of those reasons fails to provide evidence to justify the change on any basis except personal preference. Dr. Oswald said: 1. More than 200 institutions changed calendars each year in the decade of the 19705. 2. Significant increases in summer enrollment leading to better utilization of the University's resources throughout the year did not result from the change in 1961 to a term calendar. 3. Since 1975 disenchantment with the current calendar appears to have grown. "In short there are more and more advocates of a semester calendar. In fact, a majority of the faculty may now favor a semester system." 4. A semester calendar provides a preferable learning environment. In the Intercom of Sept. 11, 1980, Dr. Oswald added an additional reason to this list: 5. Penn State students are at a disadvantage in the search for slimmer employment, since the term calendar is at odds with most other public institutions in the Commonwealth. As time went on, new reasons appeared. 6. It was said that other great institutions such as Yale, Harvard, Indiana and Johns Hopkins achieve significant productivity in research under the semester, so why couldn't Penn State. 7. It was argued that the conversion would provide a shake up that would accomplish University wide review of courses and programs. Do any of these reasons, either separately or Jointly, support a change from the term system to a semester calendar? At the heart of the question is the definition of "term system" and "semester." The major flaw in pointing out benefits of "semesters" over "terms" or vice versa is that there is not a single definition of either word. In fact, the point should be painfully clear to the Penn State community because the "semester" calendar proposed and held out for comment last year is different from the one later selected by the president. And, some of the current problems in the "term" calendar were created by the Oswald administration in 1972 by changing the calendar from the original "term" system adopted In 1961. To posture the existing reality of the "term system" at Penn State against "semesters' in the abstract is not the basis for sound decision-making. What we are comparing is a 10 week, three times per year schedule (with an equal length summer session) with a 14 week, twice per year schedule (with an 8 week summer session). Thought of in these terms, we remove the emotionalism of the words and we can talk about Schedule X (existing schedule) and Schedule Y (proposed schedule). Now let's look at the seven reasons advanced for the change. Reason 1 More than 200 Institutions changed calendars each year In the decade of the 19705. Fact That numerous institutions changed from Schedule X to Schedule Y or from Schedule Y to X, or to Schedules A, B, C or D tells us perhaps that academic institutions are fickle. It does not provide any information about why these changes have occurred. The fact is that calendar trends are open to interpretation. (A table Included in the report) shows clearly that the so called "early semester" has grown In use from 27 to 53 percent in the last 10 years. Where those 26 percent came from, one cannot say without doing a case analysis of all schools, but It would appear valid to assume most came from schools using the traditional semester calendar because use of the traditional semester calendar fell from the dominate position of 36 percent to a paltry 6 percent. What really appears to have happened is that traditional semester schools moved up the date for starting school in the fall and hence became "early semester schools. The change from one semester calendar to another requires a change In date. The change from a quarter system to a semester system is of a different order of magnitude. In reality, In 1970,63 percent of the schools reported use of a semester calendar. By 1979 only 59 percent used a semester calendar. Of Interest is the fact that while 288 new schools entered the tally over the period, total use of the semester calendar only gained 45 schools. The quarter calendar gained slightly in popularity over the decade as did the 4-1-4. Trimester remained stable. Forty-seven percent of the schools use other than a semester calendar. The most popular calendar In this group by over a 2 to 1 margin Is the quarter (Penn State) calendar. Reason 2 Summer enrollment Is not as great as hoped for In 1961 when we went to terms. No evidence has been produced to explain the cause for this failure. It may result from the paltryness of course offerings and the concerted effort over many years to induce faculty to drop their full•year commitment in favor of a 9-month one. However, the real issue Is whether the semester schedule will deal with this problem in a favorable way. Without an answer to his question, Reason 2 cannot support a change from Schedule X to Y. It should be clear that the summer session is totally independent of either schedule. Whatever arrangement Is desired for summer can be accomplished now under the term calendar. Disenchantment with the current calendar (Schedule X) has grown. In fact, a majority of the faculty may now favor a semester system. Fact If majority rules on such Issues then there should be a vote taken to determine the majority. If it does not rule, then one man's perception of the majority is of little value This statement was made before the definition of a semester schedule (Schedule Y) for Penn State was announced. