Report from the Harvard University Committee on Calendar Reform
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL REPORT HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON CALENDAR REFORM MARCH 22, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction 3 Membership and Process 3 Key Recommendations 4 Common Curricular Framework 4 Flexible January Time Period 5 Further Process 5 Considerations that Influenced the Committee’s Recommendations 5 II. INTRODUCTION Overview 7 Charge and Membership 7 Scope of Charge 8 Membership 8 Committee Process 9 III. THE BENEFITS AND PURPOSES OF CALENDAR COORDINATION AND REFORM 9 IV. FRAMEWORK FOR ACHIEVING CALENDAR COORDINATION 10 V. WAYS OF ACHIEVING CALENDAR COORDINATION Overview and Three Basic Models 11 Recommended Model for Maximum Calendar Coordination: 4M-1M-4M 12 Other Advantages of the Recommended Model 13 Disadvantages of the 4M-1M -4M Model 14 VI. ADDITIONAL PRAGMATIC ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR CALENDAR REFORM 15 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 15 VIII. APPENDIX Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 17 Appendix B: January 2004 Schedules at Harvard University 18 Appendix C: Ways of Thinking About the “1” 20 Appendix D: Example 2003-2004 FAS Academic Calendars Under Each 22 Model Appendix E: Joint Degree Programs at Harvard University in 2003-04 23 Appendix F: Financial Aid Regulations 24 Appendix G: Compilation of Memos re: 4M-1M-4M from Committee Members 26 2 REPORT OF THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON CALENDAR REFORM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MARCH 22, 2004 INTRODUCTION In September, 2003, the Academic Advisory Group, consisting of the President, Provost and Deans, established the Harvard University Committee on Calendar Reform, chaired by Sidney Verba, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the University Library, and including student and faculty members drawn from each of the University’s Schools and Faculties. The Committee was asked to consider and propose calendar guidelines that “will place our Schools on a more coordinated academic schedule and enable students and faculty members to cross Harvard’s internal borders with greater ease.” On March 22, 2004, the Committee released its final report, adopted by a vote of 18 to 1. The Committee process, key recommendations, and considerations bearing on them are outlined below. MEMBERSHIP AND PROCESS The Committee brought together members of each of the University's faculties, including five faculty members from the FAS, two of whom sit on the Steering Committee of the FAS Curricular Review, and five students, graduate and undergraduate, who were selected by the Undergraduate Council and the FAS and University-wide Graduate Student Councils. The following individuals served on the Committee: Sidney Verba (FAS, Chair) Steven Hyman (Provost) George Baird (GSD) Lizabeth Cohen (FAS) Harvey Cox (HDS) Malcolm Cox (HMS) Benjamin Friedman (FAS) Jay Harris (FAS) W. Carl Kester (HBS) Daniel Koretz (HGSE) Leonard Marcus (HSPH) Harry S. (Terry) Martin (HLS) Frederick Schauer (KSG) Christoph Wolff (FAS) Students: David Buchwald (KSG, HLS) Patrick Charbonneau (Graduate Student Council, GSAS) Caron Lee (Harvard Graduate Council, HSPH) Jennifer Stolper (Undergraduate Council) Thomas Wright (Undergraduate Council) 3 The Committee met three times over the course of the fall semester. Between meetings, the Committee collected data on current school calendars, constraints, historical and statutory information, faculty and student concerns, and any other information that could be useful to the Committee’s work. Specifically: Faculty representatives explored and reported on the potential implications of calendar changes in their respective Schools, and student representatives discussed various proposals with groups of undergraduate and graduate students; Registrars from each School submitted information regarding current practices (i.e. shopping period, pre-registration, etc.), accreditation or licensing constraints, joint classes and programs, cross-registration information for students both within and external to their Schools, and other issues particular to their Schools; The Committee surveyed and compared the academic calendars of other colleges and universities; The Committee reviewed past attempts at calendar change both at Harvard University and at peer institutions; The Committee collected data from university contacts and from national associations such as the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA). This included researching past publications on calendar change and its implications. Undergraduate members of the Committee consulted with members of the Student Affairs Committee of the Undergraduate Council and collected student responses through the Undergraduate Council website. Graduate student representatives consulted with the Harvard Graduate Council, which includes student representatives from all of Harvard’s graduate and professional Schools. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Common Curricular Framework The Committee “strongly endorses the view that achieving greater coordination of calendars across the University is important for promoting closer connections among faculty and students from different Schools in an era when excellence in education and scholarship depends increasingly on learning that extends across traditional organizational boundaries.”1 To achieve these benefits, the Committee recommends that the University adopt the following framework to be observed in all Schools: • A fall semester instructional start date in early September immediately following Labor Day in most or all years; • Completion of fall semester exams (including reading period for those Schools that have it) before Winter Break; • Conclusion of the academic year and Commencement by the end of May; • Coordination of vacations such as Spring Break and Thanksgiving Break. 1 One Committee member dissents from this view as noted in Section VII of the Report of the Harvard University Committee on Calendar Reform. 4 Within these basic guidelines, the timing and structure of activities such as reading and exam periods and course registration are to be determined by the individual Schools. Schools will also determine how, or whether, they wish to use the January time period based on their curricular needs. Flexible January Time Period In the Committee’s view, a 4M-1M-4M (four-month, one-month, four-month) model is the optimal way for achieving calendar coordination. This model permits Schools to use three to four weeks in January as a period for special classes, research, fieldwork, time abroad, or other structured intersession experiences. The Committee notes, however, that it is also possible to achieve the most important elements of calendar coordination through a more flexible model, such as 4M-X-4M, where the “X” is a period in January whose precise length and content would be determined by individual Schools based on their pedagogical and curricular needs. Thus, one School might choose to use the full month for special classes, research, or other structured intersession experiences, and another might choose simply to have an extended Winter Break ending toward the middle or end of January. Under this model, second semester classes might not start at precisely the same time in all Schools, but most of the benefits of calendar coordination would be retained. Further Process The Committee recommends that decisions concerning the adoption of common calendar guidelines be deferred until the completion of the curricular reviews currently underway in the Harvard Graduate School of Education, the Harvard Divinity School, the Harvard Medical School (and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine), and most particularly in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, so that specific calendar decisions within the common framework can flow from the curricular judgments of the respective faculties. This is especially important with respect to how the January time period will be used. CONSIDERATIONS THAT INFLUENCED THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS In reaching its decision to recommend that the University move to a more coordinated calendar framework, including an earlier start date and first-semester exams before Winter Break, the Committee considered the following factors, among others: • Greater coordination would facilitate cross registration and allow for more joint programs between faculties and peer institutions such as MIT. In an average semester, there are over 2,600 cross-registrations involving non-cross-listed courses in Schools or Faculties other than that of a student’s primary registration. There are also large numbers of courses offered jointly and cross-listed between two or more schools. There are about 100 such courses per term in the FAS alone. Harvard currently offers 22 joint degree programs and several more will be added in the near future. Students and faculty have indicated that they would take courses or teach across faculties more if schedules were more coordinated among Harvard’s Schools. 5 • There is broad support across the University for the move to a coordinated calendar within the framework outlined by the Committee. Every non-FAS School at Harvard either already has exams before the Winter Break or would like to move to that calendar. The three Schools other than FAS (HDS, HGSE, and GSD) that do not have exams before Winter Break feel that they must follow the FAS calendar because of their students’ extensive cross-registration. In the absence of common calendar guidelines, therefore, these Schools feel compelled to follow a schedule that they consider sub- optimal