- Background
- Documents
- Question and Answers (Q&A)
- Schedule of Activities
- Pros and Cons
- Resources
- Related Senate Resources
- Ad-Hoc Committee Membership
Calendar Conversion
Referral AA-005-089 “Calendar Change to a Two Semester Academic Year from Three Quarters” was submitted to the Academic Senate on 02/13/09. AA-005-089 provided reasons that would justify a conversion from a quarter based to a semester based academic calendar and asked for an evaluation of the campus desire and feasibility to make this change. On 5/27/09, the Academic Affairs Committee sent a report to the Academic Senate Executive Committee on the referral and unanimously recommended that an ad hoc committee be appointed since the time and effort required were beyond the capabilities of their committee.
AA-005-089 http://www.academic.csupomona.edu/senate/docs/aa005089ref.pdf
On 05/12/10, the Executive Committee unanimously approved the creation of the ad hoc committee on Potential Academic Calendar Conversion (AHCPACC). The Academic Senate unanimously ratified establishing AHCPACC on 5/19/10. A call for volunteers was then sent out and committee members were appointed on 5/26/10.
Yes. Cal Poly Pomona has been on the quarter system since our 1938 founding date.
In 2001, the Academic Senate established an ad hoc “Committee on Mesters” that produced a report AH-005-001 with a recommendation. The name “mesters” was used to refer to either semesters or trimesters. The report recommended that the Academic Senate: 1. decide if the campus should retain the quarter system and, if not then it should decide: 2. should the campus convert to semesters or 3. should the campus convert to trimesters? AH-005-001 was dated 5/2/01, the first reading was conducted on 5/8/01 and second reading and vote on 5/16/01. The final motion at the AS plenary meeting was “that the campus retain the quarter system”, the motion passed 29-6.
In December 1999 the Senate held a two day retreat to consider the issue of how to achieve Year Round Operations (YRO) as requested by the Chancellor’s Office. The necessity for YRO was the projected increase of approximately 300,000 students seeking admission to the CSU over the next 10 years, called Tidal Wave II. As part of the retreat agenda, the group considered having the campus convert from the quarter system to a trimester system of 14 weeks of classes and one week of exams, or a 15-week term. A survey was constructed and was distributed to the faculty soliciting their input on this issue. The results of the survey were distributed to the faculty.
Subsequently the Legislature and the Governor requested that the CSU have a common calendar and allocated $12 million for campuses willing to convert. The money was specifically targeted for calendar related issues and could not be used for other purposes. Documents from 1999 indicate that the Chancellor’s Office was going to set aside about $ 5 million per campus but that Cal Poly Pomona would need an extra $2.6 million (Academic Senate Year Round Operations (YRO) Retreat, Summary of Proceedings, 12/10/99).
Later, the funds did not materialize and none of the quarter-based campuses converted.
All campuses in the UC system are on the quarter system with the exception of Berkeley and Merced. In 2003 UCLA decided to not convert from quarters to semesters.
While many universities in California are on the quarter system, the nationwide trend is moving from quarters to semesters. In the 1980s about 25% were on quarter calendars and it is estimated that by 2012 less than 10% will be using the quarter system. [source: Mayberry report]
In Ohio all state institutions on the quarter system are converting to semesters to be in alignment with the other state universities. All 2-year institutions will be on a semester calendar by Fall 2012. Ohio University, Ohio State University, University of Cincinnati, and Wright State are currently converting from quarters to semesters.
In February 2010 Rochester Institute of Technology announced its decision to convert to semesters in Fall 2013.
Of the 48 contiguous states, 40 state systems (83%) operate on a semester system and 5 state systems (10%) operate on a quarter system. Alabama, California, and Ohio have a more uncoordinated public higher education system, whereby some public universities/colleges operate on a semester and others on a quarter calendar.
A total of six campuses (including CPP) are on a quarter calendar. The other 17 CSU campuses are on semesters.
The following is a summary of the status of consideration of conversion as of Sept 2010 by the other five CSU quarter campuses:
As an ad-hoc committee of the Academic Senate, the AHCPACC would follow established procedure in its activities as given in Article VI, Section 1.C. of the Academic Senate Bylaws. The Phase 1 progress report will be presented to the Executive Committee on September 22, 2010, in order to provide time for the Senate to review, and discuss on September 29, 2010.
AHCPACC has been charged with producing a report with a recommendation to the Academic Senate in response to AA-005-89 based on the background information reviewed in phase 1 and on the input collected from the campus on phase 2. The report must clearly state if the committee supports a conversion or not and the rationale behind their recommendation.
The final report to the Academic Senate is expected at the January 19, 2011 meeting. The report will be handled as any report from a Standing Committee including a first reading (1/19/2011) and a second reading and therefore the campus community will have ample opportunity to provide feedback through their representatives in the Academic Senate before a vote is taken. In addition to 35 faculty senators that proportionally represent constituencies (8 colleges plus library and related areas) and 2 CSU faculty senators, the Academic Senate includes a staff representative and a student representative (39 members total). If the Executive Committee does not schedule a special Senate meeting dedicated to this report, the second reading of the report would be expected to occur at February 2011 plenary meeting. At the second reading, members of the Senate could amend, approve, or reject the recommendations in the AHCPACC report. If approved, the report will be sent to the President who will eventually accept or reject the recommendation from the senate and explain his decision in a written response to the Senate.
