As students return to the University of California, Riverside (UCR) for the fall quarter, the 10-week quarter system as we know it could look very different next year.
Since fall 2024, UC has been considering a transition to a semester system for all campuses. Provost Katherine Newman and UC Academic Senate Chair Steven Cheung established an Academic Planning Council (APC) Workgroup to create a “Systemwide Academic Calendar.”
The 28-member working group — including Academic Senate representatives, administrators and students from across the UC system — has studied the logistics of a potential switch, considering hybrid options, financial costs, class scheduling, registration and student success.
In their first report, the APC workgroup presented four calendar options for consideration: a common semester calendar, a common quarter calendar, a hybrid option of a semester calendar with aligned start dates and maintaining the current system. According to the UC Office of the President (UCOP), the workgroup reviewed 90 questionnaire responses and more than 200 emails submitted to the group.
However, this is not the first time the UC has shifted between academic calendars.
In 1966, UC adopted the quarter system to accommodate the rise in enrollment from baby boomers. With shorter classes and expanded course availability, the move mirrored that of private universities like Stanford University that had been operating on the quarter system since World War I. Today, UC Berkeley and UC Merced remain the only UC campuses that use the semester system.
But higher education is now moving away from quarters. The California State University (CSU) system is transitioning all its campuses to a semester-based system by 2026, and 113 of California’s 116 community colleges (CCC) will follow suit with the same academic calendar.
Theoretically, shifting to semesters doesn’t sound so bad.
Longer classes give faculty members more time to dive deeper into their subjects, while students can build stronger connections with their professors. A typical schedule across the UC, CSU and CCC would also make transferring and applying for summer internships and jobs much smoother. The UC system would also finally align with the regular semester calendar used by most universities nationally.
But the reality is more complicated.
UC is facing some of the most devastating funding cuts in recent decades. In August, the Trump administration announced a $1.172 billion settlement demand from UC Los Angeles after freezing $584 million in funding and alleging the university engaged in “antisemitism and bias.”
In a letter addressed to dozens of California lawmakers, UC President James B. Milliken stated the university is facing “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history” with federal and state funding cuts looming. According to President Milliken, if the federal funding of $17 billion per year were to be withheld, the UC would “need at least $4-5 billion per year” from the state to minimize the damage across its 10 campuses.
These developments follow other blows over the past academic year, with federal cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) funding. Last March, the UC also announced a systemwide hiring freeze to protect long-term financial stability in response to the Trump administration’s sweeping budget cuts.
The proposed transition to semesters carries a significant cost for the UC, with an estimated cost ranging from $288.62 million to $370.96 million systemwide. For CSU, the shift to convert from quarters to semesters cost $90 million for its six campuses.
At a time when the Trump administration’s funding cuts threaten the foundation of higher education, UC should not be prioritizing an expensive academic calendar overhaul in the name of efficiency. UC’s priority should be focused on fighting the attacks on higher education and protecting students, faculty and staff from the impact of shrinking budgets. With every dollar carrying more weight, campus priorities should come first.
Representation is another concern. UCOP noted that the workgroup members “did not represent all interests” and emphasized that their process included both quantitative and qualitative data. This included a 90-day comment period, meetings with the UC Student Associations, UC Graduate and Professional Students Association and UC Council of Presidents, as well as nearly 5,900 responses to their first report.
Yet, with 299,407 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled across the UC system, that represents feedback from less than 0.02 percent of the student body. If the goal is genuine student and community input, UCOP must invest in broader outreach and more effective communication with students in this decision.
The APC working group also has only one UCR member, while most other campuses have two or three. As the only campus without multiple representatives in the workgroup, this raises serious questions about whether UCR’s interests are being adequately represented in these discussions.
The transition from the semester to the quarter system should not be ruled out completely. If a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis indicates that the transition is worth the short-term costs, and there is broad support from UC faculty, staff and students, then it deserves serious consideration.
However, given the current threats to the foundations of higher education and the underrepresentation of student input at UC, a costly change to the academic calendar should not be a priority.
For now, the UC quarter system should remain unchanged.
