In 1982, Jim Simmons, Chair of the Academic Senate, asked the members of the Senate's Long Range Planning Committee to investigate academic calendars. The committee's efforts resulted in the presentation of a resolution to the Academic Senate requesting a change from the quarter system to the semester system. The first reading of the resolution in the Academic Senate led to a spirited discussion which suggested the need for more study. However, the proposal was withdrawn prior to the second reading. The possibility of the reorganization of departments and schools, and GE&B considerations during the subsequent two years may have resulted in the Long Range Planning Committee's decision to not reconsider a calendar change.
    Vice President Robert Koob, based on recommendations from the Academic Senate and various campus constituencies, issued a memorandum on October 27, 1992 that instructed the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the calendar system and examine alternative calendar formats. The memorandum directed that the committee's recommendation(s) are to be reviewed by the Academic Senate, the Academic Deans' Council and Staff Council prior to the end of the current school year. The recommendations of these bodies, as well as the Committee's original recommendation(s), are to then be forwarded to President Baker for his consideration.
    The committee was charged with identifying issues related to a possible calendar change and making a recommendation in late March, 1993, from the following options:

    An annual publication of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), the Academic Calendar Study, by Orville Walz, President of Concordia College, provided the data for Table 1.

The data reflects academic calendars in effect in United States institutions during the year 1992-1993.
 
 

Calendar System	United States		California		California/
					United States
	Number	% of Total	Number	% of Total	Ratio as a Percent
Traditional Semester	58	2	21	6	36
Early Semester	2252	61	163	46	7
Quarter	848	23	93	26	11
Trimester	94	2	18	5	19
4-1-4	268	7	34	10	13
None of the Above	177	5	26	7	15
Totals	3699		355		355/3699=10%

    During the four year period 1970-1973, there was a 50% turnover in calendar systems in American colleges and universities. Typically, during the past 15 years, an annual turnover rate of about 3% has been the norm. The chart above indicates that 61 % of the nearly 3700 institutions prefer the early semester calendar (the 23rd consecutive year that the early semester calendar system registered net gains). The traditional semester calendar, which was in use in 36% of universities and colleges in 1970-71, "seems headed for extinction" with a current usage at only 2% of the institutions. In 1992-1993, the early semester calendar continued to experience significant gains with a net increase of 66 institutions, while the quarter calendar experienced a net loss of 36. For the past twenty years, the quarter calendar has stayed in the 22% to 26% range with a slight gradual decline since the mid 1980s. The trimester calendar was in use at 4% of the colleges and universities in 1975, but has gradually dropped to its current level of 2 percent.
    For reasons that are not apparent, California has 36% of all the traditional semester calendars, 19% of the trimester calendars and 15% (26 of 177) of the "other" calendar systems. These are, respectively, 300%, 250% and 150% greater than the national averages for these calendar systems. Those higher numbers came at the expense of the lower than expected numbers of California institutions on the early semester system calendar, since nationwide, 61% of colleges and universities are on early semesters, but California has only 46% on early semesters.
 
 

    It is apparent that calendar changes are a frequent occurrence at American colleges and universities. In the two decades since 1970, 3236 calendar changes were made among an average of 3093 institutions. However, there are very few publications addressing instructional or financial aspects of such conversions. A major component of the committee's charge was to gain as much insight as possible into the opinions of the campus community regarding the calendar system and determine the support for either retaining the current system or changing to an alternative system. In its consideration of various calendar models, the committee agreed that each model would have to meet the following criteria:

• use standardized quarter or semester units (500 minutes of instruction for each quarter unit and 750 minutes of instruction for each semester unit);
• permit year-round operation (current state funding is for a calendar year, and assumes there will be a summer term);
• be sufficiently flexible with regard to starting times so that a synchronization occurs with high school and community college calendars;
• the entire campus would be on the same calendar (with the possible exception of "non-state supported sessions); and
• the regular terms (as opposed to sessions or summer terms) would be balanced and designed to minimize the disruption of interterm breaks.

