Administrators took another step in their effort to examine the possibility of modifying the block schedule when they held an open meeting with students on Monday to discuss potential changes. The forum, which was intended to brief students on a proposed new schedule, was dominated by criticism of the plan, as those in attendance expressed concern that the changes would limit their academic flexibility.
Kristine Dillon, dean of academic services and student affairs, and Mel Bernstein, vice president of arts, sciences, and engineering have created a proposal for a revised schedule that is currently being tested by academic departments. But on Monday, the two administrators emphasized that they are in the process of evaluating whether or not the changes are feasible or desirable.
"We're not making any judgment at this stage, we're simply getting input," Bernstein said.
The schedule presented to students calls for 50-minute classes to be held on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and 75-minute extended block classes to meet on either Monday and Wednesday afternoon or Tuesday and Thursday.
While fewer than 20 students, many of whom are members of the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate, attended the forum, those who did were vocal with their concerns. Students were apprehensive about certain features of the new schedule, and said they were worried that their opinions will not seriously alter the administrative plan.
"I think that if they're going to implement any change that affects the student body, then the student body, as well as the faculty, should vote on it," said Adam Carlis, a student representative to the Board of Trustees. "The only way to truly assess this is through a vote and education."
Dillon and Bernstein said they want the process of changing the block schedule to be as transparent as possible, and plan to hold more meetings like yesterday's forum for both students and faculty.
"If it makes your lives more difficult, this will never see the light of day," Bernstein said.
Some were unconvinced by the administrators' explanations, and last night, a handful of students chalked and hung posters around campus to inform the student body of the planned changes.
One member of the Senate executive board, who asked that his name not be tied to the anti-schedule campaign, said that the goal of students was "public outrage."
"Isn't that the best way to get attention?" he said.
Another member of Tufts' student government said that many students who did not attend Monday's forum are nonetheless willing to defend the current schedule. "If people see a sign that says the new block schedule sucks, they'll probably take the time to look at it and figure out what they think about it," she said. "While we were chalking, a group of people walked by and started talking about it.... I think there would be a bigger turnout if they hold another meeting."
Tanya Gelfand and Alissa Kempler, students in Tufts' joint program with the MFA, said the irregularity of the current block schedule enables them to pursue their dual-degree program. Most museum school courses meet for intense class periods one or two days a week, and Gelfand and Kempler fear that if Tufts classes are scheduled in a more rigid format, it will be difficult for them to fulfill their requirements.
Students were also concerned about the prospects of scheduling Experimental College classes under the new schedule, since they are often held as weekly evening seminars. Under the new schedule, seminar classes would be held from 1-4 p.m. and 7-10 p.m. everyday and from 4-7 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. The afternoon time slots may not accommodate Ex College classes, as many instructors work outside of Tufts during the daytime. At the meeting, students argued that 10 p.m. was too late for a student to get out of class.
One problem that administrators see with the current block schedule is that most classes are scheduled between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., and this clustering creates the potential for scheduling conflicts. If classes were spread out, then certain classrooms could be removed from use for a particular semester and renovated.
But, students countered that changing the schedule would not alleviate this problem, as departments would still be free to clump their classes during the middle of the day, barring a University rule that forces an equal distribution, which could implemented without changing the existing schedule.
Bernstein and Dillon said that they have given copies of their proposal to the University's various schools and academic programs for review and are waiting to receive feedback. The proposal may need to be altered to avoid problems such as those raised at the open forum, or could be scrapped altogether if faculty and students find that it causes more conflicts than the current schedule.
Each department is in the process of plugging this semester's classes into the new schedule to see if it is a preferable alternative. The simulation will be completed and evaluated over the summer, and another test with fall classes will begin next semester. The schedule will then be tested by students from an array of majors, who will plug in their courses, look for conflicts, and report the ease or difficulty they experience in planning their course of study.
"Until it happens, it's going to be hard to know whether it is better or worse," Dillon said.
The earliest that a decision would be made is spring of 2002, and a new schedule would go into effect that fall. If a version of the proposed schedule is not implemented, Dillon said the administration might consider alleviating some scheduling woes through minor modifications to clean up irregular times and restrict the use of arranged blocks.