Everyone will have multiple opportunities to provide input into the decision-making process. Ultimately, the Academic Senate will make a recommendation to the University President who will make the final decision. Here are some of the ways you can participate:
Faculty members appointed by the Academic Senate
| Agriculture | Martin Sancho-Madriz |
| Business | James Swartz |
| Collins | Sandra Kapoor |
| CEIS | Shahnaz Lotfipour |
| Engineering | Saeed Monemi |
| Environmental Design | Alyssa Lang |
| CLASS | Michael Cholbi (Co-Chair) |
| Science | Amar Raheja |
| Related Areas | Ann Morgan |
Members appointed by Administration for the following divisions:
| Academic Affairs: | Donald Hoyt (Co-Chair) |
| Administrative Affairs | Walter Marquez |
| I&IT | Carol Heins-Gonzales |
| Student Affairs | Maria Martinez |
| ASI Representative | Ismael Souley (ASI President) |
The Academic Senate Executive Committee decided to appoint. Dr. Michael Cholbi the faculty Co-Chair based on the recommendation of the ad hoc committee. The EC also decided that the representative from the Academic Affairs Division would be the Co-Chair. Dr. Hoyt was appointed by the Provost to represent Academic Affairs.
The current assumption is that most, if not all, of the cost of conversion would be provided by the Chancellor’s Office as a special allocation.
Short-term costs would probably be in the range of 5-7 million dollars not including the cost of revisions to software (e.g. PeopleSoft, Bronco Direct, etc) which might be converted by the Chancellor’s Office if several quarter campuses decide to convert at about the same time. The current assumption is that most, if not all, of the cost of conversion would be provided by the Chancellor’s Office as a special allocation and NOT out of our normal annual operating budget (ca. $190M).
The following are actual or estimated costs from other Universities that have converted recently (Source RIT report by Mayberry):
The RIT costs did not include assigned time for faculty who were responsible for revising academic programs but, given the heavy teaching load at CPP, this support would be necessary. The expenses detailed by the RIT report are allocated to: curriculum, advising, communication, conversion administration.
It seems unlikely that there will be significant costs/savings to the campus in the long term. There are no obvious areas of expenditure that would be significantly different under a semester calendar. One fact that is consistent with this is the idea that it costs about the same to run both campuses on systems. This is based on the observation that, in the CSU the “marginal cost of instruction” (the additional support provided from the state general fund to a campus that increases its enrollment) is the same for all campuses and the State University Fees are the same on an annual basis. Thus, if campuses are provided the same funding per annualized FTES regardless of the academic calendar, then there cannot be consistent differences in the costs based on the calendar.
In Fall 2009 ca. 40% of all sections were four-units. If all of the four unit sections were changed to three-unit sections, and there were no change in FTES targets, the total number of sections, and therefore the number of required classrooms, would be increased by 13%. There would be no necessary change in the number of students per section. Based on the current Summary of Campus Capacity Report (CPDC 1-2), a system-wide analysis that calculates capacity/enrollment percentage, if there were a change to semesters, it is very likely the campus will be able to maintain excess lecture and lab capacity.
No. The campus FTES target is an annualized target so no changes would be necessitated by conversion per se. Many campuses see a decline in enrollment in the first years following conversion so one issue that should be discussed with the Chancellor’s Office is whether the campus would be ‘held harmless’ if this were to occur.
A significant number of converting schools experienced temporary, sometimes serious, declines in full‐time enrollment. This decline, if not carefully planned for, can end up being the biggest single “cost” of the conversion initiative. It is within the authority of the Chancellor’s Office to overlook FTES shortfalls and this is an issue that should be discussed in advance of any decision to convert.
The following table shows the percent and duration of enrollment decline experienced by some converting schools and systems.
| School/System | % Net Decline | Duration |
| Alabama system | 18.7% | 2 years |
| Georgia system | 11.8% | 1 year |
| Utah system | 5.8% | temporary |
| Northeastern | 0% | |
| Minnesota | ~5% | 1 year |
The funding to the CSU campuses is FTES based. As long as the campus meets its FTES targets, funding would not be affected. Other CSU campuses, which are on semester systems, are funded currently in a similar manner to the campuses on quarter systems, i.e. primarily on FTES targets. That said, the FTES could be affected due to change in enrollment pattern as a result of conversion. Please see response to previous questions for potential FTES changes.
Schedule Building: Academic departments normally take several months, spanning two quarters, to plan and build course offerings for the next term. This timeline is not based on the type of calendar the campus follows. Class schedule building would therefore most likely remain at five to six months prior to the next term. In the quarter system, departments plan course offerings without actual information on the previous term’s course enrollment because they are building a schedule two quarters in advance.
Registration: Cal Poly Pomona currently enforces course pre-requisites via the online registration system. This practice would continue if the campus were to convert to a semester calendar. In terms of adding and dropping classes, there are very small breaks (or even overlaps) between the registration periods for the quarters adjacent to each other because of the short timeline. Also, the registration periods are no more than two weeks long. In the semester system, there would likely be longer registration periods and greater breaks between registration periods. This could potentially result in changes in the “drop policy” (when students drop classes without a petition, or without receiving a W grade.) At CPP students can currently drop without record through the 5th day of instruction. Drop periods without permission of instructor on semester campuses are (days of instruction): Northridge 10th day, Long Beach 10th day, Fresno 20th day, Sacramento 10th day, Fullerton 10th day. Changes to the length of the drop period would have to be approved by the Academic Senate using its normal processes.
SOURCE: The Common Issues Group, Cal Poly Pomona
Whether environmental or sustainability considerations favor a semester or quarter system is not obvious. One consideration is how many days per week commuter students would need to come to campus. In general though, students are not likely to need to come to campus more frequently on a semester calendar.
