Semesters vs. quarters

From CSWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

This page compares a semester-based schedule to a quarter-based schedule.

This page is part of a wiki. Everyone associated with CSULA is invited to edit it. To do so, create an account for yourself and log in by clicking at the top right-hand corner of the page.

The following slides summarize material on this page. They were presented at the faculty Senate meeting Nov 18, 2008.

[edit] Other web resources

[edit] How should this decision be made?

It makes no sense to ask whether we should switch from quarters to semesters without knowing what the result will look like. It is like asking whether one should commit to jump off a cliff without knowing what is at the bottom. The only rational way to make this decision is to work through the conversion details first. Then and only then will we be in a position to decide whether conversion is desirable. One might argue that it makes no sense to spend the time and money to work out the conversion details unless one has committed to making the switch. If one doesn't switch, that time and money will have been wasted. That is a fallacious argument.

There are two basic possibilities: (a) decide whether to switch and if we decide to switch then work out the details (decide then analyze) or (a) work out the detail first and then decide whether to switch (analyze then decide). Here's how they compare.

  • Decide then analyze. Whether we end up with the better system is a shot in the dark. If we decide to switch we spend the money even if switching turns out be a bad idea. This approach saves money if we decide not to switch.
  • Analyze then decide. We spend the analysis money no matter what but we guarantee ourselves that we will end up with the better system.

Since we are deciding about the long term future of our University, it's more important to guarantee a better decision than to jump at the possibility of saving money. The impetus for this discussion was the President's request that we consider the possibility of conversion. So we should consider it. That costs money. But if we want to do a good job, we have to take the time and spend the money.

To illustrate the point here is a concrete example.

  • Conversation scenario 1: convert our 4-unit quarter courses to 3-unit semester courses. We wind up with a default 4-4 teaching schedule. Conversion is a bad idea.
  • Conversation scenario 2: restructure our curriculum to consist of courses that are either 2 units lecture and 2 units lab or 4 units lecture and 1 unit lab. Both of these course configurations are 6 weighted teaching units. We wind up with a default 2-2 teaching schedule. Conversion is a good idea.

Clearly it makes no sense to decide whether to switch before we know which of these two possibilities (or perhaps some other) will come to pass.

In short, deciding about conversion without first determining what the result will look like is foolish, naive, poor decision making, and poor management. Without making this too political, it was this sort of no-analysis "gut-level" approach that got us where we are in Iraq. Let's not do it to ourselves again.

[edit] Other Universities

Except for UC Berkeley, all the UC campuses are on quarters. Just last year UCLA rejected conversion to semesters. An informal survey indicates that a majority of Berkeley faculty regret switching from quarters to semesters.

[edit] Costs vs. Benefits

Quarter and semesters have the following cost vs. benefit profile.


Students Faculty Administration
Quarters Not clear Benefit Cost
Semesters Not clear Cost Benefit


  • It isn't clear which system is better for students
  • It is clear that quarters provide a more acceptable teaching schedule for faculty and that semesters provide less work for the administration.

An important question is what costs—paid by whom—are worth what benefits—reaped by whom. For example, if faculty were required to hold office hours 25 hours/week, it is likely that student learning outcomes would improve. Even though it would provide a clear benefit, is that benefit (gained by students) worth the cost (paid by faculty)? Most faculty—and probably even most administrators—would say that it isn't.

[edit] Workload

[edit] Faculty

Under both semesters and quarters the standard faculty teaching load is 12 instructional hours/week for each of the 30 weeks of an academic year. This doesn't change from one system to the other. Under both systems all faculty are responsible for 12 WTU (weighted teaching units) per week for 30 weeks. What changes is how the 12 WTU are divided up.

  • Under the quarter system the standard faculty teaching schedule is three 4-unit courses each week for 30 weeks.
  • Under the semester system the standard faculty teaching schedule is four 3-unit courses each week for 30 weeks.

The reason for these standard sizes is that a 4-unit quarter course is considered roughly equivalent to a 3-unit semester course. A 4-unit quarter course involves 40 instructional hours—4 hours/week for 10 weeks. A 3-unit semester course involves 45 instructional hours—3 hours/week for 15 weeks. When students transfer between quarter and semester systems, a 3-unit semester course is typically granted a bit more credit (45 hours vs. 40 hours) than a similar 4-unit quarter course, but the subject matter coverage is considered comparable.

What difference does it make how the 12 instructional hours are divided up? There are two primary differences.