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the view that faculty favored semesters, did that support Schedule Y as proposed or a longer 15/16 weeks concept (Schedule Z), or a 50 minute/10 minute concept (Schedule Z-1), or were people thinking of ivy and Cambridge, and at what cost. The fact is that substantial opposition existed to the concept of conversion among faculty and students. The sad part is that that opposition still exists and Is growing with the result that a great University will be in conflict for years If action is not taken now. Reason 3 for Penn State? No less than three prior calendar review committees during Dr. Oswald's tenure came away unable to muster support for a change. The only difference between the purported new committee working on the Perspective and past committees was its membership. However, Dr. Oswald's statement of Sept, 9, 1980, that criticism of the term calendar were commonplace during the discussions associated with the development of the Perspective is not borne out by the document. If the calendar problem was of paramount concern it should appear as such in the document. It does not. In• 70 pages only three paragraphs are devoted to the recommendation for a review of the calendar. Of 103 concluding recommendations, only one deals with review of the calendar. Of equal interest is the fact that the Perspective discusses review of the calendar in the chapter on resource allocation as a possible expenditure policy Improvement. It is not considered in any of the sections on academic, research, faculty or student policies. Any concerns expressed with the term system in• the Perspective had to do with improving expenditure policies and resource allocation, reasons which Dr. Oswald acknowledged time and again do not support a change to semesters. The proposed change has been condemned by overwhelming numbers of faculty in various departments and colleges. Whole departments have gone on record in unanimous opposition to the change. Whole colleges have demonstrated opposition. Numerous faculty members sent letters of opposition to Dr. Oswald in late 1980. A petition quickly assembled secured over 100 signatures in nine departments in the Colleges of Science, The Liberal Arts and Engineering. It is the view of the authors of his port that such opposition has increased and hardened in the past year. Additionally, the Collegian editorially opposed the switch in January of 1981. Reason 4 A semester calendar provides a preferable learning environment. This is the strongest argument in favor of a switch because many faculty believe a semester provides a better learning experience because It providesa longer time to assimilate the totality of material presented In a course and it allows for the material to be offered in smaller doses in shorter classes. However, educational research does not provide rigorous proof that one type of schedule provides a better learning environment than another. It is a matter on which educators have differing professional opinions. The Penn State conversion no longer conforms to the assumptions of those faculty who expressed a supportive view of semesters last year. Then it was thought we wuld have 15 week semesters with 50 minute classes and many people thought we would return to the old system of convenient, hourly class change times. The present plan calls for 14 week, semesters and thereby requires that 50 percent more courses be sequenced into only 40 percent more time causing increased pressure on students, reducing the opportunity for research papers and projects and exerting pressure on departments to reduce graduation credit requirements. These factors, along with other related results, reduce the pedogogical support for the Penn State semester concept. Also, the present Penn State plan calls for the reduction of summer instruction from 10 weeks to 8 weeks. Such a reduction runs counter to the whole semester philosophy that condensed study is not as effective as expanded study. Overall the weeks of instruction per calendar year will be reduced from 40 to 36, or a full 10 percent. Part of the support for a semester plan stemmed from the belief that 50 minute classes spread out over the semester provided a better learning environment than the longer 75 minute periods of the term system. Besides increasing these classes from 50 to 55 minutes the Penn State plan now cats for regularly scheduled Tuesday-Thursday class sequences of 80 minute periods. This not only increases the class length by 5 minutes over the so called undesirable 75 minute current classes, but it will also be required that a significant number of courses utilize these longer classes because the classroom facilities are inadequate to allow for the heavy use of Monday-Wednesday-Friday classes which will result from the switch. Accordingly, most students will be taking some 55 minute classes and some 80 minute classes. Monday Wednesday-Friday classes will have a standard weekend break and reasonable rhythm. Tuesday-Thursday classes will be two long midweek classes with a five-day Thursday to Tuesday break. Furthermore, it is believed that the 15 minute class break time on Monday-Wednesday-Friday classes is inadequate to provide transit time between classes at University Park for many scheduling options. But since the crush on the use