	Standard	Length of	Vacation
Calendar System	Lecture Unit	Term	Days
Current four quarters (4Q)	50 minutes	10 weeks	26 days
Three semesters or trimester QS)	60 minutes	12.5 weeks	39 days
Two semesters plus sessions (2SPS)	50 minutes	15 weeks	37 days

    Each system has 12 holidays overall and five final exam days per term.

    In theory, the 4Q and 3S calendars are similar and could permit a balanced year-round use of facilities. The main differences are the number of terms, the 60-minute vs. 50-minute lecture unit, and the additional 2.5 weeks necessary to fit the 3S into a time frame which still permits a break period of reasonable duration. The most widely used calendar system is the 2SPS where the fall semester ends just before Christmas. A variety of summer sessions could be coupled with the semester system.
    The committee developed the templates in Figure 1 for each calendar option to aid in visualization. Trial calendars for each option were developed and are listed in the Appendix.
 
 

In addition to its' communications with the Academic Senate's Curriculum Committee, the Calendar Committee formed three subcommittees to address specific concerns. The final report of each of these subcommittees are located in the Appendix:

• Subcommittee on Processing
• Subcommittee on Scheduling
• Subcommittee on Facilities and Energy

Conversion Stage

        Preparation for a change of the calendar system would begin with the development of documentation materials for the electronic conversion of the various academic data collected and utilized by the offices of Enrollment Support Services. However, much of the work by Evaluations to prepare for student advisement for graduation requirements cannot be accomplished until after the academic units have completed their curriculum conversion activities. After the new curriculums have been approved, a minimum interval of one year should be available to students and staff prior to implementation of a new system. All informational materials have to be prepared and the information publicized to students. Other universities have reported that in the year prior to implementation, there is a "rush" of students seeking to complete their requirements before the new system begins. This would result in an increased demand upon staff at the same time that they are devoting their attention to the preparations for the change.

        The amounts of financial aid and awards would have to be reconfigured to a new calendar system.

        There will be a considerable increase in the demands upon clerical support staff to assist in the preparation of required materials during the rewriting of new courses and curriculums.

        Fiscal Services anticipates that there might be a reduction in revenue to the campus.

        Information Systems expects that the costs involved in rewriting support programs to accommodate a change in systems would be minimal and would probably be offset by a new calendar system that involved fewer cycles.

Implementation Stage

        It is anticipated that there would initially be an increase in contact between students and academic staff once implementation of a new calendar began.

        There will be a savings in the operational costs associated with processing tasks related to the reduction of the number of cycles from four to either three to two. Not only will there be fewer requests for transcripts, forms and reports, there will be more time to accomplish tasks before the next cycle occurs.

        The Foundation anticipates that income from the El Corral bookstore would be significantly affected because students would be buying fewer books and making fewer trips to the bookstore. Increased "down time" for the university would not only be disruptive, but would exacerbate the fiscal effects of the bookstore and might require the reduction or modification of Foundation services.

Transition Stage

        Campus policy allows undergraduate students to use course work up to ten years old to complete their degree requirements, although Title V provides a minimum of seven years. Conversion of course work from the quarter system to a semester system cannot be accomplished through automation because of the complexity of equating the thousands of courses that would exist in the previous five catalogs with the new semester courses. Given the continuing changes to the new curriculum that would naturally occur over a seven to nine year period, and considering that from 20,000 to 40,000 student evaluations might have to be prepared during that period, there is undoubtedly a high cost in training and maintaining staff to evaluate against old and new curriculum.

        Abbreviated Report of the Subcommittee on Scheduling

        The use of lecture room facilities for year-long course sequences should not be seriously affected by a change of calendar to 2SPS or 3S. However, demands for laboratory space could increase by as much as 50% in some areas. This would also have a significant impact on the workload of the technical staff in terms of laboratory preparation and instrument maintenance.

        A 3S calendar, which assumes full-year operation, would have to ensure that required major courses be offered in the summer as well as other terms. Historical allocations for room assignments would have to be discarded and a new plan for room allocation devised as soon as the curriculum became settled. Current 1 - 3 unit courses could not be easily transferred to a 2SPS system. Coalescence of courses and topics would be a necessity.

