University of Virginia Library

Calendar Reform

Although it is too late for any substantive
changes in next year's academic calendar (that
is, for 1972-3). advocates of calendar reform
are in the process of forwarding a variety of
proposals for reorganizing the University's
semester system. At an open meeting
scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 11
in Newcomb Hall's South Meeting Room, the
blue ribbon Committee on the Calendar will
hear testimony by members of the University
community concerning several such proposals.

Ralph W. Cherry, chairman of the
committee, said earlier this week that the
meeting "can be expected to have a major
effect on the structure of the annual calendars
during the decade of the seventies." Adding
that the committee welcomes written
statements (which may be accompanied by
oral arguments), Mr. Cherry urged prospective
witnesses to contact him in advance so that an
agenda may be prepared. (Unscheduled
testimony will be heard following that
previously arranged.)

The plans which may be expected to
appear in the course of Tuesday's meeting
include the so-called 4-0-4 and 4-1-4 systems.
Under such a system, students would
conclude first semester work and
examinations before Christmas break. The
month of January would be set aside as free
time during which students could elect to
pursue independent study with academic
credit probably equivalent to one three-hour
course. Another four month semester would
then follow. The distinction between 4-0-4
and 4-1-4 is to be found in the voluntary
nature of the independent study program.

Another proposal, which seems far more
likely to win approval, is that first semester
work and exams be finished prior to
Christmas, but instead of adopting an
independent research program, the Calendar
Committee would schedule second semester
classes to begin in time to conclude by
mid-May. Such a plan would moreover permit
the Summer Session to begin and end earlier.

Calendar changes like the ones mentioned
are gaining favor at colleges and universities
across the country in such numbers that it is
not premature to suggest a trend. Colgate has
operated with the 4-1-4 system with no
problems for several years, while Vanderbilt
and the University of Alabama have more
recently adopted similar plans.

An argument that may be anticipated in
opposition to such a change in the
University's calendar is that co-ordination of
the various professional and graduate schools
poses problems so large as to rule out what
many regard as necessary reform. No one
denies that the College (as a separate entity)
would have small difficulty in adapting to a
new schedule. Even now, the law school and
medical school operate—at least in part— on
calendars which differ substantially from the
University's. That there is no sort of binding
uniformity in practice today would seem to
undercut that argument and point the way to
a day when each school would be encouraged
to choose the calendar plan which best suits
its needs.

Of course, co-ordination of the various
plans adopted would be essential. But if
students, faculty, and staff members
concerned would express their ideas to the
members of the Calendar Committee, it seems
possible that solutions could be
found—especially since calendars are set so far
in advance precisely to allow such work as is
necessary.

What is vital is that the members of the
committee be positively impressed with the
critical need for calendar reform. In essence,
they need to be given good reasons for
recommending changes which few deny are
difficult ones to implement. But time will
show that the task is worth pursuing. Instead
of listing the problems alone—a bureaucratic
tendency which has to be offset before
change can occur—members of the committee
ought to explore vigorously all opinions and
select the best plan, which is not likely to be
the easiest one to implement, but the best.