Students arriving at Tufts have long been puzzled by a class block schedule that looks more like a crossword puzzle than a calendar. Since last spring, the administration has been debating changes to the maze of overlapping boxes, in order to make coordination of internships and cross registration easier. However, differing opinions among administrators and faculty have hindered progress, and administrators are now admitting that changes are unlikely in the near future.
"There is nothing new to report at this time. Nothing is changing for this term. Nothing is changing for the next," said Gabriella Bertucci, Office Systems Administrator in the Registrar's Office.
The block schedule was created in order to condense six teaching days into five. Instead of having a traditional Monday/Wednesday/Friday and Tuesday/Thursday schedule like most other colleges, Tufts operates using a system of boxes and numbers. This creates several problems, according to Dean of Colleges Charles Inouye.
"There are lots of overlapping blocks. Students lose choice and classrooms go unused," Inouye said.
Furthermore, students often have difficulty obtaining internships, since they do not have a consistent daily schedule. For example, a student taking a class in the "67" block meets with their class at 1:30 p.m. on Monday and Thursday, but at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday. This poses a problem for students who want to schedule an internship each morning.
The block schedule also causes difficulties for students who wish to take advantage of cross registration at other schools, such as Boston University and Brandeis University, because none of Tufts' consortium schools use a similar schedule.
In order to remedy these problems, administrators and faculty have proposed several solutions. The Educational Policy Committee (EPC) decided in the first week of October to discuss reforms that would decrease overlap of blocks, but would not drastically alter the scheduling system. Four days after that meeting, the academic department chairs met and announced their support for a major change to a traditional schedule.
Any decision to change the schedule will ultimately be made by Vice President of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering Mel Bernstein. However, dissent within the faculty and administration makes it unlikely that a proposal will grace Bernstein's desk anytime soon.
"It is still unclear at this point what will happen," said sophomore Senator Abbey Wilson, a student member of the EPC. She notes that it is difficult for the committee to put its weight behind a decision when a new proposal is advocated each week.
While the department chairs are in favor of change, the faculty as a whole prefers the existing system because it gives them more freedom in scheduling their classes. "They can teach four days and then do research on the other," Inouye said.
"Departments have raised concerns with lab and seminar scheduling," she said.
According to Wilson, the student opinion is split on both sides of the issue. While some students feel that it would be more convenient to have a traditional schedule, others like the flexibility afforded by the current system, which often allows students to have no Monday or Friday classes.
"I didn't want classes on Friday, so I planned it that way. I take Economics twice a week for a longer period of time rather than three times a week," Yelena Busovskaya said. "By having a day off I can sleep late and work all Fridays."
Before any changes are made to the existing schedule system, Inouye believes that more input and direction is needed. "We'd have to get the department schedulers together and actually test the model," he noted. "We [administrators] haven't had anything stable enough to show students yet."
Dean of Students Bruce Reitman echoed Inouye's statements, saying that despite the current discussion, what he describes as a unique system is not likely to change soon. "I don't know who created it, but I haven't seen anything like it anywhere else," he said.
