Say No to the J-Term

As the chorus in favor of calendar reform grows, there is still one issue up for debate: whether Harvard should have a January term. But while such an inter-semester mini-term might be superficially appealing, we doubt that it could succeed in practice and hope the University does not try to implement a J-Term.

In March 2004, the Committee on Calendar Reform, one of the curricular review committees, proposed a “4-1-4” schedule to align Harvard with most other colleges: The school year would start immediately after Labor Day and final exams would be given prior to winter recess in December. Before the four months of spring semester, the Committee recommended the institution of a three-week January Term (J-Term) in which students could choose to travel, perform community service, conduct research, or even enroll in an intensive academic course.

Abstractly, such an opportunity to focus intensely on one pursuit seems like a rare luxury, especially in comparison to the frenetic pace of the fall and spring semesters. And, to be fair, the concept has proven successful at a number of colleges such as MIT, Williams, and Oberlin—but only by virtue of a strong commitment, in terms of time, money, and effort, by faculty, administration, and students alike. At Harvard, some professional schools have a J-Term, but it is often used for professional practice and internships, which are generally not an option for undergraduates.

Nevertheless, Brown’s recent experiment with an optional not-for-credit J-term is a cautionary tale of the pitfalls of an instituting such a program without sufficient support—only 19 students signed up, less than a fifth of the number that administrators expected. The problem, rather obviously, was that most students would rather take a longer vacation to decompress from the pressures of academic life than squirrel themselves away in a frost-encrusted dorm doing problem sets and essays or—worse yet—nothing worthwhile at all.

The other alternatives for J-term activities—community service, research, or travel—would probably be much more alluring to undergraduates, but would likely require far greater financial support from the College. Indeed the Committee stressed travel abroad as a particularly attractive option in their report. The report is, however, vague on the financial resources available to support students so inclined, and we don’t see the benefits of sending students abroad in January instead of over the summer. Even the research or community service options would require some level of financial support from the College. The alternative, making students pay to stay on campus (as MIT does) and eat at dining halls in January, will raise significant barriers for students already struggling to pay their tuition bills.

Moreover, we worry that most faculty would merely use a J-term as a time to immerse themselves in research unfettered by the demands of teaching. We’re doubtful that there would be sufficient professors enthused enough to create the innovative and time-intensive small seminar courses that a J-Term would demand. And incentives that could be put into place—like exempting faculty from classes during the regular terms if they teach in J-Term—stands the risk of eroding the quality of undergraduate education. There is also the problem of getting the administration on board—we worry that the administration would take to the idea halfheartedly, considering a J-Term little more than a logistical headache.

Overstressed Harvard students are already desperate for more breaks. Most professors take little interest in teaching and developing new courses. And the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is running low on money. All of these things will conspire to make even the most promising proposal for a J-Term into little more than a costly experiment gone awry.