        Extended Education and Conferences could have serious problems with a 3S calendar in terms of arranging facilities in non-synchronous time periods. For a 2SPS system, student fees would rise proportionately, resulting in new arrangements for payment plans.

        Abbreviated Report of the Subcommittee on Facilities and Energy

        The Facilities and Energy Task Force considered issues impacted by an academic calendar change. Overall, the negative and positive impacts evened out for any one calendar model. Any calendar model that involves windows of downtime for all facilities creates savings for energy and other necessary costs.

        On the other hand, large windows of time when students would be absent from campus negatively affects revenue generating opportunities for the Associated Students and Foundation. There was general agreement that maintenance and repair schedules, student assistant work force availability, and work patterns would be altered with different calendars but with no measurable overall impact that was positive or negative. The different system would require adjustment.
 
 

Background

        A primary component of the charge to the Committee was to create and distribute surveys on calendar issues to both the faculty and staff and to collect and analyze the survey results. Initially, the surveys were designed to focus on calendar issues, but consultation with the Curriculum Committee of the Academic Senate resulted in surveys which gathered information for both committees.

Survey Objectives

The surveys were designed with multiple objectives:

        In order to encourage participation, two mailings for each survey were conducted during March, 1993. A total of 877 faculty and 962 staff received the surveys, with 481 (55%) faculty and 334 (35%) staff responding to the survey by the stated deadlines. The following table provides information tabulated from the college/unit or origin of the returned surveys.

        The average number of years employed at Cal Poly was fourteen for the faculty responding to the survey and eleven for staff. In retrospect, the survey would have been improved had question 17 on the faculty survey been deleted (ambiguous), and question 29 altered to enable faculty to provide an overall DIRECT evaluation of the quarter system (in addition to the 3S and 2SPS calendar systems). As the survey was structured, faculty who favor the quarter system over the alternatives identified could, in addition to responding appropriately in Part II of the survey, check the very negative or negative options for BOTH questions 29.A. (3S) and 29.B. (2SPS), as well as provide extensive written comments. Consequently, the committee felt that sufficient options existed for all opinions to be expressed.

Analysis of Survey Results

        The large number of written comments, 71% on the faculty surveys and 59% on the staff, resulted in the bifurcation of the study of the results into an analysis of the circled responses and a summary of the written comments. George Stanton of the Test Office prepared a report based strictly on circled responses at the request of the committee. His report, Results of the Faculty and Staff Surveys Regarding the Calendar System, April, 1993, is in the Appendix. In addition, a comprehensive printout of the results of the statistical package used in that analysis was also made available to the committee. The Figures provided in the following are based on data from these two information sources.

Discussion of Written Comments

        The summary of written comments was carried out independently and parallel to the analysis of the circled responses. Both faculty and staff surveys were sorted into the following five categories based on responses to question 29:

• Pro Quarter: This group (faculty and staff) responded that they would "hate" (response 1) or "not like very much" (response 2) a change to either 3S or 2SPS.

• Pro Semester (2SPS): This group responded that they would "like" (response 4) or "welcome" (response 5) a change to 2SPS, but would "hate" or "not like very much" a change to 3S.

• Pro Trimester (3S): This group responded that they would "like" or "welcome" a change to 3S, but would "hate" or "not like very much" a change to 2SPS.

• Pro Both (2SPS or 3S): This group responded that they would "like" or "welcome" a change to 3S or 2SPS.

• Indifferent: This group either used "indifferent" (response 3), or left one or both of the responses to parts 29.A. and 29.B. unmarked.

        Written faculty comments are provided in the Appendix. In attempting to identify and categorize specific themes, the overall logic of a particular point of view may have been weakened. This was not intentional, but was a by-product of attempting to develop common themes. These common themes were the basis for the material developed in the section titled "Calendar System Issues." The following paragraphs provide a sample of reoccurring themes which were observed in more than 20% of the written comments.