All local community colleges offer semester-based calendars with some version of fall and spring semesters with winter and summer sessions. Assuming that the semester calendar adopted by CPP matched these other institutions, there would be alignment at that level. For local K-12 school districts, the school calendars vary. Walnut Valley and Rowland School Districts offers a semester system for their high schools and a trimester system for their elementary schools which begins the last week of August, with a break between Christmas & New Year, spring break the first week of April, and the school year concluding the first week of June. The Pomona Valley School District also offers a semester system but their school year doesn’t begin until the week after Labor Day with spring break the first week of April, and school ending the 2nd week of June.
Source: www.wvusd.k12.ca.us; www.pusd.org; www.rowlandschools.org; www.mtsac.edu; www.citruscollege.edu
There are several issues that constrain our options for an academic calendar; however, there is great flexibility even within these constraints.
Most American universities adopt some variation of the classical Carnegie definition of a unit of credit.1 In that definition, a semester credit hour is normally granted for satisfactory completion of one 50-minute session of classroom instruction per week for a semester of not less than 15 weeks.
For a sample policy outlining the Carnegie definition and its variants, see SUNY’s model: http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=168.
Typically, then, a three-semester-credit-hour course meets for three 50-minute sessions per week for 15 weeks, for a total of 45 sessions. This basic measure may be adjusted proportionately to reflect modified academic calendars and formats of study. Thus, a semester-length 3-unit lecture course could meet three times per week, for 50 minutes each class meeting, or twice per week for 75 minutes per class session; a 4-unit lecture course could meet four times per week for 50 minutes per meeting or twice per week for 100 minutes per meeting; and so forth.
Laboratories and activity courses that require more contact hours per unit would meet for longer amounts of time; typically, for example, one semester credit would be earned for 150 minutes or more of contact time each meeting (for activity courses requiring little to no preparation outside class).
Quarters: four equal terms of 10‐11 weeks spread throughout an entire calendar year, typically beginning in August or September and ending the following August.
Semesters: two equal terms of 15‐17 weeks spread between late summer (August‐September) and early spring (April‐June), with a third summer term of (often) shorter length.
Sub-categories. Both the quarter and semester models offer “early‐start” and “late‐start” variants
Early-start quarter: fall quarter typically begins on or before Labor Day and spring quarter ends in mid‐ to late‐May (may or may not have split winter quarter).
Late-start quarter: fall begins after labor day and spring term ends in June.
Early-start semester: fall semester begins mid‐ to late‐August and spring semester ends in early May.
Traditional (late-start) semester: fall begins in September and spring extends through late May/early June.
414: 16‐week fall semester begins in late August and is followed by a one month “inter‐session” in January designed for special study. Spring semester runs from February through May. May or may not include a summer term. Within these five sub‐categories, the biggest variation is the break length between fall and winter terms.
http://www.rit.edu/~w-aa/media/Calendar%20Conversion%20Report%20by%20Dr.%20Mayberry.pdf
Converting to semesters should not affect summer course offerings negatively. Most CSU campuses that are on semesters typically have several different (but concurrent) summer sessions. Most CSUs on semesters offer either one or two concurrent summer sessions which are offered primarily through Extended University. Hence, the course offerings will remain similar to the current situation which is usually determined by the demand for courses by departments using waiting list data from the academic year or through student surveys done in the spring quarter to determine what courses are desired by the students. (Source: FAQs from CSULA and CSU LB calendar).
Many of the semester campuses have special “intersession” classes in January, held between the Fall and Spring semesters, that meet for two or three weeks of intensive study. These classes allow for field trips or activities that are otherwise hard to fit into the typical course modules. Additionally, these special sessions help provide students with an additional opportunity to take required courses and earn credit toward graduation.
However, it is not clear if having an intersession would be helpful or desired. CSU Fullerton has two intersessions (http://intersession.fullerton.edu/) that are 5 weeks and 3 weeks long and are run by the University Extended Education Student Services (equivalent to our College of Extended University). CSU San Marcos has a 2-week winter intersession (http://www.csusm.edu/el/winterintersession.html). CSU Fresno has a 2.5-week winter intersession and a 3-week May-June intersession. Although running courses through extension is not very popular with students (because they cost more than regular quarter/semester courses) or faculty (a higher rate of class cancellation due to low enrollments), the effect of having an intersession is unclear. An intersession could also affect the summer session dates. Most non CSU campuses on semesters that have an intersession run it as 3 to 4 week-long sessions. (http://wintersession.uconn.edu/winter/)
Many CSU semester campuses have had a Winter intercession. However, our current understanding is that these are becoming less common. We are still seeking to confirm and understand this change and will update this answer if we obtain confirmation or explanations.
The campus might elect to insert several days for a ‘reading period’ between the end of classes and the start of final exams. These days would count as faculty work days which are limited to a total of less than 180 days by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the CFA and the CSU.
To simplify our discussions the AHCPACC is recommending an “early start” semester modeled on CSU Fullerton’s calendar with these general features:
The following is how this might work if the campus were on semesters in the current Academic Year (2010-11):
Under a semester system the weekly class schedule could be very similar to that in the quarter system. A standard lecture class would meet “one hour” (50 minutes) for each semester unit of credit for students. See below for more detailed examples of classes with activities and labs. As you read the figures below, keep in mind that courses using innovative, “noncontact” instructional methods to meet curricular objectives would not necessarily be required to conform precisely to the number of minutes cited here.
| 3-unit course | 4-unit course |
|---|---|
| 1 time per week = 150 minutes + break | 1 time per week = 200 minutes + break |
| 2 times per week = 75 minutes each | 2 times per week = 100 minutes each |
| 3 times per week = 50 minutes each | 3 times per week = 67 minutes each |
Although the actual number of units for individual faculty and students will vary, and surely the time spent in class is not the whole “course load” story, a hypothetical 12-unit course load follows.
