For Ronald Cavanagh, vice president of undergraduate studies at Syracuse University, the main goal of the proposed scheduling paradigm is not to dictate how professors teach, but to instead create a framework that guarantees student access to classes.

Some time formats, however, such as the three-hour class that meets once a week, could pose a potential problem with the proposed paradigm.

‘We want the faculty to be able to make pedagogical decisions about the way in which to deliver the courses,’ Cavanagh said. ‘When and if a person teaches is an administrative decision.’

The new scheduling paradigm promises many changes to the flow and pace of university life, but seeks to avoid making decisions about how professors teach their classes, Cavanagh said.

‘My understanding of the new paradigm is that we’re allowed to have [three-hour classes] as long as they’re slotted into the time slot,’ said Charles Watson Jr., who manages the course schedule for the English department. ‘By definition, any three-hour course that meets once a week does that to some extent.’

Classes such as the English department’s ETS 107: Living Writers would have to fit into the scheduling blocks defined by the new paradigm. If it creates the conflicts Watson mentioned, the class would have to petition for an exception or change the class format. The latter would force a new syllabus and course schedule on professors, which Cavanagh said the administration is trying to avoid.

‘If that can be avoided while increasing student choice – that’s the paradigm you want to go with,’ Cavanagh said.

Watson said that the conflict Living Writers poses could be resolved by pushing three-hour courses later into the day. He said that this change would most likely take place.

‘I don’t see a big problem – I think we are in compliance,’ Watson said. ‘As long as the English department is not in conflict with itself, the three-hour classes are not prohibited.’

Cavanagh contended that many of the issues raised against the proposed paradigm – such as the problems of a three-hour class – are due to the current enforcement; the overlap of three-hour courses with other offerings is already a problem, but simply not addressed.

‘Students began to complain about access,’ Cavanagh said. ‘For the sake of 15 minutes, a classroom sits open for the next 45.’

Cavanagh cited the decision by the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and many teachers to affirm 80-minute classes as the preferred format, saying that that decision is the source of problems concerning student access, classroom space and teacher choice. Enforcement of the current paradigm, however, would force teachers to redesign 80-minute courses to fit in a 55-minute format.

‘Ninety percent of 55-minute courses in the morning gobble up student choice,’ Cavanagh said. ‘What we tried to do with 55-minute classes is protect them from 80-minute classes – we’ve kept the thrice-weekly 55-minute group independent of overlap.’

Formats besides 55- and 80-minute blocks then become the main offenders of overlap. Cavanagh agreed with Watson’s proposed solution for three-hour classes.

‘We will certainly recommend that people move those classes into the afternoon,’ he said.

Cavanagh also agreed with Watson that with increased enforcement in the proposed paradigm, conflicts would probably still occur.

‘In either case, there are going to be exceptions,’ Cavanagh said.

Students were unfazed by the possibility of a change in the three-hour format, but said that they had enjoyed courses in the past that adopted that time schedule.

‘It’s good because they’re one day a week and three credits,’ said Samantha Spivack, a junior theater major. ‘Usually, they’re later in the day already.’

Spivack said the courses tended to assign the reading of a regular course, because teachers considered it as a 55-minute course that meets three times in succession once a week.

‘They usually give you a break in the middle and let you out early,’ said Laura Cosmus, a junior policy studies and children and family studies major.

Ultimately, Cavanagh said, the new paradigm would produce fewer conflicts, increasing student access and choice to courses.

‘We have not heard anything in the open forums [on the proposed paradigm] that is a compelling reason to discard it,’ Cavanagh said. ‘The new scheduling paradigm offers so much more – but it requires you to change.’

Published on September 23, 2003 at 12:00 pm