BY ROBERT S. KIRSNER

For the sixth time in 30 years, UCLA is considering switching back to the semester system, which it abandoned in 1966-67. There are at least three reasons why this might be a mistake.

Consider first the impact on students’ education. According to “The Report of the Joint Academic/Administration Committee to Study the UCLA Academic Calendar” (Nov. 1, 2002), “The typical experience at other institutions that have switched to semesters is that the number of course offerings is reduced significantly in the process of conversion.” All else being equal, this means students would be exposed to a potentially less diverse set of course offerings, with less time to explore unusual or relatively exotic fields outside their majors.

As someone who teaches languages and literatures usually considered exotic in this country, I expect that switching to semesters would effectively reduce the number of students willing to explore such unusual areas. And under an enrollment-driven system such as ours, unique courses that draw in fewer students might eventually be phased out. In both the short term and the long term, then, the semester system would seem to foster decreased intellectual choice and increased academic timidity.

Now consider the faculty’s job. Under the semester system, there would be less time for research. Presently it takes nine quarters of teaching (three academic years) for a faculty member to earn one non-teaching quarter (10 weeks) of sabbatical time at full pay. Under the semester system, it would take nine semesters (4.5 academic years) to earn one non-teaching semester of sabbatical time (14 weeks) at full pay. A 50% increase in teaching time yields only a 40% increase in “free” time for research.

Furthermore, as one colleague has pointed out, the semester system might totally doom junior faculty — at least in the humanities, where there are fewer opportunities to get big grants for research and, hence, release from teaching. To earn tenure at a research-oriented university such as UCLA, junior faculty must both produce and publish significant research within seven years.

Under the semester system, assistant professors would have to teach an entire one and one-half years extra before earning their very first sabbatical. By the time they could concentrate on research, it would be: “Your time is up! Sorry, not enough published quality research for tenure!”

Finally, consider money. According to the report, the economic costs of the transition would run in the millions of dollars. The Administrative Information System and Student Record System would have to be totally redesigned. The calendar for summer sessions would change, potentially decreasing the income of UCLA Housing, Facilities Management, ASUCLA, the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center and so forth.

For all these reasons, then, and even leaving the current financial crisis out of consideration (no cost-of-living increases for faculty, higher fees for students and departments with their operating budgets cut), I must conclude that there are far better ways for UCLA to spend its money and all the professors’, administrators’ and staff members’ time than in tweaking its aca-demic calendar.

Kirsner is professor of Dutch and Afrikaans in the Department of Germanic Languages.