Note: The comparisons above assume a semester with 15 weeks of instruction as proposed in the working model by AHCPACC.
In Fall 2009, 40% of all sections were four-units and 17% were three units, however, the current class modules probably would not need to be changed even if there were extensive increases in the number of three-unit classes because our current time modules are very flexible. Three unit classes can be taught:
The current time modules are available at:
http://www.csupomona.edu/~academic/programs/scheduling/docs/AYTimeModules.pdf
Typically, when converting from quarter units to semester units, quarter units are divided by 1.5 to calculate semester values (http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/faq/abroad.html on July 4, 2010). Each quarter unit is equivalent to two-thirds of a semester unit (http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/committees/coci/handbook3.html on July 4, 2010). It will be up to each department to determine how the units will count precisely to courses in their new curriculum plan. Department faculty should make a determination of how Majors unit deficiencies that are created with quarter unit to semester unit conversion shall be met in general education and major areas.
Yes, the current student administration system, Oracle/PeopleSoft, is capable of handling the semester calendar. In fact, this system is used by most of the CSU campuses that are on a semester calendar. There is, however, one caveat to this. As in any conversion process, IT resources would be devoted to developing applications or modifying existing applications to support the change. Significant changes would have to be made in the three modules of PeopleSoft: Student Records, Student Financials and Human Resources. Additional data storage would be needed from the CSU Chancellor’s Office CMS Unit to host the extra databases to support calendar conversion activities.
The three other systems that Cal Poly Pomona uses, BroncoDirect, the Data Warehouse and Blackboard can also handle a semester calendar. SOURCE: Cal Poly Pomona Chief Information Officer
If the decision is made to convert to a semester calendar the University should make every effort to ensure that the units students have already earned would count toward their degrees. However it is not possible at this point to guarantee that every unit would count. The extent to which all units and courses taken under the quarter system count toward the students’ degrees following conversion will depend, among other things, on the quality of planning for articulation of the old and new curricula, extent and quality of advising provided to students prior to conversion, and the extent to which students follow this advice.
Several universities currently converting from quarters to semesters have made a “Pledge to Students” guaranteeing that they will graduate on time and will not lose earned credits provided they meet certain requirements: meet with advisors, develop an academic plan, and stick to the plan.
Based on reports from other campuses, three to four years is the typical conversion period. For example, in February 2010 Rochester Institute of Technology announced its decision to convert to semesters effective Fall 2013. Several Ohio universities are in the process of converting and allowed 3 years from the time of the decision to the first term on the semester system. Most campuses that have decided to change from quarters to semesters take two years to develop and approve the new curriculum and then one or two years to plan and prepare for the change (Mayberry report to President of RIT).
Course availability is impacted by the availability of the qualified faculty and facilities, as well as a minimum number of enrolled students. If there are no changes in the number of faculty and students, course availability should be the same following conversion. During the conversion it is expected that the availability of faculty and enrolled students will not be adversely affected because faculty with assigned time to develop or approve the new curricula would be replaced by part-time faculty.
There is little hard evidence concerning how long students take to graduate at quarter-based institutions versus how long they take to graduate on semester-based calendars. Proponents of the semester-based calendar claim that students are likely to take less time to graduate because a) the semester calendar is used in high schools and so new students adjust to college life more readily; b) the academic pace of courses on the semester calendar is usually slower and better allows for students to recover from illnesses, interruptions, or academic adversity; and c) because some courses may be offered less frequently on a semester calendar, students may be more motivated to complete difficult courses. While there is some evidence to suggest at least temporary increases in graduation rate and first-year persistence along with decreased time to degree, there is little evidence about these over the long term. Furthermore, some institutions that have converted to semester calendars have experienced reduced enrollment the year following conversion. Conversion may also have particular effects on part-time students.
See: Letter from Bill Destler to Rochester Institute of Technology announcing conversion, (http://www.rit.edu/president/); Rochester Institute of Technology Conversion FAQ, http://www.rit.edu/president/semesters.html; Oregon University System, “Merits of semester versus quarter system,” (www.ous.edu/.../Semester%20conversion%20pros-cons%2010-31-09%20(2).pdf); Committee on Educational Policy to R. Bryan Miller, UC-Davis Academic Senate, 3 November 1997 (http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/ra/cep.htm); Brenda Ashford, “Academic Calendars,” Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/academic-calendars); Cal State LA Semester Conversion Task Force, “Infrastructure Issues” (http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/aa/semester/docs/InfrastructureIssues.pdf); Cal State LA Semester Conversion Task Force, “Quarter vs. Semester System: Implications for Student Learning” (http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/aa/semester/, “Pedagogy or Student Learning”; Cal State LA, President’s Presentation, (http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/aa/semester/,), “Conversion to Semesters?”; An Examination of Issues,” and (http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/aa/semester/, “President’s Corner”).
Most courses will either count as 3 units or 4 units depending upon the judgment of the faculty in establishing the new curricula although one-unit laboratory and discussion sections would still be part of some curricula. . Under a semester calendar most majors will require a 120 to 132 units. Therefore, to graduate in four years, students would need to take five three-unit courses (15 units), or four four-unit courses per semester. To be considered full-time an undergraduate student would need to take a minimum of 12 units as is currently the case.
