At 03:41 PM 2/23/2005 -0500, Dr. Joe Dumas wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Betsy Darken sent out the proposed calendar changes with the Faculty Senate
>minutes today, so let the debate begin....
>
>First of all, I would like to thank Claire McCullough, Robin Lee, and all the
>members of the ad hoc Calendar Committee for looking at this issue and
>bringing
>forward a well-thought-out and credible proposal.  Many of us think the
>current
>academic calendar is "broken," but these few folks put in the time to actually
>come up with a proposed solution.  Their effort is commendable and the
>result is
>something I feel I could support.  I do have one or two small suggestions,
>though :)
>
>The main feature of the proposed calendar is a saner summer schedule.  Instead
>of the hodgepodge of five summer terms, with three 5-week terms
>overlapping two
>7.5-week terms, the committee proposes reducing the schedule to two 5.5-week
>terms overlapping one 11-week term (which would almost restore the sanity of a
>"normal" semester).  This is very close to my original suggestion of two
>6-week
>terms overlapping a 12-week term ... close enough that I can support it
>wholeheartedly.
>
>Cutting four weeks out of the summer schedule allows us to achieve the
>main goal
>of the calendar revision, which was to reduce some of the time pressure
>that is
>currently a problem at the beginning and end of each semester because of
>the way
>the terms are crammed into the calendar.  Claire McCullough echoed my own
>sentiments perfectly when she said "if we don't do anything with summer
>school,
>then we can't do anything with the calendar at all."  If we feel we have
>to keep
>5 terms and 15 weeks of summer school, then the current calendar is all we
>have
>... so get used to it.  I think now is a good time to try a change.  (Actually
>the changes wouldn't take effect until the fall of 2006, as next year's
>schedule
>is already carved in stone.)
>
>My only (minor) quibble is with the proposed dates for Spring Break.  I
>noticed
>that the committee proposed moving the Fall Break a week *earlier* than the
>current schedule (October 17 and 18 instead of 24 and 25).  Yet, they propose
>moving the Spring Break *later* ... either to March 20-24 or April (yes, you
>read that correctly) 10-13.  The April dates are absurdly late ... we might as
>well wait another two weeks and get out of school a week early with no spring
>break at all!
>
>Even the March 20-24 dates are rather late in the semester.  This year, Spring
>Break is March 7-11.  That seems a bit early, but by then we will have been in
>school for 8.5 weeks and we will only have 5.5 weeks of classes remaining.  If
>the goal is to "break up" the semester and provide some stress relief, I don't
>think we want to shift it much later.  Also, this week is common to many other
>schools.  I know for a fact (due to shared travel plans) that Chattanooga
>State,
>MTSU, and Virginia Tech (a ski buddy is up there :) have the same spring break
>as UTC this year.  Tennessee Tech, Covenant College, Lee University, Bryan
>College, and others also have their Spring Break the same time as we do, while
>Berry College and Sewanee have theirs the following week (middle of March; see
>next paragraph).
>
>Next year's "real" schedule has Spring Break pushed back about a week, to
>March
>13-17.  That is probably ok as, given "calendar creep" (since there are not
>exactly 52 weeks in a year) at some point the calendar must "slip" a week from
>one year to the next.  I suspect that some other schools in our region will be
>doing the same thing.  So far, so good, and I'd rather leave things that way.
>
>It is true that we would have a week longer break between semesters under the
>proposed calendar; however, moving Spring Break to the middle week of March
>(13-17) would mostly make up for that.  We would still be in a situation where
>there would be 8 weeks of school before the break and only 6 weeks after it.
>Given the committee's suggested March 20-24 dates, there would be 9 weeks of
>school before Spring Break and only 5 weeks after it.  That's not as big a
>deal
>as the April dates, but I'd rather leave it in mid-March as opposed to late
>March.  What do the rest of you think?
>
>It is a measure of how good this proposal is, that the *biggest* defect I can
>find is Spring Break being a week too late.  But, your mileage may
>vary.  I urge
>all faculty to discuss this (on Raven or "live") and let your Faculty Senators
>know how you feel.  We want to represent your interests; let us know what you
>think on this and other issues.
>
>Joe Dumas



I wonder why the need for changes? Are students still the mission of this
university or is it for "our" convenience? Many teachers use the summer
sessions to keep up their state required course work for continuing
certification, an now we want to cut back.
There used to be 5.5 week AM terms. If you look closely it is more like 4.5
week terms (21 or 22 days) ( we lost about 5 days several years ago.
The evening terms used to be longer too.) I can't quite remember why the
summer terms were shortened. (Fall Break?)





Harold A. Claimer
De pt. Of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy
Room 318 Grote Hall
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 Call Ave
423-425-4546