Pro Quarter Written Comments

• The benefits do not outweigh the massive effort required for the change.
• Semester system is good for instructors and administration, but not the students.
• Total costs are too great to be undertaken in the current budget situation.
• The campus will be totally consumed by curriculum revision and one year of professional life down the drain.
• The quarter system allows greater flexibility in the curriculum by permitting a greater variety of course offerings and exposure of students to a greater number of faculty.
• From the perspective of a academic service department, the quarter system is clearly superior, both in flexibility and ability to combine courses for various departments.
• For master's students it allows for making up prerequisites.
• The semester system is wasteful (e.g., slow moving classes, extra exam period is wasted, too much additional vacation time).
• Quarter system better for Professional Colleges, perhaps semester system better for other colleges.
• Quarter system is more intense, more totally immersed experience (a la Berlitz).
• Instructors attempt to condense a semester into a quarter (which is a plus).
• The intensity of the quarter system enables students to better handle stresses and workloads of industry.
• In semester system, student has only 2 opportunities per academic year for getting courses, and dropping or failing a course means losing 1/2 a year.
• If inadequate numbers of courses continue to be offered, students will take a longer time to graduate, not shorter.
• Several noted that there are just too many units (GE&B, major and support courses) required for graduation; excessive GE&B (compare to UC and other leading schools) and excessive major requirements.
• Excess units (all categories) have been caused by CSU's system of funding allocations. Thus, curriculum formula discussions are really position and funding arguments.
• A change guarantees further erosion of our technical nature.
• GE&B will gain a lot in any change at the expense of former polytechnic nature of the institution.
• GE&B needs a major overhaul (too many units, too little unity or coherence).

• The quarter system has a high "fixed overhead" with regard to faculty administrative processes associated with courses.
• Courses begin and end too frequently, which results in wasted time on preliminary set-up and causes undue stress with too frequent exams and grading.
• The 4Q system detracts from preparation of material for instruction, which robs students and instructors of meaningful instruction time.
• Too much "red tape" associated with each course (registration, number of course preps and grading), draconian and senseless add/drop policies, withdrawals, major declarations, etc.
• Every academic unit will have to seriously assess and re-evaluate curriculum and course offerings for effectiveness which need not be bad, if we can avoid "turf battles". It would be a "pain in the neck" to make the transition, but the rewards would be worth it.
• The quarter system fosters a narrow focus, which artificially segments learning. The quarter system is like a conveyor-belt operation, not the thoughtful, deep-learning experience that a university should be.
• Course work is presented better when there is sufficient time to go into greater depth.
• Students need longer gestation time. Not enough time in quarter system for analysis, synthesis, and applications performance. Design courses need "ideas" time.
• More effective teaching strategy possible with longer time. Semester system allows for better student/ instructor relationships.
• Benefits of 2 semester teaching outweigh any additional preparation. Let's go for it! 2SPS is the only decent system, why wait until 1996?
• The semester system, with its 15 weeks of classes, allows more flexible scheduling for faculty, research and professional development.
• Professional meetings are designed around those faculty at 63% of the universities using the early semester system.
• Quarter environment is too intense and people are attempting to accommodate all kinds of expectations with little consideration for stress factors which this may place on them.
• Stress due to quarter system is barbaric.
• Graduation requirements are excessive and should be reduced.
• Excessive degree requirements, total units in major, fragmented GE&B and failure of GE&B courses to add up correctly.
• Majors have too many required courses and not enough electives, which robs students of appropriate flexibility in choosing courses.
• Large and rigid number of GE&B requirements, regardless of need, quality or efficiency.

Pro Quarter Written Comments

• Perception that students favor quarter.
• Quarters provide easier recovery from 'bad" term, less absenteeism.
• Quarter forces student to tend to business and prepares for nonacademic environment.

