It’s doable, but not for the faint of heart. The University of California offers plenty of full courses during the summer, 8 weeks a term, 2 terms over the summer. Full year of Organic Chem over summer, Yikes! U-Santa Clara offers a full year of Physics over the summer term, which many Stanford premeds take so they can participate in study abroad.
@homerdog Also, I think the fact that Mount Holyoke is adopting it makes Amherst significantly more likely to do it, because the Five Colleges (with the exception of maybe Hampshire) tend to stick together on these types of decisions.
Those terms are basically like 7/8-week summer sessions at a college where the normal semesters are 14/15 weeks. A full course load would be 7/8 credits or 2 courses instead of a normal semester load of 15 credits or 4 courses. So the student would be taking half of the courses at double the speed for (theoretically) the same amount of work per week.
Some colleges have shorter terms with fewer courses per term as the normal schedule. Colorado College is one such college.
How many schools have announced their tuition for 2020/21 so far?
That could be an interesting shoe to drop based on he various models institutions are suggesting, and the potential cost to implement them.
When I was at Cal, faculty really liked those intense classes. That kind of intensity produced focused, disciplined students who then excelled in “regular” courses. In my department some of the top students took the summer route.
Anyone have suggestions on what types of classes to take for a smooshed up 7-week semester? That might be a good thing for some students to know.
Also the Mt Holyoke option doesn’t help with housing. They still have everyone on campus for the whole year…just taking two classes instead of four.
I think the 3 semester de-densifying plans make more sense for universities in urban environments than lacs. Take Columbia for example - they have 6200 undergrads and 32 acres. So with the 3 semester idea they would reduce density to 4000 per trimester. That could make a difference. Amherst has about 1850 students and 1,000 acres. A 3 semester plan would have 1220 on campus vs 1850. Not as significant especially because they have space.
@homerdog Yeah… honestly I think they’re just going to have to deal with that. They are going to stagger course times so there is less movement; I think it would be too much of a logistical nightmare for them to switch to a system that allows only some students on campus at a time… the model Amherst asked us for feedback on had students on campus for a different two semesters out of three so that would be a logistical nightmare. On the other hand, what Columbia is doing has them taking classes over all three trimesters, so they really don’t have to modify course offerings there. Also, Stanford is already adjusted for a quarter system, so they won’t have to modify any of theirs either.
I think the three-semester option Amherst asked students about in their survey falls under the category of “solution worse than the problem”.
If the student has a sequence of prerequisites to complete in the next two terms, and they are offered in the half terms for the fall, then that may be a chance to complete that sequence faster and open up more options of courses in subsequent terms that require those prerequisites.
For example, if the student needs to take A → B → C1, C2, C3 for his/her major or interests, the normal sequence would be:
F20: A
S20: B
F21: any or all of C1, C2, C3
But with the half terms:
F20-1: A
F20-2: B
S20: any or all of C1, C2, C3
In general, optimizing college schedule (of which courses to take which term) includes prioritizing clearing prerequisites and requirements as quickly as possible, in order to get the most options for the (presumably more interesting) upper level courses later, and avoid being put in a situation where it is difficult to graduate on schedule.
I’m not understanding how taking two classes at a time with a seven week semester helps at all. Is it because, if there’s an outbreak, kids can likely finish two classes before they are shipped home again? Even that does not make sense as it’s really better to have started a class, meet your prof and classmates, get your bearings and then, if something happens, go remote for those classes. Not great to just start two new classes from home.
Maybe some schools will go that route.
But the CDC Covid-19 cleaning guidelines are similar to their flu season cleaning guidelines, so doesn’t seem that schools would have to change their current practices much.
Note I am not comparing Covid-19 to flu in terms of disease severity.
Maybe the thought behind 2 classes at a time vs 4 is meant to limit the number of people you are in contained spaces with? Spread is more likely to occur indoors, so if you have 2 classes vs 4, you are in contained spaces with half the number of people?
@wisteria100 I thought the three semester thing made more sense for a small school where 100 percent of kids live on campus. Trying to get everyone singles would be hard but, if 500 kids were “off” each semester, that would make spreading out in the dorms easier.
@homerdog That’s true too.
Lots of pros and cons for all scenarios.
East Carolina University has switched to the 7 & 1/2 weeks classes.
My daughter is not thrilled with it but is committed due to scholarship. I do not understand the benefit with Covid at all and can see how it offers many drawbacks to students to condense down a course. Also, some students had already registered before the announcement was made so awaiting to hear how they adjust schedules for those students.
I think the Beloit model is great for colleges this year because there is a high likelihood that even if colleges can open up physically in the fall, there will be another wave of infection and they may have to close again. A shorter term will allow institutions and faculty to be more responsive in the way they deliver course material depending on public health realities. Also, I found it very hard this spring to interact with 70 students online (I had 3 sections) at the same time, and many students complained that taking 4-5 courses online simultaneously was very overwhelming. Shorter, more concentrated online instruction in 2 classes at a time for a 7-week term is the way to go. I can pay better attention to 35 students online, than to 70, especially if I have no prior knowledge based on half a semester of in-person interaction.
I don’t think adjuncts will be fired first, because they are cheap and the university doesn’t pay them benefits. Non-tenured full-time faculty will be let go first. It’s already happening where I work. Also, union contracts about teaching loads for tenured faculty can be overriden in the event of “financial exigency.” Sabbaticals and course releases for scholarly activity may be cancelled, and tenured faculty may be required to teach more sections than they are accustomed to.
As far as adjuncts: I teach in a very large program (freshman writing) of which the vast majority of the classes are taught by NTT folks like me teaching 4/4, or adjuncts teaching 1 or 2 classes a semester. For next year, so far they are offering no contracts to the significant number of adjuncts we usually have, and to make up for that, they’ve increased class sizes for the lecturers like me by a third.
I think that’s a mistake, because the savings are really not much, but no one asked me. And yes, we had an outstanding cadre of adjuncts.
@NJSue but wouldn’t you rather move a course online and continue it after you know the students and the students know each other? I do not want S19 starting a remote class with a prof he doesn’t already know and a brand new class. That makes no sense to me. I don’t see the upside at all if these seven week classes.
@homerdog I understand you are worried about your student’s experience and I am sorry. I am very glad I do not have a kid in college now. But it’s not good pedagogy to plan an “in-person” class and then have to move it online. Effective online instruction has to be planned quite differently than f2f: different assignments, different expectations. I am planning all of my fall classes with the assumption that we will be moving online at some point, so I’m going to be teaching them as “online” courses even if I might be able to deliver in-person lectures for a few weeks in early fall. I really have no choice but to plan it this way.
Also, your student may only have 4 professors, but I have, as I said, 70 students. It takes me half a semester to learn their names seeing them 2x a week. I’d rather start with half that number. I don’t teach at an elite LAC with 15-person classes and a 2/2 faculty teaching load. Most students and faculty aren’t in those environments.
It’s better for my students if I have fewer of them at a time, for a shorter term, if online instruction becomes necessary (and I think it will).