Concrete steps have been taken to examine the feasibility of changing the block schedule after over a year of speculative discussion. The Educational Policy Committee (EPC) has released a prototype for a new schedule, and faculty will be asked for input in the coming months.
The prototype would eliminate overlapping class times by having all classes meet for a 50-minute period every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday or for an extended 75-minute period each Tuesday and Thursday. Seminar classes would use successive 75-minute blocks.
To evaluate the proposed changes, departments have been asked to participate in an experimental simulation by plugging their course offerings for this semester into the new model. The simulation began last week and will last until the beginning of April, at which point administrators will meet with department chairs to discuss the findings.
A similar experiment using next fall's course offerings is scheduled to take place in June. The EPC hopes to go to the faculty in November with plans for the new schedule, with fall 2002 being the earliest date of implementation.
"Whether this model suits our needs remains to be seen," Vice President of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering Mel Bernstein said in a letter to the faculty last week. "Until we plug in classes in a simulation of at least two semesters worth of courses, we will not know which particular configuration will work best for all departments."
Proponents of the new plan say it will eliminate woes such as overlapping and irregular time blocks, and will allow for more efficient use of classroom space while enabling the University to utilize a comprehensive computerized scheduling system.
"We're trying to keep some of the good things, concentrate research time and teaching time without cramming everything in," said EPC member and Dean of the Colleges Charles Inouye, who is leading the effort for change.
Several departments, particularly foreign languages and mathematics, have expressed concerns about the proposal. Because learning a language requires continuity and consistent exposure, most language courses would have to be offered on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. All language literature courses would then meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which would unevenly split the resources of the foreign language departments.
"It's pedagogically terrible to have classes meeting twice a week in teaching a language... [therefore] 70-80 percent of our courses will be offered Monday-Wednesday- Friday, while only 20 percent will be offered Tuesday-Thursday," said a language professor who asked not to be identified. "[Because of the separation] some faculty will never see each other... [It also] puts a strain on our building."
Math classes are traditionally scheduled during 50-minute blocks, and professors in the department anticipate difficulties in keeping students attentive during extended blocks on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The proposed movement of the open block, which currently lasts from 11:30 a.m. until 1:05 p.m., to a 4 p.m. start is also an issue, as math tests are usually administered during this block.
"Our problem is that we don't think it's educationally sound to teach mathematics two times a week. Its just too much math in a row and there's too much time between classes," math department chair Richard Weiss said.
One of the biggest issues with the existing block schedule is that an estimated 25 percent of all courses, excluding labs, are arranged by professors and/or the registrar's office at times not specified by any regular block. This complicates the already confusing system, and is often the main culprit of scheduling conflicts.
"Personally I think that our current schedule would work well if we had a clear and well-monitored scheduling policy," said Todd Quinto, a mathematics professor who also serves as the co-chair of the EPC. Such a policy would force departments to adhere to the block schedule and keep them from arranging their own times.
The current block schedule actually evolved because professors continued to add blocks that eventually became a regular part of the schedule.
"[Originally] the block schedule served to help people so they wouldn't have to take classes on Saturday," Inouye said. "Over the years, people have added blocks here and there... [which] encouraged a little too much choice."
Portions of several blocks do indeed conflict. For example, a student taking a class or lab in the Z3 block would be unable to enroll in any courses that meet in the 7, 8, 9, C, or E blocks.
"The bottom line of all of this is creating the highest quality of education possible, and included in this is the choice for students to take the courses they want to take," Inouye said. "Students are so conditioned to not getting what they want that they don't complain about it. What sense does that make?"
Students have expressed satisfaction with the block schedule for the most part. "I've heard mixed things from students - most don't want any change, they're pretty attached to it," sophomore senator and EPC member Abbey Wilson said. "It's something that makes Tufts special."
Some students say that a more consistent schedule would assist in allotting time for internships. "But there's a reverse side," Wilson said. "Students like be able to schedule a full day off to work."
Students enrolled in dual-degree programs with the Museum School and the New England Conservatory could be severely affected by a change to the block schedule, as many classes at these schools can last up to six hours. "It would make flexibility worse... [and] it will be harder to work Museum School classes into the schedule," Museum School student Alissa Kempler said.
The length of classes and the hour-and-a-half commute each way between Tufts and the Museum School might make it impossible for students like Kempler to take any classes at Tufts on certain days if the new schedule is implemented.
Despite the student and faculty concerns, the EPC is going forth with the experimentation process. 'It's a tradeoff between having everything in convenient times and making a choice between everything you want to take," Inouye said. "It's foolish not to try [an alternative system], but it requires everyone's cooperation."