• Compatibility with other institutions - for articulation, graduate school, summer work, cooperative ventures
• Fewer processing cycles, maximizes efficient and workload distribution.
• Longer academic term facilitates: learn by doing, research, in-depth knowledge and critical thinking, more student-faculty interaction, less class time consumed with add/drop, "dead week", finals
• Semester would allow more time for faculty preparation during term. Transition from high school to University would be easier for students. Longer term less difficult for disabled students.
• Circulation for books longer, more library access during term.
• Longer breaks enable students to earn money to finance increasing cost of education.
• Student assistant training and scheduling more efficient on semester system.

• Availability of classes and schedule of sequenced classes
• Too many small unit classes,

Faculty Survey

        A total of 481 surveys provided the following data. However, for each individual question, it is not necessarily true that all 481 surveys provided a response.

        Questions 10 through23 identified various instructional issues and asked the faculty to indicate the system which they believed dealt best with the issues. Issue classifications are based on which calendar choice received the maximum percent.
 
 

Percent of Support Issues

*Question 17 was ambiguous as noted by a number of faculty.

In regard to the student-instructor interaction (office hours, informal meetings, etc.), 43% felt it was independent of the calendar and 38% favored 2SPS.

        Question 26. asked faculty to indicate the amount of work that would be required of them personally in a curricular revision based on a calendar change. Since the maximum deviation from the mean of 3S and 2SPS was 2%, only the mean is reported. The response means were: Very High (38%); High (28.5%); Moderate (21.5%); Low (8.5%); Very Low (3.5%).

        Question 27, requested information regarding their departments' anticipated willingness to make changes in course offerings, scheduling, etc. to attempt to equalize the number of students enrolling for each term (year-round operation): Yes (41%); No (6%); Don't Know (53%).

        Question 28, asked if faculty would be willing, in general, to accept assignment to any term in a year-round question: Yes (41%); No (34%); Can't Say (24%).

        Question 29, enabled faculty (Question 20. on the Staff Survey) to express their reactions to the early semester (2SPS) and trimester (3S) calendars. The response range was from, I would welcome it (very positive), I would like it (positive), indifferent, I would not like it very much (negative), to I would hate it (very negative). Figure 3, presents the choices, in percents, as selected by the approximately 460 faculty who responded to 'question 29.A. (the Trimester Preference). The very positive and positive selections correspond to faculty in the Pro Both (2SPS, 3S) or Pro Trimester classifications of Table 5. It should be noted that 54% were negative or very negative, with 14% indifferent regarding a trimester calendar. Figure 4, illustrates Question 29.B. and provides similar information for the Early Semester Preference (2SPS). In this case 55% were very positive or positive, with 8% indifferent.

        In view of the positive response to Question 29.B., the next level of detail was investigated. In Figure 5, the bar chart gives the response range for each college for the Early Semester. Figure 6, provides the numbers of responses, the percentages and a pie chart within each college for the Early Semester. Please observe that the pie charts present the data starting with the very negative (white), and go around clock-wise, concluding with very positive (gray). Figure 7, takes each response in the range (e.g., Positive), and shows the percent of faculty from each college which contributed to the positive responses. Thus, Agriculture had 15% of the positive responses to 29.B., Architecture and Environmental Design had 10%, Business had 12%, etc.

        An alternative view of the above data resulted in Figure 8. The ratios of (very positive + positive) to (very negative + negative) for those colleges with ratios greater than 1 are plotted above the main axis in Figure 8. The height of the bar graph represents the number of total responses from that college. The ratios of (very negative + negative) to (very positive + positive) for those colleges with ratios greater than 1 are plotted below the main axis in Figure 8. It is important to realize that since the indifference responses were quite small in number, ratios near 1 reflect a somewhat bi-modal distribution, thus, in CENG, there were 42 (very negative + negative) responses to 38 (very positive + positive) with 8 indifferent responses.
 
 

        A total of 334 surveys provided the following data, but for each individual question, not all 334 surveys necessarily provided a response. Figure 9 and Figure 10, represent data selected from the results of the staff survey.

        Question 10 through 16 identified various issues and asked the staff to indicate the system which they believed dealt best with the issues.
 
 

Percent of Support Issues

2SPS (33%),3S (26%)                 Flexibility in scheduling of facilities.