An efficient transition would require extensive student advisement to ensure that students receive thorough and adequate guidance in mapping out their path toward graduation. Individual departments would need to publicize the articulation of their quarter and semester curricula to help students plan the transition. Universities that changed their academic calendar started communicating to students about their calendar conversion well before the change took place. For example, the University of Cincinnati began its student communication campaign three years before the calendar conversion. This campaign was followed by a series of activities such as the release of FAQ’s, creation of forms for advisement and standard student appeals processes, an inventory of advising tools, hiring of extra, specially-trained advisors, and mandatory student advising to develop their Individualized Study Plan.
The University of Cincinnati report on its conversion process provides a model of a 3-pronged approach to advisement:
SOURCE: University of Cincinnati, Plan for Converting University of Cincinnati to Semester-Calendar System (see “Resources” link on calendar_convert web site).
Universities that have undergone calendar conversion have devoted significant time and money (in most cases, several million dollars or more) to implement their new academic calendars. Converting to a different academic calendar would require almost every division or unit of the University to review its systems and procedures to ensure that they reflect a semester-based calendar (Kit Mayberry, Report to President Bill Destler, Rochester Institute of Technology, “Quarter to Semester Conversion,” 2009) . Many universities have designated a single individual within each academic or administrative unit to serve as that unit’s conversion coordinator. In some cases, handling the calendar conversion could necessitate hiring temporary staff or temporarily modifying the job responsibilities of existing staff. The most significant task facing colleges and departments under conversion would the modification of their curricula to reflect a semester calendar. One possible resource for this task would be to provide selected faculty members with course release to develop the new curricula. In order to determine what different academic and administrative units may need to convert to a semester calendar, many of the universities that have undergone calendar conversion have created subcommittees or implementation task forces with representatives from all university divisions (Ohio State University, Conversion Principles, (http://senate.osu.edu/Senate%20Packets/Meeting%20Materials/march09/AdHocSemestersReport2009.pdf)). Our neighbor, Cal State LA, undertook a comprehensive “assessment of readiness” prior to considering a calendar conversion (Cal State LA Semester Conversion, (https://nss-nemo.calstatela.edu/semester/), “Assessment of Readiness” ) . A similar assessment could help Cal Poly determine what resources would be necessary if the campus went to semester calendar.
There are many policies we would not need to change (e.g. highest grade needed to repeat a course). However, any academic policy that is based on ‘units’ or ‘academic terms’ would need to be revised by the Academic Senate following standard procedures. Some of the conversions might be simply mathematical, converting from quarter to semester units by multiplying by two-thirds (e.g. 120 units for a bachelors degree or 30 units for a masters degree) but, in some cases multiplying our current value by 2/3 might not yield an integer and a rounding decision would have to be made. In many cases, official guidance (e.g. Executive Orders or Coded Memoranda) sets minima or maxima and the Senate would exercise its normal judgment in adopting new, semester-based values. Some examples of this type of academic policy include limits on the number of units from which a student can withdraw or re-take for grade forgiveness and grade averaging. Another example is the number of terms a student is allowed to not attend and maintain continuous enrollment. Some current policies, are necessitated by a quarter calendar and might be changed or not, again, depending on the judgment of the Senate. For example, the ‘one-quarter grace period’ for disqualification is, to some extent, necessary because of the very short amount of time between terms. With the longer amounts of time that usually intervene between semesters, the Senate would have the option of changing this policy. Some aspects of the academic calendar, such as the length of the add/drop period are significantly longer on some semester campuses so the Senate might want to consider making some changes although a change would not be necessitated by conversion to a semester calendar.
Lisa Alex, Chair of the Academic Senate, provided the following comments regarding some of the options allowed for in the Senate Constitution.
Revision and repackaging of curriculum will be a huge workload increase for faculty on those Senate committees involved in its review (as well as curriculum committees at department, college, and university levels) not to mention the office of Academic Programs.
The Senate Academic Programs and General Education committees would most likely be the ones looking at curriculum issues, although any standing committee can be assigned work outside their normal duties in order to expedite certain items. However, the other standing committees will most likely be dealing with referrals relating to conversion as well. For example Academic Affairs would have to revise calendars and policies related to registration, etc.
Senate standing committee size is limited to no more than 3% of the university constituents we represent. For example, the committee can be no more than 24 members if we have 800 constituents—the actual number of constituents should be available from Gary Hamilton’s office. Then within each committee, the number of members from each college is proportional to their Senate representation—for example one from Collins while there would be two from Science.
I would assume that most of the Senate referrals would come at the same time for review; therefore AP/GE would have a huge workload. In order to expedite the work, assigned time could be given to the committee members, perhaps a full release from their coursework for the quarter(s) they work on the referrals. That way their full time job is to get the referrals reviewed and write recommendations for the Senate to consider. There is also the option that the Senate could appoint an ad hoc committee to help expedite the work. Again, if the volume of work is large, then assigned time would expedite the work of an ad hoc committee as well. I can’t see giving our normal committees hundreds of referrals and expecting them to review them all without such allowances for workload. This also needs to be considered for non-Senate committees that review curriculum before it ever reaches us.
