[Senate] UCR Senate Review of the APC’s Systemwide Academic Calendar Workgroup Draft Report

[Cherysa P Cortez]

Sent on behalf of Academic Senate Chair Ken Barish

UCR Senate Review of the Academic Planning Council’s (APC) Systemwide Academic Calendar Workgroup Draft Report

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for your thoughtful Senate engagement around the APC Systemwide Academic Calendar Workgroup Draft Report<https://ucr-senate-public.s3.amazonaws.com/issues/sys-apcdraftrpt-academic-calendar-67c1ead2c646f-.pdf> and matters therein via the April 8, 2025 virtual town hall, which was attended by 200 participants, and the survey that closed on May 9, 2025. I also encourage those who have not already done so to provide individual feedback to the Workgroup<https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/content-analysis/academic-planning/academic-planning-council-workgroup-on-systemwide-academic-calendar.html> through this link<https://ucop.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8uWVsq5lPiRIk0S> and via calendar at ucop.edu<mailto:calendar at ucop.edu> by May 30, 2025.

As you may know, divisional committees had from February 27, 2025 through May 2, 2025 to deliberate on and respond to the draft report after which the Senate Executive Council discussed the report, survey results, and committee comments. As with all systemwide review items, the feedback from UCR will be transmitted to systemwide and included with the responses of other UC divisions.

The UCR survey, completed by 251 members, revealed a strong preference for maintaining the status quo due to concerns about disruption, cost, negative impacts on student learning and faculty research, and a lack of clear rationale for the change. A summary of this survey is attached.

Twenty-six Senate standing and faculty executive committees were tasked with review and the overwhelming consensus is one of strong opposition to a systemwide conversion from the quarter system to a semester system. The primary concerns raised across the reports center on the significant financial costs, increased workload and disruption for faculty, staff, and students, and the lack of clear, empirically-supported benefits to student success and faculty productivity. Several committees also express concern about the timing of this proposal given current budget cuts and other political and institutional challenges facing the University of California system. There is a perceived lack of transparency and sufficient faculty consultation in the process leading to this draft report.

1. Financial Costs and Budgetary Concerns:

  *   High Conversion Costs: Multiple committees highlight the substantial estimated costs of converting to a semester system, with figures cited from the report ranging from "$288.62-370.96 M cost plus financing costs" and a campus-level estimate of "$40-46 million."
  *   Inappropriate Timing: Given the "impending budget cuts faced by the University of California," "current budgetary cuts and uncertainty," and "looming existential threats to the UC system," committees universally agree that undertaking such a costly transition at this time is fiscally irresponsible.
  *   Cost of Additional Labor and Lost Productivity: Concerns are raised about the need for "additional compensation" for faculty and staff to handle the increased workload of curriculum revision and implementation. Furthermore, committees anticipate a "loss in productivity associated with diversifying workload within a fixed timeframe," as faculty and staff will be diverted from their normal duties.
  *   Facilities Upgrades: The cost estimates in the report are seen as potentially insufficient, lacking details on "what facility updates would be needed and these costs," particularly regarding infrastructure to handle increased energy consumption for cooling classrooms during a hotter fall semester start.

2. Faculty Workload and Impact on Research/Creative Activity:

  *   Increased Teaching Assignments: A major concern is that "It is unlikely that the number of courses per faculty will decrease under a semester-based system, likely resulting in decreased faculty research and creative activity outputs."
  *   Loss of Flexibility for Research: The quarter system allows for greater flexibility in scheduling teaching, such as "bunching' or 'stacking' one's teaching schedule over the course of two quarters and freeing up time from teaching to allow for greater focus on research and writing." This flexibility would be lost in a semester system.
  *   Difficulty in Taking Time Off: Under the quarter system, it is "common for faculty to have a quarter off teaching," enabling "creative activities during the academic year." This is deemed "unlikely that faculty would have the opportunity to have a semester off teaching" in a semester system.
  *   Curriculum Revision Burden: Faculty will face an “immense impact on the work...as all courses and curriculum would need to be revised to fit a semester system," requiring "a large amount of funding and resources" and causing "undue burden to faculty and staff without mention of appropriate compensation, or consent."

3. Student Impact and Pedagogical Concerns:

  *   Potential for Delayed Graduation and Increased Costs: There is "evidence-based concern that students whose time to degree is increased during the transition period would ultimately pay more for their degrees/lose income due to later entry into the job market."
  *   Higher Course Load and Dropout Rates: With a semester system, "students will have a higher course load to complete program requirements, will also likely need extra time to graduate and will fall behind. This will likely lead to higher student dropout rates."
  *   Loss of Breadth in Learning: While semesters allow for "courses to engage a wider expanse of material with added depth," faculty and students often favor the quarter system for "the advantage of taking a broader range of classes" and the ability to "sample a broader range of material."
  *   Transition Challenges for Existing Students: "For three years or more, there would remain student cohorts who were admitted on the quarter system and would graduate with a combination of quarter and semester courses," creating complications for advising and graduation requirements.
  *   No Clear Evidence of Improved Student Success: Several committees note the lack of evidence that a semester system correlates to better student success or learning outcomes.