2SPS (35%), No diff. (34%)         Opportunity for staff to effectively interact with faculty.

        Question 18. Asked staff to indicate the amount of work that would be required of them personally based on a calendar change. Since the maximum deviation from the mean of 3S and 2SPS was 1%, only the mean is reported: Very High (16%); High (18%); Moderate (31.5%); Low (21%); Very Low (13.5%)

        There are several issues which the committee felt tended to confuse discussions, perhaps even the survey results, concerning a calendar change. The newly introduced concept of Cal Poly becoming a "charter" campus affects opinion and procedure in terms of being free of CSU system constraints in operation and curriculum design. Effective year-round operation or elimination of a summer term affects viewpoints on student throughput and efficiency of operation. Whether the calendar should be adjusted solely for the purpose of curriculum reconstruction is debatable. The frequent comments regarding curriculum issues indicates a need for the campus to address curriculum reform, even if it is independent of a calendar change.
 
 

        There seems to be consensus that the General Education and Breadth requirements merit revision and that high unit programs should be scrutinized in order to lower units, increase the flexibility for both students and faculty, as well as improve the graduation rates.

        These issues will eventually have to be addressed satisfactorily in whatever calendar system we choose or retain.

Issues Independent of a Specific Calendar System Conversion

        The following issues were considered independent of the specific calendar systems involved, for example, excessive unit requirements could have occurred regardless of the calendar system in use. Issues which seemed speculative by a majority of the members of the committee were labeled as conjectures.

        A complete calendar system conversion will be labor intensive, have protracted campus-wide implications, and have high costs (direct and indirect).

• Excessive units (GE&B, core and support) were frequently the result of mode and level staffing formulas which in many instances turned curriculum discussions into position and funding issues.

• A calendar system conversion should be accompanied by a major restructuring of the curricula.

• Peak levels of conversion related activity as regards curricula and instructional support will occur during the two years prior to the conversion. Instructional support units will continue to have high levels of conversion activity several years after the change.

• Student concerns regarding the impact of the conversion on their program requirements will be significant and require extensive publications, involvement, and communications.

Curriculum Related Features

• Quarter system permits two or three unit courses with concentration on a single theme (specialized courses tailored for three units).

• Since courses are only 10 weeks in duration, both faculty and students are on a "tight time frame" to complete the course objectives(testing, projects, etc.). The duration of the term promotes effective time management.

• The three academic year terms of the quarter system does accommodate the lab intensive curricula at Cal Poly.

• Students are typically exposed to a greater number of instructors and variety of courses in the quarter system.

• In the quarter system, the effects of an academic or personal problem may be limited to one quarter as opposed to one semester.

• The quarter calendar permits student summer employment through the traditional end of the summer (Labor Day weekend), and winter employment during the December holiday season (post Thanksgiving and pre New Year's Day)

• Conjecture: The time frame of the quarter system forces students to develop "time management" skills which not only helps them meet course objectives while attending Cal Poly, but prepares them for their future careers.

• The quarter system can provide an opportunity to consolidate teaching time to allow for professional development activities.

• There is a well defined summer quarter which, in theory, is exactly like each of the three academic year quarters.

Curriculum Related Features

• The early semester system, based on 15 weeks of classes, provides a more flexible learning environment. A longer "gestation time" is available for analysis, synthesis and evaluation of application performance.

• There would be less fragmentation of topics and more continuity in concepts. In this regard the 3S system is barely longer than the 4Q (actually 3Q) and not much better.

• More time would be available for Senior Project for both planning and execution. This is especially important in science and technical experimentation.

• Alteration in curriculum should produce fewer courses to be taken per student. This is beneficial to the learning process.

• The curricular revisions would be close to those associated with the 2SPS revision and could be used to address the problems with the current curricular structure and GE&B.