of classroom will be severe, all classroom space will need to be fully utilized. Accordingly, it may be common to have students leave one class early in order to arrive on time to the next or to leave one class on time but arrive late to a following class. This will disrupt beginnings and endings of classes, especially as class sizes grow and thereby cut the effective class time by perhaps 10 minutes, further reducing any perceived pedogogical benefit whih might otherwise be espoused. It will also act as an additional scheduling constraint for students, further reducing class and course choice flexibility. Reason 5 Penn State students are at a disadvantage In the search for summer employment since the term calendar is at odds with most other public institutions in the Commonwealth. Fact The statement attributes an unsubstantiated disadvantage In the search for summer employment to the lack of conformity of Penn State's calendar to other state public Institutions. Since students who compete for summer jobs come from both public and private, institutions, and from In and out of the state, this incompatability as a reason is at best of partial validity. Nide than 40 percent of all Pennsylvania schools use a calendar other than the Early Semester Calendar. A survey of nearby states shows over 48 percent use other than an Early Semester Calendar. In fact 55 percent of Ohio schools run on the quarter calendar, only 31 percent use the Early Semester there. The normal summer work season extends from Memorial Day thourgh Labor Day. Under the present calendar students are able to be available for that period The proposed change would start classes the day following Labor Day and occassionally before Labor Day causing students to terminate summer jobs earlier than employers would like and perhaps putting Penn State students at a disadvantage. Reason 6 Other great institutions achieve significant productivity in research under the semester system. Fait Other great Institutions achieve significant productivity in research under non-semester calendars Stanford, UCLA, Chicago, Massachusetts Institute of. Technology, Penn State. It is also interesting to observe that the Perspective puts Penn State in the class with three great Land-Grant state universities, University of California, Winds and Minnesota (p. 8). Of these four land-grant schools, only Illinois is a semester school, the others use the term system. Furthermore, evidence exists to suggest schools on a term calendar receive a greater percentage share of external research than semester schools. In 1978, of the 19 institutions receiving greater amounts of federal funds for research and development than did Penn State, the list divides almost 50-50 between semester and term calendar schools. Yet, only 24 percent of all schools In the nation have a term calendar. The conclusion might be reached that the term calendar allows for greater outside research funding than the semester calendar. Reason 7 The conversion will provide a shake up that would accomplish University-wide review of l courses and programs Careful department by department, program by program review has been occurring for several years to fine tune offerings and programs under the existing term calendar format. To propose a complete non•directive shake up of program which have been carefully developed directly violates the directive contained in the Perspective which states: Conscious selectivity Is essential if the alternatives open to Penn State are to be used wisely (p. 6) Restructuring the good programs along with the questionable ones is also an ineffective and inefficient use of resources. The very purpose of the section on Financial Resources in the Perspective, the section calling for calendar review, is to: . Insure that every resource available to the University is used with the utmost efficiency and effectiveness (p. 4). The concept cannot only be criticized as a haphazard, disorganized approach to refinement, but also as an unworkable one. With the emphasis on change, not an emphasis on quality enhancement, the expected result would not be review, but merely reformatlng. And, indeed, that Is the result. Dr. Oswald reported In September 198 that: "it is somewhat disturbing that so many departments appear to be foregoing the opportunity for potential significant program change." (Intercom Sept. 17, 1981, p. 2). Interestingly, Dr. Oswald went on to say curriculum revision Is not dependent on a calendar change. (Intercom, Sept. 17, 1981, p. 2). If it Is not dependent on the change, then clearly the change is not needed to effectuate curriculum revision the change is not needed to effectuate curriculum revision. And, if a calendar change is not bringing abour curriculum revision then curriculum revision cannot be a reason to support the change. What reason does support the change? The Perspective calls for review of the calendar for financial reasons as a possible way to improve resource allocation. But Dr. Oswald stated in his Sept. 9, 1980 lette that cost savings are "not of a magnitude to warrant a calendar changeover." 