Sacrificing January For A Fad

A new year brings another new reading period (officially underway as of yesterday), and by the end of the week the vast majority of Harvard students will have made the daunting trek back to campus and back to their books—a premature end to an all too short, if lazy, winter vacation. But as Harvard students bask in what may be the last January reading period ever, it is time to consider the proposals on the table to replace it.

This spring the Faculty will debate the merits of a January term (J-Term) and the Governing Board will be the final arbiter of its fate. Due to a strong desire to align the University’s multiple calendars, the end of January finals seems all but inevitable. Still, for the past year, the question of whether to institute a J-Term has been handled separately from the larger calendar changes. There is much wisdom in this approach because, although students may never agree on whether January finals are preferable, students can unite in their opposition to the misguided movement afoot to bring a J-Term to Harvard. Although sometimes attractive on paper, a J-Term is no solution for Harvard’s woes; on the contrary, Harvard’s culture condemns such a term to a destiny of failure.

Experience at other colleges has shown that a J-Term is only successful where there is strong interest and desire among the faculty teaching the seminars, and we are by no means convinced that the so-far lukewarm response from members of the Harvard Faculty can be surmounted. To be fair, there are members of the Faculty who are thrilled with the prospect of new opportunities for developing small, dynamic and engaging courses—the kinds of pedagogical endeavors which are sometimes precluded by the traditional semester format. But a handful of professors will not fill a catalogue of mandatory J-Term offerings for the entire student body—especially not if the College is committed to keeping J-Term class sizes small. And the proposals on the table for incentivizing teaching have significant drawbacks of their own. Before Harvard is ready for a J-Term, the University’s fundamental emphasis on teaching must change.

To make up for the Faculty’s reluctance to take on increased teaching duties, some have proposed allowing professors to teach fewer fall and spring courses in exchange for a predetermined number of January sessions. While such a solution may succeed in filling up the J-Term course catalogue, it does so at a cost—by depleting the catalogue elsewhere. Students already frustrated by the instability of course offerings which fluctuate with which professors go on leave will be further disheartened to learn that their favorite members of the Faculty will be teaching term-time courses even less. Sure, students will have the opportunity to apply for a seat in J-Term seminars four times more selective than the most popular of freshman seminars, but this is a dubious fair trade for the student body. Before Harvard loosens up term-time teaching requirements for the sake of making J-Term viable, we vehemently urge adequate consideration of its negative impact on the majority of undergraduates.

In addition to Harvard-specific Faculty reluctance, J-Terms everywhere have been under fire recently because many of them simply fail to strike the right balance. At issue is the level of academic rigor. If it is too high, the goal of reducing student stress—presumably part of the rationale for moving exams before break—will inevitably be undermined. With required J-Term courses, January risks becoming a time when a school full of overachievers feels compelled to rush through remaining requirements. More likely, however, if standards are too low and courses are offered only on a pass/fail basis for instance, J-term risks becoming, in the words of Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield ’53, “Mickey Mouse.”

Mansfield’s comments echo faculties at many other schools with J-Terms of their own. Williams College, for example, has decided to change to a graded J-term because their faculty feared students were not taking the pass/fail J-term seriously. And although some of the opportunities being discussed do sound appealing, we must admit that with term-time requirements what they are, students will likely view J-Term as an extension of winter break—rather than an addition to the academic year—and treat it accordingly.

The only way an additional term will succeed in January is if the courses and opportunities are so inspiring that both Faculty and students are actually excited about forgoing additional vacation to take a month-long course. It does not matter how interdisciplinary or unusual a seminar is, if everybody’s time is better spent taking the month of January off for rest and recovery, instituting a J-Term for the benefit of a few—and to the chagrin of many—is simply foolish.

But a longer winter break could also incorporate many of the most exciting opportunities on an optional basis such that students would have full discretion about how and where to spend their January. We are firmly resolved that if the calendar must be altered and January exams must be eliminated, students would overwhelmingly benefit from an extended break—a combination of winter break, intersession and more. Even the busiest of Harvard students could use a forced time out. Meanwhile, this time would also allow for the College to offer optional, non-credit travel and research opportunities to students who so choose. Given the dearth of existing Harvard-sponsored international options, this ad hoc plan makes the most practical sense by far. Cost would be less of an issue right away, professors would have their vacations and students would have their term-time classes. In addition, on the administrative side, the focus can be on steadily increasing the number of unique opportunities, rather than attempting to ensure an adequate amount for the whole student body.

While a J-term might be a nice idea for some schools, not all nice ideas match all institutions. Forcing a pedagogical innovation on reluctant students and professors can certainly be warranted, but not in this case. More often than not, J-Terms offer little more than marketing material to admissions offices. Where J-Terms have been successful, it is generally at small colleges where students and faculty are already close. Trying to use the J-Term fad to create the illusion of that culture where it does not already exist may be a disastrous waste of everyone’s time.