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