111. Effect of the decision If the changing of the calendar from the existing term system to a particular form of semester system were simply the quick and easy rescheduling of the date on which classes began and ended and a realigning of class periods we would not need the massive bureaucratic effort established to make the conversion. The fact is that the conversion is a hugh and costly n process and the change will affect, in one way or another,' all of the vital missions and functions of the University. The entire educational package needs to be reorganized and fit into the existing resources available: faculty, classroom space, library facilities, laboratories, etc. Activity schedules and patterns need to be disrupted for existing faculty and students. Allocation of time between teaching duties and research duties of faculty and' graduate students is affected. These interrelationships are but the tip of a massive iceberg. The impact affects the entire well-being of the University. This section will explore the nature of the conversion process and touch upon a representative list, but not a complete list, of difficulties and disadvantages 'associated with the calendar proposed for Penn State. A. Conversion Process • Many have compared the change to a semester calendar as equivalent to the 1961 change to the term system. That comparison is fallacious because the inherent nature of the term calendar created a chance for greater flexibility in course offerings than did the preceding semester system. This has been reflected in the immense expansion of available courses since 1961. These will now have to be compressed Into fewer courses. The 1961 process allowed for simple reformating on a course by course basis. The proposed change will require deleting material and courses as well as reduced programmatic flexibility. Arthur 0. Lewis Jr., associate dean of the College of The Liberal Arts, Head of the Calendar Conversion Council communications committee has said he was on the faculty In 1961 when the University switched to the term system. "He said he didn't remember any problems (in 1961). However, the new switch, he said seems to be another story. This is the toughest job we've ever had at this place, he said." (The Daily Collegian, 1/18/82) Committees in almost every department and program have been working to address these difficulties as well as dozens of administrative committees. This process is diverting significant resources from the primary tasks and missions of the University. The conversion process has not been budgeted nor costed out and as a result, the actual expenditure to be made for the change is unknown. In 1980, the Chairman of the Faculty Senate's Academic Planning Subcommittee stated the salary cost alone for the change could run in the millions of dollars. The University of California which made the easier transition from semesters to terms some years ago estimated retrospectively that a total time, equivalent to one term, had been used for the conversion. Such a cost, if translatable into dollars for a Penn State conversion to semesters could be suggested a staggering total cost in the $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 range. The question must be asked: Is Penn State in the process of spending tens of millions of dollars in this process? The question needs to be answered conspiciously absent from the conversion decision. The University in its 1981.82 Appropriation Request , stated that rising costs have outstepped income every year for the past several years. Because of this, the University's management has worked assiduously to economize whenever possible. While this statement Is clearly true with regard to, overall University operations this philosophy is conspicuously absent form the conversion decision. Besides the outright gross expenditure of University funds, it is logical to assume that the consummation of faculty, staff and administration time on this project will result in concommitant deterioration in the teaching and research effort. The ultimate result of these effects might be reduced external research funds, higher tuition, tighter budgets, deciihing productivity and the panoply of ills associated with the diversion of productive resources (faculty, staff, physical plant) to non-productive tasks. This entire expenditure/cost process for calendar change creates a non-accountable budget center which directly controvenes the mandate of the Perspective on the 'Bos. The Perspective specifies that situations In which resources are consumed by a budget Center for which the enter is not charged should be examined (Perspective, p. 69). • The Perspective further observes that Penn State's continued fulfillment of its statewide multiple missions will be seriously limited if the currect erosion of resources Is allowed to continue (p. 4). The policy on financial resources embodied in the Perspective states that a major task during the 80s will be to reverse this erosion of resources trend while concurrently ensuring that every resource available to the University is used with the evidence to suggest the calendar conversion will lead to Increased efficiency or effectiveness. Furthermore, the conversion process is In itself an erosion of resources because it constitutes an expenditure which dose not lead to a productive result. B. Effects of the Conversion The exact effect of the conversion Is in part speculative because many aspects of the change remain undecided, untried, unplanned or unspecified. Those changes which are in process of review continue In a state of flux from week to week. Nevertheless, certain effects are clearly emerging as