• Easier articulation for transfers.
• Fewer final exams, registration periods, application forms, etc. Longer period of time for new or transfer student adjustment. Easier coordination with school districts for student teacher assignments.
• Greater chance at regaining status in a course after an illness or personal problem of short duration.
• More continuity in supplementary employment due to only two class schedules per academic year.
• More time to form a teacher-student relationship and student study groups.
• Earlier entrance to summer employment.

• The Semester System has lower "fixed overhead" as regards faculty administrative processes associated with courses. While the SCU generation will need to remain equivalent (to that of the quarter system), the number of courses/faculty member/ academic year will be less with a corresponding decrease in the total number of instructional processes related to enrollment and grading. Michigan State had a 20% reduction in their total number of courses in a quarter to semester conversion. Cal Poly offered 2850 courses in the 1992/93 academic year and 3200 in 1991/92. Total sections in 1991/92 were 11,500.
• Since the early semester system has been adopted at more than 60% of American colleges and universities, conferences, sabbaticals and research opportunities for faculty are more likely to be scheduled to coincide with the early semester calendars.
• Reduction of stress due to intensity and demands of quarter system.
• Better opportunity for coordination with public school system in terms of family vacations, needs of single parent households.

• The Semester System has lower "fixed overhead" as regards campuswide administrative processes such as registration and scheduling, academic records functions, financial aid functions, student accounts and resources which support those processes as a result of the reduction from 3 registration cycles to 2 during the academic year.
• Extended Education could find facilities and times to schedule courses, conference, etc. during SS and long interterm breaks.
• The unit values - would be compatible with other institutions for transfer students since they would be regular semester units. This would ease articulation and could speed throughput of transfers.

Curriculum Related Features

• The 12.5 week term would provide for more class time and longer periods for the development of concepts and themes in class.
• Current laboratory classes which are one quarter in length can be converted to the 12.5 week semester easily; however, the year long lab sequence courses will be problematic.
• The curricular revisions would be close to those associated with the 2SPS revisions and could be used to address problems with the current curricular structure and GE&B.

• The unit values would be compatible with other institutions for transfer students since they would be regular semester units. This would ease articulation and could speed throughput of transfers.
• Longer breaks between terms for students attending two terms will provide for more earning opportunities to help finance the costs of education.

• Teaching in two 12.5 week semesters will provide the faculty with a more flexible schedule for professional development activities during the year.
• The extended term length over quarters will provide the faculty with more preparation time during the terms.
• The availability of regular term teaching assignments other than the normal academic year exists for faculty interested in a varied cycle.
• The trimester calendar for the academic year portion should coordinate well with the public school system calendar.

• The number of administrative cycles would be reduced from the quarter system with two terms during the academic year and three cycles overall as opposed to four cycles.

• The trimester structure provides for a summer term that can look like an academic year term. It can be operated as either an equal term year-round operation or as an optional, reduced enrollment summer term like our current quarter system.

        Based on preliminary discussions with institutions which have recently changed their calendar systems, the committee proposes that if a new calendar system is adopted, the change should be effective no earlier than Fall 1997. The most difficult aspect of a transition from the quarter system to any other academic year configuration will be the conversion of the curriculum. This cannot be accomplished by a mere mathematical conversion of units. Rather, it will involve a complete restructuring of the curriculum, including the attempt to create an appropriate balance among major, support, GE&B and free elective units. Such a change would take several years and considerable faculty effort to complete. The committee believes a minimum of three (3) years and a maximum of four (4) will be required prior to conversion. Thus, the first new term would be either Fall, 1996 or Fall, 1997. A calendar change scenario, based on four years, is as follows.

Year One (1993 - 1994)

        Steering Committee appointed. In order to assemble first hand information, the Steering Committee should visit with one or more institutions similar to Cal Poly and which have recently changed their calendar system. The Steering Committee should establish a structure to oversee and implement the conversion. That structure will need to address the following equally important concerns:

                    1. Insure that academic units have sufficient time for curriculum planning, review and
                        change.
                    2. Insure that administrative units have sufficient time for process, review and
                        change.
                    3. Development of strong, rational university-wide guidelines for the conversion of the
                        curriculum:

• Program construction based on the lowest possible number of units for a degree.
• Reconfiguration of support course areas and GE&B courses in terms of concepts and blocks of units.
• A focus on flexibility, especially in GE&B and major courses and avoiding "bottlenecks".
• Attempt to improve student progress by appropriate course availability, especially in professional programs.
• Consideration of total student load allowable per term and the feasibility of low unit (1 or 2) courses.

