The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/10/12/calendar_conversation

October 12, 2007 > Opinion > Calendar conversation

Calendar conversation

By The Rice Thresher Editorial Staff | Thresher Editorial Staff

It may be cliche at this point, but the theme of recent campus development has been conversation. If there are going to be major changes at Rice — whether new buildings, new students or new policy — students, faculty, administrators and everyone affected need to discuss the issues and find a solution agreeable to all parties. Which is why we are very disappointed with the calendar that Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Professor Evan Siemann, who has been spearheading calendar changes, presented to the Student Association last Monday (see story, page 1). His dismissive attitude toward student concerns bordered on insulting and the proposed calendar changes seemed specified to fix a few unimportant issues with no regard for effects potentially detrimental towards students.

The calendar certainly needs a change, and we recognize the current proposal is nowhere near permanent. But considering that students are the group most affected by the academic calendar, we feel that student concerns should be taken very seriously. With that in mind, we would like to comment directly on some of the proposed changes and propose our own calendar.

Concerning seniors

One of the key issues Siemann addressed was the fact that graduating seniors have different exam dates than other students. Siemann stated that this was a problem because it meant seniors in a class could potentially be graded on a different curve than their peers. We do not view this as a problem nor do we see any reason why it should be changed.

We assume that professors can use their own judgment to standardize grades. If seniors receive higher grades because of a scheduling discrepancy, which Siemann said was the usual problem, then so be it. They have worked hard enough and probably deserve some eased treatment in their final semester.

The actual reason behind senior final-date discrepancy, however, seems rather silly. According to the Faculty Senate constitution, students have to be officially approved before graduation. This means that there has to be a significant gap between the end of senior finals and commencement. We find this rule to be an unnecessary relic — the only people who benefit from the cum laude announcement at commencement are overachieving parents. Besides, the growing student body will probably make this rule impossible to follow in a few years, as the senior class will become too large for the registrar’s office to approve in time for commencement.

The required gap is needless regulation that takes up time on the calendar. In fact, the proposed plan to synchronize senior finals by pushing finals back by a week reduces the number of days that could be added to winter break or test days. On the other hand, if the rule were changed, senior finals could be synchronized by moving them later, actually increasing the number of days that could be applied to breaks or finals.

Concerning finals

Ideally, the faculty would show their support for the Honor Code and eliminate all scheduled exams in favor of take-home exams. We have encouraged this plan before, arguing that it would grant students the flexibility to set their own schedule while circumventing any problems concerning room space (“Exam proposal snubs students,” Dec. 3, 2004).

However, if professors do not believe in the Honor Code, then the finals period should still work for students. We recognize that room space gets tight during finals, but eliminating the rule that set a maximum of two finals per two days is unacceptable. Students need time to study and to recover between exams. We feel it is very possible to maintain the number of exam days while keeping the two exam per two days rule, even with the expanding student body — especially given the elimination of the limited seating rule for finals seating.

Concerning faculty

When explaining the reasons behind the calendar changes, Siemann expressed a desire to match Rice’s calendar with that of Houston public schools so that faculty would have the same breaks as their children. While we sympathize with family issues, being a professor is a job. Doctors, lawyers and managers all seem to deal with not having the same vacations as their children — or not having any vacations at all. Faculty should look at the calendar primarily as it affects campus issues. And if starting classes earlier or ending later can fix calendar problems, then the faculty should fully embrace such a plan.

The overall problem with the current proposed calendar stems from the fact that — Registrar David Tenney (Sid ‘87) excluded — the professors drawing up the calendar seem to have very little insight into students’ concerns. In this light, college masters are the faculty best suited to head up calendar changes. Masters are familiar with both worlds and would be able to bridge the gap between the needs of faculty and students. We know that masters are very busy and probably do not have time to attend all Faculty Senate and committee meetings, but we believe that they would be the best professors for the job.

Thresher’s calendar

For our proposed 2008-‘09 calendar, classes would start on Aug. 24, with Dec. 6 through Dec. 8 as study days and exams ending Dec. 15, granting three study days and seven exam days. Finals would remain the same, with the “two finals for every two days” rule enforced.

For the spring calendar, classes would start on Jan. 7. The long spring break would remain the same, with the shorter one moved to after Beer-Bike weekend. Study days would be from April 25 through April 28 and exams would end May 6, with commencement remaining on May 9. This calendar would extend winter break to a proper length while maintaining the current finals arrangement, spring breaks and other holidays. All that professors need to do is eliminate the antiquated rule that seniors must be directly approved by faculty before commencement — a rule that many other universities have already abandoned.

This plan would create more break time for students and professors alike, give the registrar’s office more flexibility at the end of the year, and synchronize senior examinations with the rest of campus. We hope the faculty will consider it.

End of article

Back to top