the shapeing forces of the end result and, therefore, certain relatibnshlps can be isolated and discussed now which' were not clear several months ago. 1. Course Offerings, Class Size, Class Schedule Parameters A basic distinguishing characteristic between the term system and the semester system is that the colirse offering cycles are reduced from 3 per year to 2 per year. To compensate for this change students must take more courses simultaneously in order to graduate In the same time period (i.e., 4 years) and meet the same credit requirements in that time. A student taking 12 credits per term will have to take 18 credits per semester. To compensate for this 50 percent increase in course load, a semester is made longer than a term and class periods are reduced in length so that equal amounts of material are spread out over a longer time period.. Learning increases, it Is argued by some, because of the greater time available to absorb such material and the slower pace under which a semester progresses. Others argue that the greater time over which a course is spread out Is counterbalanced by the need to handle more courses simultaneously and because of the distraction occasioned by more weekend and inter-term breaks. No conclusive educational research can support either learning sequence over the other. The Issue really is what impact will the proposed semester calendar have on Penn State. Several facts are clear. While the reduction of three terms to two semesters would suggest a change from three, 10-week terms, to two, 15-week semesters, the directive is to have only 14-week semesters, thus cutting the academic year by almost 7 percent. Students will have to increase course loads by 50 percent to makeup for the conversion from three terms to two semesters, but will only have 40 percent more time per semester in which to absorb the 50 percent Increase. The shortened semester Is being accomplished by boosting class periods to 55 minutes for Monday-Wednesday-Friday classes and by having a Tuesday-Thursday schedule of 80 minute classes. Among those who have argued in support of a semester switch, a primary reason,for conversion was to convert the 75 minute classes to 50 minute classes. Yet, the new calendar will contain regularly scheduled classes of 80 minutes all day Tuesday and Thursday and 55 minute classes other days. These scheduling changes demand one or more of the following variables be adjusted in order to accommodate the change: 1. The variety of course offerings be reduced 2. The sequencing of certain courses be abandoned so that some courses can be taken simultaneously that used to be taken in building block sequence. 3. Course prerequisites be reduced. 4. The number of sections available per course be reduced. 5. Class sizes be Increased. 6. Classes be scheduled not at times most desired by students and faculty, but at times which consider classroom and laboratory availablity above all other questions. 7. The number of credits needed to graduate be reduced. 8. The number of preparations and classes per week be increased for faculty. 9. Graduate assistants do more teaching. 10. The number of students enrolled at the University be reduced. 11. The number of faculty be Increased. 12. New classroom and laboratory space be built. At present, our review of departmental activity confirms that departments are moving toward implementing choices one through nine. All of these choices will have a negative effect on teaching and learning. Choices 10 through 12 will negatively impact fiscal policies and tuition if they must be utilized. It is, therefore, believed that the ultimate effect of the Course Offering, Class Size, Class Schedules parameters will be to: • Increase, rather than decrease, pressure on students. • Reduce available course offerings, make It more difficult for students to get the variety of courses presently offered, and make it more difficult to sequence courses. • Provide less student-professor contact because both groups will have more complex schedules and bigger classes. • Permit fewer blocks of free time for uninterrupted study, schblariy research activities, faculty meetings, and part-time student employment. • Increase demand on library facilities because of the number of credits each student will have to take simultaneously and the fact that examinations and projects typically occur at similar times in , many courses. • Increase demand on printing and photocopy facilities, secretarial and graduate student resources at peak examination periods. • • Decrease the ability to give significant examinations In class because of the reductions In some class times from 75 to 55 minutes. • Require that faculty thach more courses simultaneously but not more credits per year. Instructional productivity will not increase but fragmented, less compact, teaching loads with more preparations will result in reduced productivity In other areas such as research. • Require that faculty and student scheduling preferences take a back seat to facilities scheduling. • Prolong the undergraduate careers of ' students with uncommitted majors who wish to explore various areas of study and reduce the student flow between campuses because each semester will represent one•eighth of an entire career rather than only one•twelfth as a term presently does. All of these effects directly contradict the mandate of the Perspective on the 'Bos which commands Increased flexbility In programs and student curriculum, increased efficiency In use of resources, greater faculty-student contact and the preservation of faculty time for research and advanced study. 