  1. Number of students. Under the semester system a standard teaching load involves teaching 33% more students each week. That means reading 33% more homeworks and papers, grading 33% more tests, and having 33% more students who may need individual help. The reason for this is that the standard semester teaching load involves 4 classes at a time rather than three. If class size remains the same, 4 classes is 33% more students than three.
  2. Number of preparations. Under the semester system a standard teaching load involves 33% more preparations. Preparing for 4 courses each week is 33% more work than preparing for 3 courses each week. One might attempt to mitigate this problem by teaching multiple sections of the same course. That has its own disadvantage, namely that one will be repeating the same material over and over. The second or third "show" will almost always be boring for the faculty member, who is likely to be less patient—I just said this yesterday, didn't you get it?—and less involving for the students, who will be seeing faculty teach a warmed over version of material covered earlier. There is a possible offsetting advantage. The second and third "shows" may be improved versions of the first show, which although more spontaneous, is also likely to be less polished.

[edit] Student

Similar comparisons can be made for students. Under semesters students taking 12 units work on four 3-unit courses simultaneously. Under quarters students taking 12 units work on three 4-unit courses simultaneously. It is far easier for students to focus on three subjects at a time than on four.

[edit] Faculty costs vs. student and administrative benefits

Most of the arguments about the benefits of switching to semesters focus on administrative benefits. Some focus on students benefits. It's not clear whether these arguments can be supported if examined carefully. But even if they can, even if there were some irrefutable evidence that switching to semesters would produce an administrative or student benefit, there is still the issue of the cost.

It appears that the primary cost of switching to semesters will be paid by faculty. Faculty will be required to carry a more burdensome course load. One must ask whether the benefit is worth the cost. Certainly not every benefit is worth every cost. For example, it is very likely that one could show that if faculty were required to hold office hours 20 hours/week, there would be a measurable benefit to students. Does that mean such a requirement should be adopted? Of course not.

There are costs to pay for most benefits. Let's not look only at the claimed benefits. The costs—and who pays them—also matter.

[edit] The 8th week slump

In both quarter and semester systems a sense of "When is this going to be over?" often arises around the 8th week. Think of it as the 8th week slump. In a quarter system, one can tell students to hang in there, there are only two weeks to go. Under a semester system the 8th week is barely more than half way through. It can be quite discouraging.

[edit] Would 4-unit semester courses help?

There is a way to make semesters and quarters equivalent in terms of workload: convert 4-unit quarter courses into 4-unit semester courses. If that were done, the standard faculty teaching load and the standard student study load under semesters would be three 4-unit courses at a time, the same as under quarters.

This strategy has a number of disadvantages.

  1. Incompatible courses. The vast majority of colleges and universities divide their curricula into either 4-unit quarter courses or 3-unit semester courses. As indicated above, these two formats are considered roughly equivalent. Four-unit semester courses simply don't fit. Consequently there will be fewer teaching materials available. Furthermore students will have a much harder time transferring between CSULA and other universities—either into or out of CSULA. It will be very difficult to determine equivalences between our courses and those of other colleges and universities.
  2. Breadth suffers. If 4-unit quarter courses are converted into 4-unit semester courses, students will have fewer options when selecting electives. Since each 4-unit semester course covers 50% more material (15 weeks vs. 10 weeks) than a 4-unit quarter course, each elective will count 50% more toward the degree. [The reason for this is that a quarter course is 10 weeks long (40 instructional hours), and a semester course is 15 weeks long (60 instructional), 50% more.] That's fine if one wants electives with greater depth. But it also means that students will be able to take fewer distinct elective courses. A program that requires, say, six 4-unit quarter course electives (i.e., 6 x 40 = 240 instructional hours), will be forced to reduce that requirement to only four 4-unit semester course electives (i.e., 4 x 60 = 240 instructional hours), 33% fewer elective courses. This means a significant reduction in the program breadth.
    Overall breadth suffers as well.
    • Under a system with 4-unit quarter courses students take (nominally) 180/4 = 45 courses to graduate.
    • Under a system with 3-unit semester courses, students take (nominally) 120/3 = 40 courses to graduate.
    • Under a system with 4-unit semester courses, students take only 120/4 = 30 courses to graduate.
      With students taking a (nominal) total of only 30 courses to graduate—rather than 40 or 45—overall breadth suffers significantly. This will also probably lead to significant battles over how the General Education portion of those 30 courses will be allocated.
  3. The consequences of failing are significantly worse. If a student fouls up in a 4-unit quarter course or a 3-unit semester course, the consequences are only one standard course. If a student fouls up in a 4-unit semester course, the consequences are significantly worse. A 4-unit semester course is worth 50% more than a 4-unit quarter course: 60 hours vs. 40 hours. It is worth 33% more than a 3-unit semester course: 60 hours vs. 45 hours. No matter how you count it, students can dig a much deeper hole for themselves in a single 4-unit semester course than they could in a single course under a more traditional structure.
  4. The 8th week slump is intensified. With 4-unit semester courses, the 8th week slump is likely to be even more severe because the preceding 8 weeks included significantly more material.

