^ The “revenue opportunity” comment in #12 seems like a legitimate issue, since we have no idea how they are going to charge tuition now. If overall instructional hours are about the same over the course of the year (including the S-Term) and you still need 4200 credits to graduate (3800 of which are done on campus or study abroad) then why should there be a tuition premium for the S-Term? But if you are opting not to do the S-Term, should you get a bit of a shave off your tuition bill? Currently, a full load is considered to be anywhere from 3-5 courses per quarter, and you pay the same regardless of how many you take within that range. So will the new calendar still allow you the same course flexibility w/o charging more? Also, it would be a shame if those who want to spread out their coursework into the S-Term have to pay a “dummy premium” in the form of higher tuition (especially as the more compressed quarters in Winter and Spring might compel one to enroll for September).
The report says that S-Term financial aid will be part of the academic year. That’s distinct from Summer Term which really is a separate “revenue option.” So let’s hope that the S-Term allows for more flexibility in choosing your courses w/o adding to the budget.
I don’t see the same problem with Room and Board, since that should be calculated based on weeks spent on campus. Based on what the report is saying, first years don’t seem to have the ability to enroll in S-Term. So they will spend, on net, about two fewer weeks on campus over the course of the year than they do currently (assuming that the dorms and food don’t shut down during T-Giving Break). Second years opting for S-Term will spend about a week more, on net. So over the two-year required residency, it looks like one will be on campus one fewer week. Should the housing cost be shaved a bit to reflect that fact? Or will the normal cost increase more than offset? At any rate, it’s not a huge differential.