A Small Step Forward

The recent adoption of new examination policies comes as welcome news in the midst of this academic year’s own finals period. The proposal, put forth by the Committee on Undergraduate Education and recently approved by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, represents a meaningful effort on the part of administration to alleviate the sometimes overwhelming pileup of assignments that can occur at the end of semester. This attention to student experience is commendable. However, there is no clear indication that the changes by themselves will significantly improve the workload problems that can accompany reading and finals period.

Certainly, some of the reforms are quite refreshing. We are glad to see that regular classes are no longer allowed to take place during reading period. This mainly affects language courses, which previously would often continue to meet and cover new material during reading period. This change better reflects the spirit of reading period as a time for study. Under the new policy, it is clear that reading period is a time for review of the past semester’s content in preparation for a culminating assessment, as opposed to simply another week for more content to be squeezed in before finals.

Other issues are left ambiguous. The language of the new finals period, now officially titled “Final Examination and Project Period,” specifies exams “up to three hours in length.” Currently, classes holding exams are required to schedule a three-hour test. This model is unreasonable for all classes, especially those that also include other forms of final assessment like a project. In some circumstances, a one- or two- hour exam could suffice to assess students’ knowledge of relevant material. Briefer and more concise exams would certainly benefit students, freeing up time and reducing the stress of lengthy testing. As such, we hope that the new phrasing in the exam policy translates into increased flexibility for professors in constructing exams.

But the revised plan also leaves untouched several fundamental problems with reading and exams periods. Under the new policy, final assessments such as papers or projects must be due “no earlier than the fourth day of Reading Period” but before a class’s assigned examination date. While modifying the formally permissible range in which these assignments could be given, in all likelihood this will not meaningfully change students’ schedules. Papers and projects can still be due during reading period at professors’ discretion, and students can still easily be left facing multiple major assignments with closely coinciding due dates. In addition, by shortening reading period and extending finals period, the new plan simply recategorizes the time in which papers and projects can be due. While under the new plan assignments would be due during “finals” period, it is not clear that this would be substantially different in practice from the status quo.

FAS’s new reading and exam period policy brings much-deserved attention to the stress involved in finals period. Though a small step forward, this change is far from sufficient.