[edit] Four unit semester courses are equivalent to six unit quarter courses, yielding a 2-2-2 quarterly teaching load

A four unit semester course (60 hours) is equivalent to a 6 unit quarter course (60 hours). So if we wanted to go that route we could convert all our quarter courses to be 6-unit quarter courses. If all courses were 6-unit quarter courses, the nominal faculty teaching load would be two 6-unit quarter classes each quarter. This would be a way to reduce the effective faculty teaching load within the current quarter system.

[edit] Increasing class size

In some sense the University's "bottom line" is student FTE. Since a nominal teaching load of four 3-unit semester classes would increase the number of students faculty teach at any time by 33%, an alternative might be simply to increase class sizes by 33%. Under such a plan, faculty would nominally teach three 3-unit semester courses each semester, but each course would be 33% larger than the equivalent 4-unit quarter class. If the university and chancellor's office would agree to this, it would solve the problem of requiring faculty to teach four courses at a time.

[edit] Increasing class size yields a 2-2-2 quarterly teaching load

If one were interested in increasing class size, then applying a similar strategy to the current quarter system could result in a nominal 2-2-2 quarterly class teaching schedule. If each quarter class were increased by 50%, teaching 2 quarter classes with 150% of the normal number of students would yield the same student FTE as 3 quarter classes with a normal class size. Such a strategy could be applied to the quarter system and would be a way to reduce the effective faculty teaching load within the current quarter system.

[edit] Semester classes allow room for projects that don't fit into quarter classes

This is an important advantage for semester classes. What we in computer science have done to accommodate projects is to stretch project classes out over two quarters. For example we have a senior project sequence CS 491ab. Students are required to take both.

To ensure that students take both quarters, one could withhold the grade from the first quarter (e.g., Incomplete or Report Delayed) until the second quarter has been completed. The University could also create a new grade similar to the grade graduate students get on their MS classes before they finish.

Some faculty suggest that they want to have the option of including projects in all their courses, not just a few selected courses. If more (or all) courses had projects one must wonder whether it is possible to be effective when teaching 4 courses each of which has a project. Four classes of 30 students each would amount to 120 projects. Can anyone do that effectively?

[edit] Summers

Currently Summers are just like any other quarter. Students and faculty who want to take courses or teach over the summer have the opportunity to do so. It is not clear what will happen to summers under a semester system. In some semester systems summers are used at least in part to run compressed versions of semester courses—sometimes in periods of 6 weeks or less. This typically results in a sacrifice of pedagogical quality. Semester courses squeezed into six weeks or fewer require that each week cover 2.5 times the amount of material normally covered in a single semester week. It is unlikely that students will be able to absorb the material that quickly. Other options seem to be to run extension courses over the Summer. This may make money for the university, but it will be at the sacrifice of convenience for students and faculty.

[edit] University semester conversion website

The University has launched a semester conversion website. Select the NIS domain and sign in with your NIS username and password.

The site contains a number of documents posted by the administration along with a forum system. There appears to be no mechanism for faculty to post documents or to comment on the posted documents—other than to leave a message on the forum. It would be preferable if there were a way for documents and other responses to be posted by all interested parties. Commenting on a large document by leaving a message in a forum system is simply not adequate.

One of the posted documents, "Conversion to Semester Overview of Faculty Workload Implications," discusses the possibilities of a 4-4 and 3-3 workload. The essential elements are reproduced on this Administration statement about faculty workload page.

[edit] Report of the Task Force on Academic Calendar (September 2001)

In September 2001 a report was issued on a study comparing semesters to quarters by Ann Garry, Philosophy, Chair; Randy Campbell, Administration and Counseling; Don Maurizio, Technology; and Robert Nakamura, Biology and Microbiology. The report is available online.

The report does not include an abstract or executive summary. Here are the main headings in the Table of Contents.

  • Background: Motivations, Assumptions, and Fact - 1
  • Curriculum, Teaching and Learning - 4
  • Long-term Fiscal, Administrative, and Staff Issues - 17
  • “Conversion”: Short-term Fiscal and Workload Issues - 21
  • Appendices - 24


This page (click here) contains some or the still-relevant extracts from the report.

[edit] Email exchanges

[edit] Senate resolutions

"Voting procedures" (doc) (upload page)

Retrieved from "http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/index.php/Semesters_vs._quarters"