"There are numerous online articles comparing the merits of a semester system and quarter system, however none appear to address fully the sustainability implications of one over the other. Identifying the key impetus for moving towards a Semester system (or away from a Quarter system) would be helpful in considering the importance of sustainability in your context. These systems are similar in some aspects, but differ substantially in their 'popularity'. This is probably because Semester systems require fewer registrations, thereby making administrative duties a little less frequent, if not any easier. An analysis of the workspace, classroom space and scheduling (classes and work hours) aspects can help compare which academic system will impose a smaller electricity and transportation demand. Whichever systems requires fewer classes per week would potentially reduce number of days requiring transportation, and also reduce campus energy expenditure, if carefully planned and controlled.

The President of Western Washington University, Bruce Shepard wrote a blog article concerning switching to a semester system that provides his insights into the pros and cons, emphasizing the importance of having faculty in particular involved in the process.

I think either the semester or term/quarter approach can be configured in a variety of ways that impact the environmental aspects of sustainability. This is especially true where many students and faculty drive to class [even on residential campuses], but I don't think it's as cut and dried as it might appear at first.

If courses are structured with longer but less-frequent classes [under either system], that might reduce some types of emissions and be more sustainable:  If a student has 4 classes that each meet 4 times/week, he or she will be going to class on 4 or 5 days, while if the same 4 courses each meet twice a week that might be better -- but it all depends on the scheduling. Those 4 - 8  class meetings could all fall on 2 days or they could still be spread over 5 days.. 

And what are the impacts on heating and cooling?  Using a lecture hall for 2 1-hour classes on each of 5 days is quite different from using it for 10 hours over 2 or 3 days. But using it for 4 hours between 8a & 1p may be more energy-efficient than 2 hours in the morning, 2 in the afternoon, and 2 in the evening.  Somebody with more engineering knowledge than I have needs to weight the different factors.

So I don't think either system is inherently more sustainable than the other; the devil is in the details. Personally, I've always preferred a term/quarter system, but the often-missing element -- is actually thinking through the sustainability impacts of every decision within whatever system is being used. Scheduling systems that go beyond looking at availability of a particular classroom or lecture hall and integrate other factors such as commuting, how time between classes affects efficient heating/cooling, and so on.

Peter
 

Peter Crownfield
Campus Sustainability Initiative
Alliance for Sustainable Communities-Lehigh Valley
Bethlehem, PA  18015 
<www.sustainlv.org>

Vinodh and Peter,

I really appreciate your quick responses. Your comments and suggestions are very helpful! It sounds like an institution has the opportunity to make either academic calendar into something sustainable and beneficial. There definitely isn't a clear solution.