Faculty Split on J-Term Proposal

Professors at yesterday’s Faculty meeting were sharply divided over a recommended change to the academic calendar that would move final exams to before winter break, possibly paving the way for a third academic term in January.

While the decision will not be put to a Faculty-wide vote until the curricular review nears completion at least a year from now, professors expressed spirited arguments for both sides. Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba ’53, also the chair of the University Calendar Committee, reported on his committee’s findings.

The report, released March 22, recommended adopting the so-called 4-1-4 calendar currently in use at five of Harvard’s graduate schools as well as other colleges and universities such as Williams and MIT.

Moving to such a system would mean transplanting fall final exams before the winter break, beginning the school year directly after Labor Day, and leaving January free for the College to offer an extended break or adopt a month-long January term (J-term). This mini-term could be dedicated to classes or other curricular and extracurricular activities.

Verba said his committee had extensively debated its two major options—maintaining the current Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) calendar or moving to one that would better align the calendars of all of Harvard’s schools by moving final exams to before winter break.

“The committee found the latter schedule was the most conducive to all the schools,” Verba said. He later added, “Most of the schools are either there or going there.”

Verba said adopting such a calendar would yield several benefits for students. They would be able to go away on winter break without worrying about coming back to final exams, and they could begin their summers earlier as all academic work and exams would end before Memorial Day.

He also said his committee, which was not vested with the power to make specific policy changes, had considered many possibilities for the J-term in particular.

“It’s not the purpose of our committee to judge these alternatives,” he said.

Professors came down strongly on both sides of whether to reshape the calendar at all.

They argued against it for reasons ranging from personal difficulties with finding child care in the last weeks of August to worries over squeezing in exams before winter break.

Professor of Philosophy Thomas M. Scanlon expressed a concern that there simply would not be enough time before exam period to digest the term’s material.

“I don’t see it, in the terms in which it’s been presented, as a significant pedagogical benefit,” he said. “There does seem to be some educational loss. I think having a time to go back and reflect over [course material] is...valuable.”

He added that reading period is also an important time for student-faculty exchange.

“My sense is the time when the most students come to see me is during reading period,” he said.

Maier Professor of Political Economy Benjamin M. Friedman ’66 also pointed out that moving the start date of the fall semester earlier might deter faculty members from taking on positions as first-year advisers, since it would cramp the ends of their summers.

“It’s hard to believe we’re going to have more Faculty members, rather than fewer of us, signing on to advise freshmen if the time when that has to be done is in the middle of August,” he said.

Although no decisions about the calendar will be made until the Faculty concludes the current review of the undergraduate curriculum, Friedman also worried that the decision was a foregone conclusion.

“I hope that in deferring the [calendar] decision until after the Faculty has its decision, the administration is not simply going to go ahead anyway, regardless of whether we choose to change our curriculum or not” he said. “I am concerned that we are going to sacrifice intellectual aspects of what makes our curriculum better, and could make it better still, in the interest of administrative convenience.”

And Professor of History Ann M. Blair said that beginning the fall semester so soon after Labor Day would force Faculty members with children beginning school or day care to scramble.

“I have always been grateful that the most stressful day of the year for children is not also the most stressful day for professors,” she said. “There is basically no group childhood care to be had in the last week of August.”

Those who agreed with the proposal to change the calendar also cited many reasons for reform.

Wolfson Professor of Jewish Studies Jay M. Harris said the new calendar would push students to be more efficient with their time during the fall semester.

“One of the advantages of the proposed calendar is that it will encourage students to budget their time, to stay much more on top of their reading during the fall than they do now, to take their exams, and have a real winter break,” Harris said. “The way we do things now...leads students to put off much of their work [and] cram before exams, which we know leads to lower retention rates.”

Mather House Master Sandra Naddaff said moving exams before winter break would have only positive ramifications for students and mental health.

“Students get no real break from the moment they come to school in September to the moment they leave,” she said.

“The winter vacation as it currently stands does not function as a real break. Many students start spring semester tired and more vulnerable. I think that offering our students a significant winter break...could go far in improving the mental health of our students.”

In a rare student comment at the Faculty meeting, Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 also supported a calendar change, citing his conversations with students as evidence.

“I can no longer pretend that our current exam schedule does not contribute to students’ stress and mental health problems at the College,” Mahan said. “I realized that most students really want a winter break with neither makeup work to do nor final exams looming over them.”

Also at yesterday’s meeting, the Faculty voted to approve a joint degree program between Harvard College and the New England Conservatory of Music whereby students could in five years receive a Bachelor’s degree from Harvard and a Master’s degree from the conservatory.

“We think there is no harm in there being a small number of excellent musicians at Harvard who would not otherwise be here and, there would be no harm to the music world to have a few more Harvard-educated musicians,” said Chair of the Department of Music Thomas F. Kelly.

The Faculty also voted to approve a proposal introduced by Dean for Research and Information Technology Paul C. Martin to allow research associates, who are more senior than post-doctorate fellows, to be officially known as Co-Principal Investigators in a move to more fully reflect their participation in significant research projects.

—Staff writer Laura L. Krug can be reached at krug@fas.harvard.edu.