Calendar plan decision draws mixed reviews

Students and faculty members had mixed reactions yesterday to the rejection of the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education's proposal to revise the University calendar. Provost Stanley Chodorow said Monday that his decision about the plan, which included added reading days, changing the number of teaching days in each semester and starting classes before Labor Day, stemmed from faculty dissension. "The deans and the faculty of the four undergraduate schools were overwhelmingly against it," he said. But SCUE Chairperson and Engineering senior Matthew Kratter said he was disappointed with the decision and the process behind it, noting that both the Faculty Senate and the University Council approved of the plan last year. "The provost never really sat down and considered input from all of the groups," Kratter said Monday. "If I knew he would consider the faculty populous vote as the final judge, we would have handled this in a different way." According to Chodorow, former Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson requested feedback on the proposal from the undergraduate deans and their faculty, even after the two University-wide bodies approved the plan. But Finance Professor Jeremy Siegel said he did not recall any vote or official consultation with the general faculty of the Wharton School. "I don't think this ever got voted on at all at the Wharton faculty level," he said last night. "No one I talked to really remembers it being brought up as a vote as Wharton faculty, although it was mentioned." According to Chodorow, the Wharton School, along with the School of Nursing, would be most affected by the proposal. Beginning classes before Labor Day would interfere with summer programs, especially those in the Wharton School and the School of Nursing, he added. Executive Assistant to the Provost Linda Koons said the faculty simply needed a break between summer sessions and the fall semester. Siegel said that because many Wharton professors teach both undergraduate and graduate classes, the school's four-week August summer graduate program would coincide with the proposed beginning of the school year. Siegel said he would not be directly affected by the proposal, but added that the situation is complex. "It is unusual that the semesters have different numbers of classes," he said. "In some ways, you want to even that out but it's hard to put in days in the fall, retain the study days and still start after Labor Day." Siegel suggested attempting to begin classes the Tuesday after Labor Day, instead of Thursday, as the current calendar holds. Chodorow and Koons said that possibility has been discussed, but no final decision has been reached. History Professor Alan Kors attributed the difficulties to the poor interaction between SCUE and the administration. "There appears to be some breakdown of communication and trust between the provost and SCUE," Kors said. "I have found SCUE to be consistently one of the most thoughtful, insightful and dedicated groups on campus and I think it would be tragic for the University if they perceived their channels of communication to be inadequate." Kors, who is on leave this semester, said that although he is unaware of the "particulars of the debate," the issue of SCUE's proposal reflects a larger problem in the operation of governance and consultation at the University. "You don't want a situation in which presidents and provosts can appeal either to Council or to the Senate or to the faculties or to the community as it suits them," he said. Students, like faculty members, reacted last night in a variety of ways. "Personally I don't think I would want an extra reading day because I think everything would drag more," said College sophomore Jessica Salzman. "I wouldn't want to start before Labor Day too because then it would be cutting my summer vacation." Salzman said most schools start after Labor Day and added that she wants the University to stick with its current policies. But College freshman Caroline Chen said she was in favor of SCUE's proposal. "It would help a lot," she said. "And there are colleges that start a lot earlier than us, so a few days earlier wouldn't really hurt us. In the long run, I think [the proposal] would help." Wharton sophomore Greg Angrist said he did not think the plan "would really make a difference." "I can't think of a logical reason why it would make a difference if [the start of classes] was before or after Labor Day," he said. "And I don't know if the extra reading day would make a whole heck of a lot of difference in the scheme of things."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.