Common Course Schedule Task Force
Exceptions to Central Scheduling policies
Academic Unit / ExceptionsCollege of Arts & Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences / Theatre (Grant Hall and PAC):
a) rooms: … our rooms [in Grant Hall and PAC], like light lab, rehearsal studios, drafting studios, are not rooms that would be readily useable for regular classes and that is why we are off the scheduling grid. It needs to stay that way. We would rehearse is a space round the clock for a period of weeks, and to drop a class in the middle of things would destroy our production/teaching process. Many of our rooms, although maybe not scheduled for teacher led classes, are purposefully kept open for students to partner and use the spaces when available for scene work (actors) or art/drafting (designers).
Communication Studies (Haag Hall):
a) …HH 104, 103, 102, 101 Haag Hall are not appropriate for any other classes: … specialized software on the computers, extremely expensive equipment stored in 101 and 102, … and we can’t afford to compromise student work and equipment purchased and supported solely by the ComS department.
b) Common Scheduling: … we’d like the opportunity to teach more MW morning options. Many of our instructors like teaching just 2x/week and if it is MW they’re locked into afternoons only. BUT, let me add, I understand the thinking behind the Standard Meeting Times, and now that the shock has worn off and most of our classes are conforming to the policy, things seem to be running OK.
English (5201 Rockhill, 5125 Rockhill, CH 16, 105, 105A):
a) Please note that CH 16 is actually a suite of offices, not a conference room.
b) Common Scheduling:
*we have so many teachers who take our graduate courses that being able to follow the Education model of two evening classes per night would be useful (4:30-7:15; 7:30-10:15)
*also, could the Registrar not work with us to coordinate scheduling courses from different departments on M/W and T/R 4:30-7:15 and 5:30-8:15? the Registrar has said if we want to schedule a course M 5:30-8:15, we have to find another discipline who has a course on W from 5:30-8:15 to share the classroom. Isn't that what central scheduling should be helping us do?
*being able to schedule courses M/W and T/R 5:00-6:15 would be useful as well, since we can then offer an evening course 7-9:45 after it.
Foreign Languages (Scofield 109):
a) … the only rooms on the list in Scofield that are FLL's is the Language Resource Center, which is room 109. 109 can't be used for general classroom use, since it is a computer lab. There are no blackboards, no ILE equipment, etc.
b) Common schedule:
1. 5 CH classes. For now, they have not been subject to the same restrictions as 3-hour classes. When we teach them MWF for 1:20, we try to schedule two classes back to back, thus allowing a classroom to be full used during three "regular" 50-minute periods. This has worked pretty well. Two-time a week classes are harder. In the evening that is the only way we can really run classes (no one will come on Friday night at 7pm, and who can blame them!!) In the daytime, I don't think it is a good idea. (It is never a good idea pedagogically, and indeed French and German never do so. Spanish does however, in order to accommodate all the various sections of Spanish 110/120. I would like to eliminate these as we go to a more "structured" schedule - but I can easily imagine that student and classroom constraints may not allow us to eliminate all of them. (FYI: We have stuck with the 5:30 and 7pm time slots in the evening, Spanish daytime twice a week 110/120 are mostly late(r) afternoon.)
2. Evening graduate seminars. The common schedule allows once a week courses only from the school of Education to meet at 4:30. Since our graduate students are mostly teachers, our seminars also work best at 4:30 and we are not happy having to start later. We arranged a compromise of a 5pm start time, and that is ok. However, it can lead to a time conflict for students who want to take their second language (MA students in romance languages have to demonstrate competence in a second foreign language) courses here at UMKC in the evening. With the 4:30 start time, students could take a graduate seminar and then go to their evening Spanish or French language class at 7pm. They would be a little late to class, but nothing they couldn't handle (and the instructor with forewarning!). But a 5pm start time makes that impossible.
History (Cockefair):
a) …Cockefair 206 & 215—Those rooms are regularly used by History faculty for smaller seminars. We also allow English & Philosophy to use them when they are available.
b) Common Schedule: … [would like] more flexibility with block classes (2 hour and 45 minutes) -- especially in the evening since that is how most people teach graduate courses. We can do it now, but we have to get exemptions every time. I would also suggest that they start the MW 75 minute classes at 12:30 if they will not allow them in the morning. As it is, we end up teaching against one another since most of us teach upper level courses in 75 minute blocks. Lastly, if classes are scheduled in rooms that are out of circulation (Cockefair 206 & 215), shouldn't we be able to schedule them as we like (without pairing)?
Economics (HH314, RH410A):
a) See spreadsheet for HH314, and RH410A.
b) Common Scheduling: We used to schedule classes MW 4:00-5:15 and TR 4:00-5:15. This allowed working students to more easily get to class without missing too much work time. They then could also take a class from 5:30-6:45. Further, there are not enough time slots for all of our evening classes if we begin at 5:30 so the 4pm slot was very useful.
