Intersession can be a very bleak time at Hopkins. The campus is empty, gray sleet and rain dominates the forecast, and the brick walkways ice over. Aside from the miserable weather, it will be especially hard to be on campus this January, knowing that where you once had an opportunity for credits, you now only have promises of fun through learning that are dubious at best. The new change in Intersession policy is a disappointment in practice, if not on paper.
The new, predominately one and two credit S/U courses are varied and explore new topics in academia. On some level,they are an impressive move towards diversity, as the News-Letter mentioned in last week's editorial.
It's also nice that Deans Bader and Burger, who have proven themselves committed to the quality of students' lives in a number of different ways, would try to broaden our academic horizons as well. However, I find a large gap in what may broaden students' horizons, and what the new Intersession will mean for students.
The simplest and most obvious explanation is that we're simply getting less for our money. Our tuition, where it usually went towards the opportunity for a credit, goes towards the vacuous promise of a horizon that seems too far away.
Replacing the possibility of real classes with filler, one week classes is not enough to satisfy students' wants or needs. Furthermore, I can't understand what Intersession was lacking in years past. Our winter semesters have been fairly laid back as is, as well as educational. I myself have made the January pilgrimage twice now, and I have experienced Intersession for two fabulous and enriching winters. Through snow and sleet, I took a pass/fail Italian course my freshman year, and came back again the next year to work on research.
Most importantly, during these two sessions, I met students that didn't have the chance to expand their schedules during the year for either sports or personal reasons, and made the sacrifice away from home to utilize this precious interim semester. In the News-Letter editorial last week they were called pat of an "unfortunate byproduct" of the change They're students, athletes and scholars not byproducts.
It is a shame if we are overhauling a system that wasn't entirely failing, especially at the cost of the misfortune of a number of students. Why are completing academic credits and taking academically diverse courses mutually exclusive? Those of us who would like to get a few courses out of the way do not want to settle with cheap academic standards more than anyone else.There is no reason why Intersession can't both serve students' needs for credit requirements and for academic quality.
It seems like the biggest assumption of the semester change is that Hopkins students cannot handle the inherent stress of grades, because we prove ourselves to be grade grubbing. It is pathetic that so many of us are competitive, but it is unfair and naive to think that puttting us in an academic "time-out" for a month will help the nature of Hopkins culture.
Many of us need to use this month to stay on track. For years, many of us have relied on the opportunity for both an opportunity to work towards major requirements. Mind you, this is not every student, but a number of case-specific problems add up to too many unfulfilled students.
In majors such as international studies, for example, we only move onwards towards completing a checklist that seems to never end. We flock to weak large survey courses during the year to fill our N,Q, E credits, instead of enriching ourselves with other classes that may actually make us better people.
Working toward the promise of a finished list, I have gone through the motions of five semesters without having the opportunity to take Art History, English, Philosophy, or music. I do not see myself becoming a better person for taking Guided Tour of the Planets.
We have a few choice weeks for learning in January. It is disheartening to know I can't use them to my best advantage. And while there may be courses in English and history and international relations thatare offered in the 2005 Intersession, they are only a tease of the depth one should have within the span of one semester. It's sad to think we can cram "learning" within the span of one or two weeks and call it broadening our horizons. It leaves a strong taste of academic dissatisfaction in my mouth. It's only a cheap fix to a greater problem of a lack of broad academia on campus. And it's a cheap fix that's also at the cost of students' credits and the value of our tuition.
While some students only care about grades, many of us wish there could be more genuine academic diversity in their lives. This change comes with faculty overhauls, like the planned humanities initiative, not sacrificing our intersession for the sake of an artificial sense of diversity.
I hope that in future Intersessions, we will allow the mini semester to shift the burden away from our fall and spring semesters, so we can really devote time to academic expansion when there are enough weeks to really learn from it.
Not only will the new Intersession plan force some students into summer school and clumsy distribution requirements during the semesters, it is short of what it should be. The ideal Intersession should be a time with personal enrichment, yes, keep ballroom dancing and the Bob Dylan class alive and well -- but make it practical.
It's not a sin for students to hope to maximize their time with one extra month. Make Intersession a balance between credit and academic creativity, so Monday mornings in future Januarys won't seem so bleak for our students just trying to get by.
--Francesca Hansen is a junior international studies major.