2. Classsroom Space, Laboratory Space, Libraries. In his 1981.82 Appropriate Request, Dr. Oswald said "Basic courses in Business Administration are severely overcrowded, and are not available •to some students who need them. Class sizes in basic chemistry, physics and biology frequently exceed 600 students. First year calculus courses usually exceed 400 students. Advanced engineering courses frequently exceed 70 students, more than triple the usual section size for this type of instruction." The combined effect of the semester shift coupled with available faculty resources suggests a significant increase In class size across the board and difficulty in finding sufficient scheduling slots for classes. The Calendar Conversion Council has announced that the current flexibility of the different sequences of class meetings currently used at University Park will be unmanageable under the semester calendar (Intercom, 10/1/81). They have said pressure on facilities will be severe under the semester calendar (Intercom, 10/1/81). Jack F. Kavanaugh of the Calendar Conversion Council was recently quoted as saying, "Whatever the distribution of classes will be, the maximum utility of the physical plant will be needed to accommodate an increases number of classes." ( The Daily Collegian) With the severity of the existing situation as evidenced in the President's budget request message, it seems incumbent upon the University to Justify the intense additional burden which will be placed upon classroom facilities. Essentially, the semester shift will eat up badly needed slack classroom capacity and leave no future room for expansion, flexibility or innovation within the existing physical plant. But the situation goes beyond classroom space, it extends into laboratory space and to the very heart of the University, the Library. Dr. Oswald's 1981-82 Appropriation Request also pointed out: "Certain laboratory sections in many of the natural and physical sciences, as well as engineering, have been reduced or eliminated because of the high cost of laboratory instruction." Yet, the semester decision is calculated to reduce aboratory availability further because of the need to schedule more laboratory sections simultaneously. The semester schedule means more students will have to use a limited supply of equipment at the same time than is true under the term system. The same problem exists with the library which is the Intellectual laboratory for the entire community. If 1,200 students are enrolled in a given course over the academic year, under the term system 400 students a term need to use library materials for that course simultaneously. If 1,200 students take the same couse on a semester basis, 600 students will need simultaneous access to library materials for that course. Library demand can increase 50 percent. Additionally, with "scattered" schedules the library may become a between class haven, Increasing the load even more. Dr. Oswald expressed great concern for the library L acuity in his 1981-82 Appropriation request: "The ability of the University's Libraries to purchase appropriate materials for research and study has been seriously eroded. From 1969 to 1979, the price of the average book has risen nearly 130 percent andthe price of the average periodical has risen over 218 percent. During the same period, funds available for the purchase of the library materials has risen only 27 percent." • - And this was echoed in the Perspective on the 'Bos which states that In the decade ahead the libraries will be confronted with major problems arising from continuing rapid increases In the amount of information to be stored . [from] technology and societal change, and increasingly tight budgetary contraints. (Perspective, p. 63.) The Senate Committee on Libraries Report (11/11/80) concluded that to operate the library under a semester calendar cost would "palable and in some areas sizeable." The report goes on to state that: • The library might find itself strapped in several important areas with budget, staff and public services stretched even thinner than is the case at present. At the present time this earlier fear appears to be growing. 3. Research Research Is a major mission of the University. It is ecognized in the Perspective on the 'Bos as a paramount unction: Penn State is recognized as one of the nation's leading research universities (Perspective, p. 5) • The primary concern of the Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies during the 1980 s should be the Identification of areas In which research capacity can be strengthened (Perspective, p. 14). . In light of changing instructional demands, steps should be taken to preserve faculty time for research and advanced study (Perspective, p. 17). More faculty members need to devote more time and energy to research, whether internally or externally funded (Perspective, p. 48.9). Continued on Page 5. Report, continued. Research contributes to the program of instruction, to the funding support of the University, to the reputation of the University, to the ability to attract and hold quality faculty and permeates virtually all aspects