Physics (RHFH 246, 247, 256, 272, 274):
a) As far as the labs are concerned. . . they are all filled with very expensive and specialized equipment. … not eager to have people using it for things other than the labs they are intended to be used for.
b) Common Scheduling: Physics 240 and 250 are both 5 credit hour courses (4 + 1 for the lab). We've been running it M, T, W, Th for 50 minutes. 240 being offered from 8-8:50 and 250 from 9-9:50. We would like to continue doing that.
Chemistry (RHFH 111, SCB 201, 203, 211, 217, 220, 301, 305, 321, 324)
a) All SCB rooms except SCB 211 are teaching labs; SCB 211 is a department conference room. RHFH 111 is a research lab. “The Department needs to be able to control them.”
b) Common Schedule: … the only class that we offer right now that can’t fall in the standard meeting times is 206 (Human Nutrition) in the Spring semester. We have to keep it on Monday evenings, 4:30-7:15, even if it isn’t an Education class. We have to keep it at that time because it is a required course for the nursing students, and it has been scheduled this way in order for students to be able to make it from their classes at Hospital Hill.
Conservatory
Conservatory / -Limited space
-Small classrooms anyway
-Make do with odd spaces! Other professors/classes probably would not want to use the spaces!
-None of the rooms have fixed/auditorium seating and some don’t even have desks
-Specialized rooms (i.e. staff lines on chalk and white boards, all rooms contain pianos, some have specialized dance flooring, etc) and labs
-Conservatory classes booked back-to-back from 8am Music Theory classes through afternoon Graduate classes and when classrooms are not in use for classes they are used as small group/chamber music group rehearsal space and in the evenings continuing education music lessons using the pianos
-Our bigger spaces (e.g. Recital Halls and Choral room) are not really functional as classrooms and are often booked for events both for the Conservatory and for the campus (e.g. Commencement)
-Conservatory rarely asks for general campus classrooms so we are not using those resources
Henry W. Bloch
School of Management
Henry W. Bloch
School of Management
Henry W. Bloch
School of Management
Henry W. Bloch
School of Management
Henry W. Bloch
School of Management /
- Exempting Law, Pharmacy, and the Conservatory from the policy may have a negative effect on us because it is not uncommon for students from these units to enroll in Bloch School courses.
- Some type of exception mechanism is needed. Our EMBA program, for example, uses a schedule that is consistent with other EMBA programs across the country; however, this scheduling approach is in significant conflict with UMKC’s scheduling model.
- Shifting Bloch’s undergraduate classes to a heavy morning schedule (many offerings are currently scheduled in afternoon time slots) may (1) benefit us in the long-run based on feedback from alumni and/or (2) could complicate staffing because many of our faculty teach courses that run until 6:45 or 9:45 in the evening. Note: Other campuses that have heavy evening offerings try to avoid early morning classes for their faculty.
- As judged by a national survey, Bloch would be in a very small minority of urban, state-supported business schools by offering classes on Fridays (courtesy of a shift from our current MW scheduling to MWF). We included Columbia and Lawrence in our sample, meaning that we run the risk of losing students to these universities (as well as to other schools) because Fridays are often the only day where students can count on a full day of employment.
- Bloch makes use of adjuncts who hold professional positions in the community. We feel that a shift from MW to MWF will make it much more difficult to find qualified instructors because of a required third trip to campus. Also, a Bloch alumni survey showed a very strong preference on the part of students for classes that meet 75 minutes per session (i.e., the time for an MW class) rather than 50 minutes (the length of an MWF class).
- The use of a time slot that starts at 3:30 could decrease enrollments for graduate classes that we currently offer at 4:00, as some students may have difficulty obtaining employer permission to leave their jobs even earlier in the day than they do now.
Comments on Class Scheduling Policy
Note: The following comments were made in response to a June 2004 draft of a proposed UMKC class scheduling policy. That policy, with relatively minor revisions, forms the basis for the policy that currently appears on the Provost’s website (see Exhibits I and II). Our observations have been updated to reflect those revisions and are expanded slightly to incorporate additional information.
Basis for comments:
The comments below are based on feedback received from three of our department chairs, the assistant dean, the associate dean, and a survey of recent graduates. (Note: We have been studying some of these same issues in our efforts to improve scheduling and significantly increase enrollments.)
We agree that a common campus schedule will benefit room utilization and student scheduling, and that efforts to achieve these goals are long overdue. The procedures that have been adopted are generally acceptable, although we do offer a few suggestions for improvement and raise several concerns. Details follow and are tied to the sections in Exhibits I and II (attached).