Dr. Claudia Pinter-Lucke provided the following comments on the process from her perspective as AVP for Academic Programs whose office would direct all proposed curricular changes through the appropriate channels:
The extent of review required for the new curricula would depend on the nature of the changes proposed by the departments and there are a range of possibilities in how departments might respond. If a department took the opportunity to make significant changes to the structure of their major (meaning changes in focus and emphasis), the changes would need to go through the Academic Programs Committee. Otherwise, the changes probably would be considered to be internal changes. Such changes either require approval at the college level, or the approval of the University Curriculum Committee depending on whether other departments are involved or are likely to be interested. Significant changes to GE courses would be reviewed by the Senate GE Committee. Similarly, if new courses are created to “bridge” the difference between old courses and new courses, those courses would go through consultation and the UCC, unless they are GE courses in which case they would go through the GE Committee.
Although I have indicated that not all changes would be considered major, this should not be construed to mean that the amount of work to make the changes would not be significant. This is a similar situation to when CPP changed from one GE program to another, and all of the upper division GE courses needed to be reviewed to verify that they satisfied the new requirements. That was all the GE Committee did during that year. There will be considerable work for the college curriculum committees and coordinators who will need to review all requests, even those that are internal. Of the Senate Committees, the University Curriculum Committee is likely to handle the most proposals, since it will be reviewing minor changes to programs, changes to courses, and new courses.
Departments could use their existing department curriculum committees to develop their new curricula or appoint special committees for this purpose. For some Departments, comparable academic programs that are taught on semester campuses may serve as useful starting points.
Reference: http://oaa.osu.edu/documents/QuartertoSemesterCurriculumConversionGuide1.1.pdf
It is difficult to predict exactly how General Education would operate under a semester-based calendar, but it is possible that the GE curriculum would have to be substantially modified. Executive Order 1033 requires 72 quarter units or 48 semester units of GE with two-thirds as many semester units as quarter units in each of the specified areas. Simple conversion of 4 unit quarter courses to 3 unit semester courses would translate to 54 units of GE. Consequently, it is probable that the number of required GE courses would be reduced or consolidated under a semester calendar. The exact contours of the GE Curriculum would have to be determined by the GE Committee of the Academic Senate.
There are two basic approaches to addressing course content when converting from quarters to semesters: constant format and constant content. These are discussed in more detail in the Mayberry report (p.11) but here are brief definitions:
While each department would choose the model that best fits its needs, the “working model” used by AHCPACC is based to a great extent on the “constant format” approach. Under this model, courses would have more content than current quarter courses. To create semester courses from stand-alone quarter courses, departments would have to add additional content to existing courses or create completely new courses. Some existing quarter courses could be chopped up with the components added to other quarter courses to create semester courses. Three quarter course sequences could be easily converted to two semester course sequences. Semesters could also provide more opportunity than quarters for research, rewritten papers, field work, service learning, more multi-stage assignments or lab experiments, and so on within a course.
For faculty in the CSU the standard teaching load is 12 WTU per term so there would be no necessary change in the total number of class contact hours per week. In both the quarter and the semester academic calendar, the academic year is approximately 30 weeks of instruction. The quarter calendar is comprised of three 10-week periods of instruction with 1 week of exams per quarter, while a semester calendar is comprised of two 15 week periods of instruction with 1 week of exams per semester. The overall classroom contact hours (actual time spent in classroom instruction) will remain the same over the course of an entire academic year of 2 semesters or 3 quarters.
Most instructional materials and textbooks are designed for semesters rather than quarters. However, many publishers will customize textbooks (remove chapters from textbooks to reduce content and cost) to fit quarter programs. Utilizing materials designed for the semester system on the quarter system may mean that students use a smaller portion of their textbooks or related materials and sections of books are skipped, shortened, or used less effectively than they were designed to be. On the other hand, since many textbooks are designed for semester length courses, more material could be used in quarter courses or the same textbook could be used for 2 or more sequential quarter classes. Students on a semester calendar will take fewer courses overall but may take more courses simultaneously than students on a quarter calendar. As a result, the total cost of books might well be lower on a semester system, although the dollar outlay at one given time might be more. Of course, the flip side of this is that conversion could result in reduced revenues for the University bookstore.
Typically, departments with this kind of course sequence develop special “gap” or “bridge” courses that are roughly the equivalent to the first half of the middle course in the sequence. Students who take this course can then take the second semester of the new sequence with no loss of units or repeated course material. Bridge courses could be built into the schedule for those students whose course of study will include both quarter and semester calendars. It would be necessary to sequence courses and offerings to ensure that students could and would complete their degrees on schedule. Those courses would be limited to certain programs and specific students. Other exceptions that could be made are for laboratory courses or internships, developmental courses, and co-op programs. https://nss-nemo.calstatela.edu/semester/docs/InfrastructureIssues.pdf
[See question 60 in STUDENTS section.]
[See question 61 STUDENTS section.]
Under both calendars, all full-time faculty are responsible for 12 WTU (weighted teaching units) per term. How these 12 WTU are translated into course load is determined by the number of units per course. Under the existing quarter calendar, for example, faculty typically meet this 12 WTU requirement by teaching three 4-unit courses per quarter. There are of course many exceptions to this because faculty teach labs, courses vary in their number of units, etc. If all courses on a semester calendar were 3 units, then faculty would teach four 3-unit courses per semester, as opposed to the three 4-unit courses faculty typically teach under the existing quarter calendar. Similarly, if all courses on a semester calendar were 4 units, then faculty would teach three 4-unit courses per semester. The number of units credited for a course under a semester system would be determined by the faculty when they develop a semester-based curriculum, subject to constraints imposed by the CSU concerning General Education. (See the question regarding options for units for further details.) For a survey of the units in core and support courses in a few select majors on several semester campuses in Southern California follow this link.