of University life. The Senate Committee on Research reviewed the semester proposal in late 1980 and expressed the most negative view of the idea of any Committee. The report stated: If the decision is made to move to the [Early Semester Calendar], the resultant Impediments to research could be serious, both from a program funding standpoint and from the daily conduct of research activities. Such disincentives should be minimized, or neutralized, yet the cost Is at best appear extremely high. The Committee recognizes that there are many and varied arguments favoring the Early Semester Calendar. However, in the area for which we have been charged, [research] the Committee finds few positive elements. In sharing with the administration the commitment to scholarly research as an Integral part of the mission at Penn State, we are obliged to state our concern over the potential damage to the climate for research. Part of the basis for this serious concern was the teaching load-research trade-off. The report states: If the present teaching load for most of the University Park faculty six Courses per academic year Is maintained under the semester system, class preparationswlll increase from six to nine per week. The number of class preparations is in many ways more Important than the length of the class period in determining the true instructional workload ... Moreover, a significant advantage of the present system, the possibility of scheduling significant blocks of time for course preparation or other duties as required by PS -23, would be eliminated It was not known what the exact teaching load would be in November of 1980 when this report was presented. The AV RENTALS at STATE COLLEGE TV SUPPLY Projectors Audio Recorders Screens Televisions Video Recorders & Much, Much More . I ! I Miff 60 238-2 j - ti' conserve energy report's conclusion that the calendar change "could present serious obstacles to the research mission of Penn State" was based upon its Judgment that teaching the same load of couses under a semester calendar occurs in a more inefficient manner and steals valuable time from other necessary faculty functions. This concern was addressedin Dr. Oswald's letter announcing the conversion decision by saying: There requirement that the faculty teaching loads under this early semester calendar have a paricular arithmetical relationship to a load under the current term system. The fact is, however, that In many departnment It is clear that teaching loads are being arithmetically exchanged; that is, faculty will be teaching the same load as before, but It will be distributed as three courses simultaneously rather than two. A three course per semester teaching load would make Penn State less competitive in the recruitment and retnetion of high quality faculty. The normal teaching load at major state universities comparable to Penn State is customarily no more than two courses per semester, and often less in the highly research•active areas. (Senate Committee on Research Report, 11/11/80) In departments where this load Is being reduced, it is by a process of course deletion, section deletion, reduced program and reduced scheduling flexiblity and class size increase in a word at the expense of the student body and the teaching program. 4. Tuition, Funding and Efficiency In Dr. Oswald's message of March 12, 1981, he stated: "The total tuition for an academic year will not increase as a function of the calendar change." We believe there will be no means of ever determining what portion of future tuition increases or appropriation request increases will be attributable to a change to the proposed semester schedule. It is clear that there will be substantial economic effects. The existing term system appears to be a uniquely efficient system to accomplish Penn State's dual objectives, a broad menu of courses and of quality teaching and high level research activity. FREE LSAT - GMAT INTRODUCTORY SEMINARS Thursday, March 18 Sheraton Penn State Inn 240 S. Pugh St. LSAT 6:30 p.m. - GMAT 8:00 p.m • Finest teaching staff available • 36-40 hrs. of classroom instruction • An additional 30.40 hrs. of convenient at-home tape preparation for LSAT and GMAT review sessions. Don't miss this opportunity to learn the structuring of the new LSAT and S-K's policy on transferring among our many locations. Call today 234-6645 will be no administrative The semester calendar proposed will substantially reduce this efficiencywith no offsetting gain. The dream of a more leisurely campus life style, more• student research projects in undergraduate courses and a better learning environment is desired by all faculty. Unfortunately, that dream will not come to pass by institution of semesters at Penn State. Student academic pressure may increase overall, and it certainly will for the thousands of students in the three year transition classes. Research and teaching duties will be traded off so that one program or the other suffers. The overall output of the University will be reduced and yet tuition will remain the same. The academic year will be reduced by over 10 percent from 36 weeks to 32 weeks and yet tuition will remain the same. The regular 10. week summer term and the opportunities it provides, will be reduced by 20 percent, to 8 weeks, and tuition for that term will be adjusted in such a way that charges may rise. Students will have