        Curriculum is revised throughout the university following guidelines. It is suggested that core courses, that is, those offered as support and GE&B be restructured first with direct consultation with professional colleges and efficient feedback. Revised curriculum could start to arrive at the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee during Spring Quarter 1995.

Year Three (1995-1996)

        Review process continues with the full Academic Senate and Staff Council becoming involved in final recommendations.

Year Four (1996-1997)

        Construction of the Catalog, flyers, and other announcements; reprogramming of SIS; scheduling of facilities; advising; student program deviations and contracts devised; publicity; renovation of articulation agreements.

Year Five (1997-1998)

        IMPLEMENTATION!

Year Six (1998-1999)

        Re-evaluation and adjustment of curriculum. ALL SET FOR THE MILLENNIUM!!

• Pete Goldsmith (Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs) and Tom Berkhardt (Chair of the University Curriculum Committee), Michigan State: Given three years transition, some colleges were unable to complete the task (curricula issues: started out looking at courses, then went back to curriculum structure, then back to courses). Their enrollment dropped, with fewer transfers and more graduates.

• Students perceived they would be disadvantaged by the change and even with massive communication and implementation plans, they were not able to overcome this perception.  The short summer,prior to implementation, was very difficult for staff (a one time problem).

• Bob Hannigan, Dean of Admissions and Records, at Humboldt State: The "Rush to Graduate" far exceeded their projections.

• Coleman, Bolte & Franklin (1984), in "Academic Calendar Change Impact on Enrollment Patterns and Instructional Outcomes", Research in Higher Education, (Vol. 20, No. 2), noted in the Summary and Conclusions section, that the average student credit hour load showed a significant reduction at the upper division undergraduate level of 1.1 hours in a conversion from a quarter system to a semester system. This reduction continued beyond the first transition year and remained approximately the same for the second year. Moreover, the misconception that the full-time course load had been reduced from 15 quarter hours to 12 semester hours was widespread. The perception that a full-time load was based on the number of courses rather than the number of credit hours was common among University of Central Florida students, and points to a special need to emphasize the contrary for any institution undergoing a change to a semester calendar.

        The committee's report attempts to put forth as much information as possible in an objective manner. An abstract of the material gathered from publications, consultation with' other campuses, faculty and staff surveys, subcommittees and the committee's understanding of Cal Poly's characteristics and mission is presented in this report. The committee also gathered several complete packages of conversion materials from other universities that have recently changed their calendar systems. This section will not attempt to recap the various specific concerns of the committee (as they appeared elsewhere) nor to justify the choices expressed by the members.

        In the interest of completeness, it should be noted that student consultation included ASI representation on the committee and an open request for comments from students was published in the Cal Poly Report, Student Edition. Student reaction from other campuses in the midst of an academic change has been collected, with consensus in reporting that there is a period of student apprehension followed by a period of transition.

        Each of the eight-committee members were asked to state their preference based on the findings presented in this report. Committee members did have the option of deciding at some point not to endorse additional calendar choices. Table 6, reflects the committee's opinion

Calendar Option	Quarter,	Modified	Trimester	Early
	4Q	Quarter	3S	Semester
		M4Q		2SPS
First Choice	0	2	0	6
Second Choice	1	4	3	0
Third Choice	2	1	2	0
Fourth Choice	1	0	0	1

        It would appear, based on the committee's preferences, that the collective ranking would have the Early Semester as the most preferred calendar option, followed by a Modified Quarter, the Trimester and finally the status quo.

        The modified quarter (M4Q) refers more to modifications in the curriculum than in the basic quarter structure (timetable). Issues which could be considered in such a recommendation would include, but not be limited to, the following: