Tufts' block schedule works, but the administration seems to have an undying urge to tinker with it. Of all the academic concerns at this University, administrators would be better off evaluating faculty salaries, Tufts' usage of technology, and its course offerings. Yet instead of focusing on the quality of our classes, our top minds seem mostly concerned with when they're offered. Sitting in student-faculty committee meetings, one hears little of any other academic initiative.
While well intentioned, Tufts has focused too much manpower - including VP Bernstein, deans, and faculty members - into a project to fix a system that doesn't need fixing. Why? It's unclear. There are four main arguments circulating in favor of changing the block schedule, but none of them are particularly persuasive.
Some believe that a simpler schedule would benefit students trying to get internships or off-campus jobs. But by moving to a stricter schedule in which students are likely to have classes five days a week, people will find it harder to achieve this flexibility. In the models being explored, classes that meet two and three times a week are offered on separate days - that means students who take both kinds of classes, which is most students, will have instruction every day. This will make holding an internship nearly impossible. While there is relatively little information known about the proposed schedule, it seems a step toward reducing student flexibility.
Proponents of a new schedule point out that students often can't fit classes in their schedule because two or more meet at the same time or in overlapping blocks. But missing from this argument is that at any college, no matter what scheduling system employed, there are bound to be times when two classes meet in the same block - that's why students have eight semesters before commencement.
Other advocates of reform assert that classes are offered disproportionately between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., leaving less classroom space available during peak hours. This is logical, though, as between ten and two is when most students choose to take classes, affording them a little nightly rest and allowing for participation in sports and other extracurricular activities in the afternoon. Moving more classes out of this time block would throw a real kink into students' schedules.
A final argument in favor of a new schedule is that when Tufts creates an automated scheduling computer system, the cost of using a non-traditional schedule will be prohibitively expensive. This is well-reasoned point, but is not compelling enough to justify a change to a simpler, but less-attractive schedule.
Most of the faculty, moreover, stands diametrically opposed to any change in the block schedule. This includes members of the committees that have examined the proposals, most noticeably the Education Policy Committee (EPC), on which I sit. Some less informed faculty and staff, however, object to any change prima face. Those people must make a rational argument in their defense; it isn't sufficient to object because a change may prove cumbersome. The faculty has as much of an obligation to make a reasonable argument against a new system, as does the administration to make a sensible case for a new schedule.
The administration should continue to communicate with the faculty, and the faculty should continue to voice its concerns, because if the faculty does get to vote on this matter - a point currently in contention - the administration will want to the decision-making process to be smooth.
Students, on the other hand, have been given little information about proposed changes. That will likely change when both Dean Kristine Dillon and Vice President Bernstein set out to gather student opinion. Before they take their case to the student body, however, they should assemble a compelling argument for change. When administrators do take their case to the students, and if they put forth a convincing argument, students should examine the proposal and then voice an intelligent response - administrators will listen.
Whether Bernstein is correct or not in the need for a new schedule, the administration faces an uphill battle in proving its case, both to students and faculty. Every time reasons are put forth for changing the block schedule, the question comes back to why the schedule needs to be changed in the first place. In the meantime, Tufts most important priorities - quality professors, creating useful academic programs, and incorporating technology into the curriculum - are not getting the full attention they deserve from administrators and student faculty committees. If financial consideration is the only viable reason for changing the schedule, the administration will not be able to sell its proposal. If it is not the only reason, a more compelling case must be promulgated soon, so focus can return to Tufts' real academic issues.