The overall impact of conversion on faculty workload is equivocal and complex. The number of overall faculty contact hours and the overall length of the academic year do not vary between a quarter- and a semester-based calendar. On the one hand, the maximum number of courses faculty members would teach on a semester system in a given term (4) is greater than the maximum number of courses faculty members generally teach on a quarter system (3). However, because the semester calendar has two terms per year instead of three, the maximum number of courses faculty members would teach on a semester system in an academic year (8) is fewer than the maximum of courses faculty typically teach on a quarter calendar (9). And even these maximum numbers may not reflect the actual number of courses faculty may teach on a quarter or semester calendar. For example, a CSU survey of faculty conducted in 2001 found that faculty on quarter campuses who did not receive assigned time averaged 3.02 courses per quarter and faculty on semester campuses who did not receive assigned time averaged 3.47 courses per semester.[i]
In addition, AHCPACC observes that a number of factors aside from the course load can impact the amount of effort faculty must exert in order to fulfill their teaching responsibilities. These include:
Finally, some factors that do not necessarily differ between semester and quarter systems (for example, the number of students per course) also impact faculty workload.
[i] CSU Faculty Workload Report, prepared for the CSU by The Social and Behavioral Research Institute, CSU San Marcos. Richard T. Serpe, Ph.D.; Director, 2002.
No major change to the RTP process is envisioned when changing to semesters but the RTP calendar will be affected. The deadlines for submission of RTP documents (which are usually in early October after the quarter begins) and evaluation by various committees and administrators will most likely see more time granted due to a longer semester session. The RTP process which involves collection of student and peer evaluations and keeping track of contributions to scholarship and service will not be affected in any way. No change to RTP criteria would be necessitated by the conversion to semesters.
The conversion period could possibly impact the RTP process because of the workload demands on faculty. The time and energy required to revise courses and curricula could impact time available for research and professional activities. However conversion work done by faculty should count toward university service requirements.
[CBA 13.12, 13.13, 13.18, 14.9]
Conversion issues that affect lecturers include impact on entitlement, salary, and eligibility for benefits. The AHCPACC has attempted to obtain answers from CPP Faculty Affairs and the Chancellor’s Office. The only response obtained so far is “converting commitments would be negotiated with the CFA.” The Committee will continue efforts to obtain more information.
Lecturers should be able to take advantage of any support services provided to tenure/tenure-track faculty.
Typically there are a number of summer opportunities available for faculty members in other institutions for both teaching and research. With approximately 90% of colleges and universities in the United States being on semester calendars, off-campus opportunities are most frequently coordinated with a semester calendar. Research opportunities at most institutions can be flexible on starting date, however, teaching time frames are not typically negotiable. Being on a quarter-based calendar can create scheduling issues for faculty wanting to teach summer courses at a semester based campus. Therefore, a semester calendar may improve or facilitate summer research and teaching opportunities for faculty. See question 56 for comments regarding summer school.
In the CSU a fully funded sabbatical is longer on semester campuses than on quarter campuses – one full semester vs. one quarter. Faculty at semester campuses can take 2 semesters at 1/2 full salary. On quarter campuses, faculty can take a 3 quarter sabbatical at 1/2 pay or 2 quarters at 3/4 pay. [CBA 27.11] Converting from quarters to semesters would not necessitate a change in the process of applying for or granting of sabbaticals.
Converting to semesters will benefit faculty who wish to conduct research at another semester campus:
There is no necessary change in class size but it is hard to predict at this stage the result on class size of a change to a semester system because this would be determined by the faculty when they revised the curriculum in their programs. There may be some larger classes because of changes in enrollment patterns, changes in scheduling of courses, or changes in departments’ instructional models. The following schools did see a 10-15% increase in the number of classes over 50 students: Minnesota, Georgia Tech, Utah State. Changes to larger classes might be restricted in lab-based disciplines (as opposed to lecture-only courses). On the other hand, some classes could also be smaller. (Source: FAQs from Univ. of Cincinnati, RIT q-2-s report). Among the various factors that influence class size, the academic calendar is a minor one.
In terms of attracting new faculty, the relatively high, 12 WTU teaching load in the CSU system is always a major factor. If we convert to a semester with a workload of four classes per term, then it may be harder to attract faculty than it is now with our three-course loads; however we know of no data to support this.
No. Some faculty would be provided assigned time to develop the semester curriculum. Senate committees might be provided some additional assigned time to review proposed new curricula for the whole campus. But there would not be sufficient funds to pay for conversion of individual courses.
The only potential impact would be on some projects with small amounts of assigned time. For example, a project that has only enough funds to pay for 4 or 8 WTU of assigned time on a quarter system would be able to pay for amounts of assigned time that would be difficult to award on a semester system (2.67 & 5.33). The impact on grants with more assigned time would be less complicated to deal with (one course/term for a year = 12 quarterly WTU = 8 semester WTU).
However, assuming that we will have 3 or 4 years lead time and few grants are for longer periods of time, we would start budgeting for this when they are submitted. Slight changes in budgets would be fairly easy to explain to the funding agency. If a few PIs were caught in the transition the Deans could match some of the assigned time to round it off to usable amounts (e.g. 3 and 6 in the above examples) and this would not cost very much money.
Source: Don Hoyt, AVP for Research
A semester schedule will decrease the number of financial aid check disbursements. However, the student’s financial aid awards are given for an academic year regardless of whether the school’s calendar is quarter or semester based.