less flexibility in scheduling courses and sequencing programs and more difficulty In transferring between departments, Colleges and campuses without loss of time. The bottom line is that the University will offer less for the same or more cost. IV. Summary and Conclusions The semester decision is the one single decision of greatest import for the University In at least two decades. Yet, It has been made withouteffective participation by the University community faculty, students, trustees. And, it is a decision which is the antheisis of the mandate of the Perspective on the 'Bos adopted by the Board of Trustees. That charge requires pursuit of quality, selectivity and flexibility through planned, thoughtful change. The decision to shift from the term calendar to the proposed semester schedule Is not an innocent shift of the dates upon which classes begin and end. It is not a minor readjustment of the length of classes and the renumbering of courses. Whether recognized or not when the decision was made, the semester decision will: Pipers & Potables for St. Patty's Day! The Nittany Pipers Irish Toddies Emerald Beer March 17th sewing pepsi rota 101 Heister St. 234-0845 • Affect the ability of the University to handle the demand for Its services. • Affect the ability to maintain the size of the student body. • Affect the level of tuition and state funding necessary to maintain standards of quality and levels of service. • Affect the ability to attract research dollars. • Affect the ability to maintain the physical plant. • Affect the ability to maintain the viability of the Commonwealth campus system. • Affect the ability of students to maintain flexibility in their courses of study,'and • Affect the ability of faculty to carry on research and junior faculty to secure promotion and tenure. In short, the semester decision affects all of the major issues confronting the University as it moves through the 1980 s. It affects them all at once and in unknown magnitudes and directions. It has been made without exploration of its affect upon, and interaction with, the major problems and challenges facing the University now and in the decade ahead. While it is possible the semester decision could benefit the University, most of the evidence strongly suggests that net damage of a significant nature will occur to the University. The facts show that a plethora of problems of significant import remain unresoved and the impact of possible solutions are unknown. Yet an arbitrary implementation date has been established to force conversion just after a new administration takes the helm. A decision of this magnitude must be fullyresearched in advance, its impact assessed and an informed, considered decision made. This was not the case with the semester decision. The time between the adoption by the Board of Trustees of the concept of reviewing the calendar as a way to effect financial economies, in January of 1980, and the announcement of President Oswald's statement of intent to convert the calendar, occurred in a period of just over r ; ••••;,. - r;5`...:..... ;Yi . . €~'l►~ .:Y 11►,..wAia. The Daily Collegian Monday, March 15, 1982 seven months and without faculty, student or trustee Input. Such Input was sought only after the virtual certainty of the conversion was announced. Strong and vocal oppostlion Involving whole departments, programs, and colleges, the Faculty Senate and student body voiced at that time was swept aside. When the final decision was later announced by the president, It was not even based upon the financial consideration commanded as the basis for review (not implementation) by the Board of Trustees in the Perspective on the 'Bos. • Most discouraging, vast quantities of University resources have been shifted toward the implementation of this decision. No budget exists to accurately account for the true costs of faculty, student, administrative and physical plant resources already allocated to this task. But it seems apparent that millions of dollars of resources have been and are being usurped In the task; a task of nonproveableworth and which holds out the prospect of significant damage for Penn State. Today we are faced with a multitude of problems and challenges in higher education and at Penn State. This is a time of: • Resource reallocation and retrenchment in higher education. e Reduced federal and state support for higher education and student aid. • Increased competion for research dollars In such a time, the semester decision can be seen, at best, as an unwarranted and unjustified diversion of resources away from the prime tasks that face us. At worst, implementation of the semester idea can be seen as exacerbating the difficulties we face In the decade ahead, destroying the ability and opportunity of the University to adapt to changing times and diminishing the quality of the institution. Speaking for ourselves and numerous other faculty and students with whom we have had direct contact, we urge immediate cessation of work towards implementation of this decision and a withdrawal of the decision until such time as a full review of its impact on the primary missions of the Unlversty is completed and the resulting benefit or detriment is assessed. 1 10"""".:.:,,,i!„,,.:„!:,.,„::,1!!!L,.,,.::!,:•,'„.,,.,,,.,:.:!:!!!,,,:!!!! Atherton St. 237.6191
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers