Malkiel proposes new calendar

The University has presented two plans to overhaul the current academic calendar to academic department chairs and program directors for their review. Each proposal would eliminate Fall Break and overlap the reading and final examination periods, according to documents obtained by The Daily Princetonian.

The Committee on the Course of Study, the group tasked with reviewing the current calendar and submitting a proposal to the faculty, is expected to announce its final recommendation in December. It is ultimately the faculty's decision whether to approve the calendar changes suggested by the committee.

"There is no consensus on whether our current academic calendar should be reformed," Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel said in a memorandum sent Oct. 3 to the department chairs and program directors. "But we found many of the arguments for change to be compelling; there are real problems that might be solved if we were to modify our current calendar."

Under the first of the committee's plans, known as Calendar B, fall term would begin after Labor Day and include 12 full weeks of study; midterm week would be free of classes; Fall Break would be eliminated and students would have a full week of vacation for Thanksgiving. In addition, the University would overlap reading and final examination periods by pushing Dean's Date several days into the exam schedule.

The second plan, known as Calendar C, involves more radical changes than the first. (See page 5 for a table comparing the current calendar and the two proposals.) Calendar C also includes overlapping reading period and exams but puts them both before Winter Break. To accomplish this, classes would start in late August instead of mid-September while Commencement would be held during the third week of May. As with the first plan, midterm week would be free of classes, Fall Break would be eliminated and there would be a full week of vacation for Thanksgiving.

The department and program heads now have the opportunity to discuss the plans with the general faculty and submit proposals to Malkiel. Based on interviews conducted for this article, there appears to be little agreement among department heads over which calendar is best, though most of those interviewed believe that Calendar C is the weakest of the three.

Students, on the other hand, remain largely in the dark about the possible changes. Though the University surveyed every undergraduate and graduate student last spring on issues relating to the calendar, news of the potential plans has not been made widely available until now.

Last month, USG academics chair Caitlin Sullivan '07, a member of the Committee on the Course of Study, declined in an interview with the 'Prince' to provide details on alternative proposals to the current calendar. "We don't have a specific agenda or goal in mind," she said.

Support nonprofit student journalism. Donate to the ‘Prince’. Donate now »

Malkiel defended her decision to share the information first with faculty members and said that the University would continue to solicit student input and take it seriously. "But we believe that the input would be most valuable once we know better whether there are some credible calendar reforms (reforms we may or may not have imagined at this point) that might win support in the faculty," she said in an email.

Discussion about reforming the academic calendar began in the fall of 2005 by the Committee on the Course of Study. The group is comprised of Malkiel, faculty members, other administrators and four students.

Current deficiencies

Malkiel said in her memo last month that problems with the current academic calendar fit into three categories: "deficiencies in effective support of undergraduate academic work, competitive disadvantages for Princeton students relative to students at other institutions, and hardships for students and families."

One of the arguments leveled against the current academic calendar is that it features too many disruptions in the fall term.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"Breaks in the middle of a teaching schedule in a course tend to break momentum in the learning process, so it would be better not to have them," said Robert Cava, head of the chemistry department.

Not all faculty members approve of eliminating Fall Break, however, in large part because the vacation days can be vital to academic work.

"Cutting fall break would be bad in terms of research and travel opportunities," said Bo Honore, head of the economics department. He explained that many faculty members and students in his department need Fall Break for academic endeavors.

Bess Ward, geosciences chair, said that her department "does a lot of field work that week, which is absolutely critical for all levels of teaching." It would be particularly hard to get this work done if Fall Break were eliminated, she said.

In addition to eliminating Fall Break, both the new plans would allow for more overall teaching time. At less than 12 weeks, Princeton currently has one of the shortest teaching semesters in the country.

"I have the general sense that the current academic calendar doesn't provide enough time for teaching," physics head Dan Marlow said.

Lynn Enquist, chair of the molecular biology department, agreed, adding that "another week of classes would not necessarily mean more work for students." Spacing out work a bit more might even be helpful, he said.

Another important consideration for the new plans is the introduction of a midterm week that is free of classes. Most of the faculty interviewed agreed that this revision to the calendar would be a positive one. "Some students would really appreciate having a separate week for midterms because it would lessen their amount of stress," Ward, the geosciences chair, said.

There is some debate among faculty, however, about whether to hold final examinations before or after winter break. Those in favor of the current schedule generally argue that it provides students more time to prepare for tests and complete final projects.

"Having the exams after the holidays allows the material to sink in a bit more," Marlow, the physics chair, explained.

Stan Allen, dean of the architecture school, also supports the current timetable because architecture students "often use winter break to get studio projects done and then focus on studying for exams."

Molecular biology's Enquist, though, said that the four to six weeks is a long time to have to remember information learned in class. "I can imagine the difficultly of having my last class in early December and then having my final in mid-January."

The memo from Malkiel also addressed the "competitive disadvantages" students face compared to students from other institutions as a result of the calendar.

One issue is that "employers make decisions about summer internships once fall semester grades are known," and Princeton is one of the last institutions to release their grades, she said. Other problems include disadvantages for graduate and medical school applicants as well as conflicts for athletes during final exam periods.

Malkiel's memo also said that the frequency of vacation periods during the fall term "poses a financial and logistical hardship for many students," an issue that will intensify as the University seeks to become more socioeconomically diverse.

While this argument applies to students who live in the states, it does not so much affect the increasing number of international students.

"For me, it doesn't make much sense to change the calendar because Thanksgiving has no real meaning in my culture," Cleo An Yi '10, a student from China, said. "For Chinese New Year, which is important to me, there is no break."

No consensus

At this point, it is difficult to assess which plan is most preferred by the faculty. After discussing the calendar with members of his department, East Asian Studies chair David Howell said that "overwhelmingly people prefer Calendar A, they are willing to consider Calendar B, but they completely reject Calendar C." The faculty members in the architecture school, however, generally support Calendar B because there is a free week for midterms and less fragmentation, Allen said.

Calendar C has the most opposition of the three plans, even including the current calendar. Enquist said that starting school in August is more difficult for faculty members with children because "they want the school year to coincide with the public school calendars of their children." Honore also noted that in economics, "there are many big conferences in late August and early September" that would conflict with the class schedule of Calendar C.

While they don't agree on the best calendar, the majority of faculty members interviewed supported the idea of students participating in the process of reforming the academic calendar. "Students know the system best and therefore should be allowed to have input," Allen said.

Honore echoed this sentiment. "The calendar should be discussed by everybody: the administration, the faculty, the undergraduates and the graduate students," he said. "I don't have any doubt that the current students would have the best interests of future students in mind."

If current students are allowed to influence the decision, though, it appears that they will be doing so for future Princeton students. It is almost impossible that a new plan will be implemented until after the current freshman class has graduated. Nevertheless, "the best people to act for the future students are the current students," USG vice president Rob Biederman '08 said.

In her email to the 'Prince,' Malkiel stressed the importance of student involvement in the process of reviewing the calendar. "Student members of the Committee on the Course of Study have played a central role in shaping this discussion from the very start, and in soliciting feedback from academic departments, we invited chairs to involve members of their student advisory committees in their conversations."

Despite the assurances that student input is being considered, however, it seems that many students aren't aware of the potential changes. "I don't even get to see many of the plans of the administration," Biederman admitted, adding, "I think we would be better off if there was more visibility of the changes that are being proposed."

Zelda Harris '07 said she has tried to voice her opinions on many of the administration's plans over the past four years but has started to become discouraged. "As a student, I sometimes feel that voicing my opinion is a waste of time," she said. "No matter how much input we give, these types of decisions are over our heads and not in our control."