The office of CSU International Programs coordinates the planning for students who wish to study abroad and provides a list of universities worldwide that students at the 23 CSU campuses can attend. IP is accustomed to working with both semester and quarter calendars (http://www.calstate.edu/ip/), however, most universities worldwide follow some version of a semester system. While we have managed to find ways to deal with the calendar difference, it is often a problem. Students often go abroad for the fall quarter, which is more or less equivalent to the first semester. But if they wish to go in January, they use up two quarters for one semester abroad, and they cannot go for the spring since at institutions overseas, they're halfway through the second semester (Faiza Shereen, former Director, CPP International Student Center).
It is possible that students will have more opportunities for summer employment, internships, research opportunities, and summer study at other institutions if conversion to semesters were to take place. Though employers and institutions try to work with students and their availabilities, 90% of colleges and universities follow the semester calendar, so many employers follow this schedule and begin seeking candidates for summer employment in early spring. Students who attend schools on a quarter system end their spring term too late to take full advantage of such opportunities. Students from quarter campuses may have opportunities to work later in the summer than students from semester campuses.
Campus offices that provide student services would experience fewer fluctuations in their scheduling as the semester calendar requires one less period to process documents or perform business transactions. Examples of these are: University Housing would have one less period to process applications for student housing; the Disability Resource Center would spend one less time to qualifying student eligibility for accommodations; offices that employ students would spend one less time checking grades to verify student eligibility for work on-campus; and enrollment services would have one less cycle of admission processing, registration, orientation, financial aid processing and academic standing and graduation determination. In general, the semester calendar could lead to more efficient business processing across the campus, potentially allowing offices to have more time for better planning, special projects for service improvement or enhancement and staff development.
In regard to student housing, residential students attending a semester school stay in on-campus housing for longer periods at a time, starting in August. The cost of utilities to operate the residential suites could potentially be higher on a semester calendar. Another difference in residential suites operations is that the quarter system provides three breaks between terms that allow the administration to schedule maintenance and repairs. With a longer span between terms, the administration would have to look into closing down the residential buildings to allow for a longer time period to complete these tasks. There would potentially be limited food service during term breaks.
The student services located in the Bronco Student Center, such as food service, entertainment and information counter, and the ASI’s business unit that manages its budget and operates all the student services would not be impacted by a change in the academic calendar. It would continue to serve the students all year long.
SOURCE: Interviews with Division of Student Affairs managers/staff.
http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/aa/semester/docs/SemesterSupport.pdf
Transferring to CPP would be facilitated for the majority of our transfer students. Per Kathy Street, AVP for Enrollment Services, approximately 90% of our transfer students come from community colleges, all of which are on semester systems. Transfer of financial aid is complicated for some students if they transfer in the middle of the year because they will have used up one-half of their eligibility in one semester at their community college and be short on funds if they are taking two quarters of work at CPP. Academically, there are two related issues: articulation of classes and transferability of units. The content of courses is difficult to align completely when the terms are of different lengths. A transfer student may have taken a semester class with content that overlaps all of one quarter class and part of another. If they are given credit for the former they may still be required to take all of the later, wasting credits and covering material they have already studied. Transferability of units is inefficient where a semester class worth three units satisfies the CPP requirement for a four-unit quarter class but the semester class is worth 4.5 quarter units, resulting in 0.5 units that may not count towards any specific requirement.
Nevertheless, several kinds of rules and practices are “calendar neutral” (http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/aa/semester/docs/tfcal9-10-01.pdf on July 4, 2010 ). For example:
In most situations, transferring from CPP will become easier on a semester calendar, as most other colleges and universities follow a semester calendar. No conversion of units from quarter units to semester units will be necessary and the loss of units from transferring will be reduced from the current situation.
System-wide Fee Rates (State University Fee) are set by the Board of Trustees and are charged at the same rate per academic year on all CSU campuses. [source: http://calstate.edu/budget/student-fees/fee-rates/]. However, on a semester campus, the students pay only twice a year as opposed to three times a year on a quarter system so the fees to be paid at the start of a semester will be higher than those paid at the start of a quarter (assuming the student takes a full course load). Students also have a longer period of time to save for this expense so they would need to be prepared for this increase. Students who are unable to pay the fee upfront can sign a contract to make a maximum of two installment payments at CPP. On most CSU semester campuses there are three or four installment payments for the semester for California residents and four installments for students paying non-resident fees.
Each CSU campus is able to set its own timelines for tuition fee calculation and payment deadlines. Cal Poly Pomona sets its timeline according to the initial registration period of each term. Any change in the timeline for fee payment resulting from converting to a semester calendar will be aligned with changes made in registration periods. CPP has traditionally set the fee payment deadline at two weeks prior to the start of the next term.
SOURCE: CPP Director of Accounting and Student Cashiering Services.
HOUSING: Housing fees vary from campus to campus and depend on the type of housing. CSU campuses report similar housing costs for an academic year. Since the school year would be approximately the same length on the semester system it is unlikely housing fees would be greatly impacted by a conversion.
PARKING FEES: Currently the student parking fee at CPP is $30/month or $90/quarter. There is no reason for calendar conversion to change the monthly rate.
Source for campus housing fee estimates: http://calstate.edu/budget/student-fees/campus-contacts.shtml
[See question 35 in the CONVERSION section.]
[See question 54 in FACULTY section.]
[See question 43 in the CURRICULUM section.]
[See question 30 in the CONVERSION section.]