Exhibit I, section II:
The stated procedures will cover the vast majority of our students, as most Bloch students take their coursework totally within Bloch or have crossover with Arts & Sciences or the School of Computing and Engineering. However, in view of the interdisciplinary nature of several of our programs, we do have students from Law, the Conservatory, and Pharmacy, all of which are exempted under the proposal. We are hopeful that the final version of the schedule allows us to continue servicing these students.
Exhibit I, section III, part 1:
There needs to be an exception mechanism here. For example, our Executive MBA classes are currently scheduled all day Friday and Saturday, and follow a relatively common scheduling format used by other EMBA programs across the country. (The program is designed in a format where executives miss a full day of work to attend class.) Further, these students are exclusively Bloch and the classes are 100% within our School. Such "nontraditional course scheduling" does not appear to be addressed by the University.
Exhibit I, Section III, part 2:
The distribution of course offerings could lead to a change in enrollment, as it is a dramatic shift away from what we currently do. Bloch undergraduate classes are currently scheduled predominantly in the afternoon hours, and the UMKC scheduling policy requires a significant shift to the morning hours. Such a shift has unknown implications for us.
On the positive side, based on an alumni survey, the move toward earlier classes would likely be desirable in terms of long-term growth.[1] As evidence, we asked recent graduates who completed Bloch undergraduate programs that made heavy use of afternoon classes to evaluate various time slots for the scheduling of classes, assuming the individual desired to balance school, employment, and family responsibilities. The results from 81 respondents follow.
Time Slot / Very Attractive, Attractive / Unattractive, Very Unattractive
Early morning / 54% / 32%
Mid- to late morning / 71% / 17%
Early afternoon / 54% / 21%
Mid- to late afternoon / 46% / 35%
Early evening / 64% / 28%
Mid- to late evening / 50% / 43%
On the negative side, Bloch has a very sizable operation in the evening hours. We offer a reasonable number of undergraduate classes in the evening to cater to working adults, along with an estimated 95% of our graduate courses. This scheduling means that a significant majority of our faculty members teach until 6:45 p.m. and many go until 9:45 p.m. because they often instruct both undergraduate and graduate courses. Requiring that a strict 40% of offerings take place between 7:00-10:00 a.m. will likely create a staffing problem.[2]
Expanding on the above, the use of three strict percentages (40%, 40%, 20%) as constraints that must be met could complicate scheduling. (In general, the more constraints that an individual must address, the more complex a process becomes.) A user-friendly suggestion involves adding some flexibility by saying either (1) the vast majority of daytime classes must have scheduled start times between 7:00 and 1:00 or (2) at least 80% of daytime classes must have scheduled start times between 7:00 and 1:00. These relaxed guidelines would likely accomplish the desired result with less wear and tear on the part of academic units.
Exhibit II: standard meeting times
Most of our problems lie in Exhibit II, which shows the standard meeting times for on-campus classes. These problems are summarized as follows:
- The heavy use of MWF classes places us in a significant minority of business schools across the country (see Exhibit III). We surveyed 26 undergraduate business programs and were able to access class schedules from 22 of them. With two exceptions, our sample focused on urban, state-supported schools. We purposely looked at four popular (enrollment-wise) business school disciplines, two that tend to focus on quantitative subject matter (accounting and finance) and two that are more qualitative in nature (management and marketing). A review of the data showed that 18 of the 22 schools had no or virtually no MWF classes. We also included the University of Kansas (Lawrence) and the University of Missouri-Columbia in our study because we compete with both of these institutions. Neither of their business schools have Friday classes, meaning Bloch enrollment growth initiatives could be hurt if we have to begin use of a MWF class format.
Also, because of declining state support, more and more business schools are making increased use of part-time adjuncts to teach one or more classes. These adjuncts typically hold full-time jobs in the community and, on a per-hour basis, are paid a relative pittance. More than likely, our ability to hire quality adjuncts would be severely challenged if they would be required to make a third trip to campus each week because of Friday class times.
Finally, there is a significant difference between 50- and 75-minute classes from both a learning and testing perspective. Put simply, it is very difficult to construct sound, 50-minute examinations in a number of disciplines and as a result, scheduling of classes may become biased in favor of twice-a-week offerings. Perhaps more important, our alumni survey showed that undergraduate students strongly preferred 75-minute sessions rather than 50-minute sessions (94% of respondents vs. 46%).
- In view of the points just made, Bloch requests an exception from the use of MWF daytime classes, instead preferring a schedule that allows MW and TR daytime offerings. We can easily use the time slots for TR that are noted in Exhibit II; however, we would like to employ a 4:00-5:15 time slot rather than 3:30-4:45 for MW and TR. We currently use the 4:00 slot for a limited number of graduate offerings. These offerings attract part-time students who are employed during the day, and their employers grant permission for them to leave work early to attend a 4:00 class. More than likely, if we were forced to start these classes at 3:30, we would lose a number of these students.