4. Lack of Transparency and Shared Governance:

  *   Insufficient Faculty Consultation: Concerns are raised about the lack of faculty consultation "prior to or after the survey was distributed." The process is described as "not been consistent with genuine shared governance with substantial faculty input."
  *   Top-Down Initiative: There is a strong perception that the proposed change is a "top-down mandate" from UCOP, which is "against the principles of shared governance, and the lack of transparency and initial consultation have made faculty suspicious about ulterior motives."
  *   Missing Background Information: The report is criticized for not providing sufficient "background information is provided about where this process originated and why it is presented at this time."

5. Questionable Benefits and Alternatives:

  *   Limited Evidence for Stated Benefits: Committees find "little evidence to support possible benefits of changing the calendar for students, faculty or administrators," particularly regarding improving the transfer student experience or gaining a "competitive advantage for summer experience."
  *   Quarter System Advantages: The quarter system is highlighted for its "faster-paced movement," allowing for a "broader range of classes," and greater flexibility for students to "temporarily withdraw in the advent of an emergency."
  *   Alternative Solutions: The possibility of a "more practical solution" like "slid[ing] the schedule of the quarters to align with the semester offerings" is suggested as a way to achieve some benefits without the disruptive effects of a full conversion. A "gradual onramp" approach over several years is also proposed.
  *   Focus on More Pressing Issues: Many committees feel that resources and attention should be directed towards addressing "more pressing demands," including "staff and faculty positions, support for graduate students who lost funding, bridge funding for research projects terminated," and dealing with "the politicization of academic research."

Additional Themes and Specific Concerns:

  *   International Education: While acknowledging some challenges for students studying abroad, committees believe "flexibility in arranging international study generally had worked to overcome these different calendars" and do not justify a calendar change.
  *   University Extension: Conversion would require adaptation of courses and programs, increasing resource needs, but would benefit visiting students from semester-based institutions.
  *   Physical Resources: Specific concerns about "Classroom temperatures during the summer months" and the need for "additional large classrooms" or "supplemental online modalities" are raised.
  *   Information Technology: The transition would require supplementing ITS staff and utilizing outside consultants.
  *   Faculty Welfare: Notes that aligning with CCs and CSUs could ease transfer for students, but this is not seen as outweighing the costs and disruptions.
  *   School of Medicine: Notes that while their academic schedule is independent, the change would affect shared teaching space and does not see clear evidence of improved student experience or learning.
  *   School of Public Policy: Highlights the quarter system as a "recruitment advantage for UCR" due to its flexibility for faculty workload. Notes potential advantages for some in-depth courses in a semester system but emphasizes the loss of course variety.
  *   School of Education: Expresses concerns similar to others regarding time and practical costs, including increased energy costs due to a hotter fall start.
  *   College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences: Highlights the need for clarification on teaching loads, especially concerning advising and mentoring transfer students.
  *   College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences: Calls for a report from UC administration detailing the origin and justification of the task force and addressing the power structures and consultation processes involved. Cites the lack of grounding in peer-reviewed research in the draft report.

Conclusion:
The feedback from the Riverside Division Academic Senate committees strongly opposes the proposed systemwide calendar conversion to a semester system. The committees find the potential benefits to be unclear and insufficiently supported by evidence, while the financial costs, workload implications, and disruptions to faculty, staff, and students are seen as significant and ill-timed given the current institutional context. The lack of transparency and perceived disregard for shared governance principles further contribute to the negative reception of the proposal. The overwhelming sentiment is that the existing quarter system, while not without its challenges, offers distinct advantages that would be lost in a conversion, and that resources should be focused on more pressing issues facing the University.

The Riverside Executive Council’s robust discussion this week echoed the responses from committees and our colleagues in the division at large as laid out in the attached survey summary document.

Sincerely,
Ken Barish, Chair
Riverside Division

Attachments

Summary of Senate Review Comments
UCR Common Calendar Survey Summary
- - - - - - -
__________________________
Cherysa Cortez
Executive Director, Academic Senate
University Office Building 221
cherysac at ucr.edu<mailto:cherysac at ucr.edu>
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Academic Senate Office immediately by telephone at (951) 827-6154 or email at cherysa.cortez<at>ucr.edu<https://post.ucr.edu/owa/redir.aspx?SURL=IcX4ZK3lIEYWOXDpDmM3Vb7zrs4KkFK1mfplzYdNhPoqD7zfiJzSCG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAYwBjAG8AcgB0AGUAegBAAGUAbgBnAHIALgB1AGMAcgAuAGUAZAB1AA..&URL=mailto%3accortez%40engr.ucr.edu> and permanently delete all copies of this communication and any attachments.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://scotmail.ucr.edu/pipermail/senate/attachments/20250519/f6e0be5c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 24-25.ToSenators.CommonCalendar_UCRSenateReview.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1331120 bytes
Desc: 24-25.ToSenators.CommonCalendar_UCRSenateReview.pdf
URL: <https://scotmail.ucr.edu/pipermail/senate/attachments/20250519/f6e0be5c/attachment-0001.pdf>