THE WINTER STUDY PERIOD. The proble m of what to do with the three-week free period between semesters in January had been solved (or so it was thought) in 1969. A completely unstructured, non-credit reading and research period was provided in which it was hoped that many students would use the opportunity to broaden their intellectual horizons and otherwise profit without the pressures of examinations, grades, or scheduled classes or laboratories.

In the meantime, a possible solution to the problem of what to do with the interval in January took another form. Why not require a standard load of four courses each semester instead of five, and use the interim period for one course? This system, known as "4-1-4," had been suggested by the faculty Educational Policy Committee in January 1968, and as usual a committee was appointed to study the question. A poll in which 1,800 students participated indicated a favorable response. This was duly reported to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, but the recommendation that this plan be substituted for the proposed January reading and research period was defeated in May 1968. Instead, the faculty voted to appoint yet another ad hoc committee "to make a searching examination of present undergraduate educational arrangements at Tufts in the light of the present needs of faculty, students, and society." Out of this came an elaborate report by a faculty Long-Range Planning Committee and a parallel student committee, both created in 1968.

Sketchy guidelines for the January winter period were published by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the fall of 1968. The time was not to be used to make up incomplete work from the previous semester but was intended to allow further exploration of any subject, on the students' own initiative, "according to programs arranged by individual departments." Reading lists were hastily assembled, on the assumption that many departments would coordinate both individual and group projects.

The first year of Winter Study was, by definition, "a chaotic, free-flowing month in the Tufts calendar." With this in mind, in 1969 the student Educational Policies Committee assembled a seventeen-page booklet which attempted to bring at least a modicum of order out of the "chaotic" situation and provide a means of coordinating the activities and bringing students of similar interests and plans together. A temporary "January Office" was set up in Miner Hall.

At first there was no accountability by either students or faculty for the time and effort spent in January, and dozens of students sought temporary employment or took off for various vacation spots. The closest approximation to faculty responsibility was the hope that at least one faculty member in each department would be on duty to coordinate study projects.

Only one year's experience made it clear that some kind of structure and some measure of control had to be provided. What little actual coordination of Winter Study that had taken place the first year had been furnished by a subcommittee of the student Educational Policies Committee which had supported the idea and had volunteered its services. A combined faculty-student Winter Study Committee had been created by 1971, consisting of ten faculty members and administrators and five students, with Dean Nancy Milburn as chairman. In order to plan for 1972, the committee was enlarged to seventeen, including six students. By 1974 the number of students had dwindled to three. Percy Hill, chairman of the Department of Engineering Graphics and Design, headed the committee after the first year and served in that capacity until the program was discontinued.

The freedom given to the students by the January period to account for their own time made the question of what facilities were needed each year for both board and housing problematic at best, and keeping all of the facilities open became a matter of increasing financial worry. Negative reaction began to come in from both parents and alumni. The chairman of the faculty Educational Policy Committee which at first had general oversight of the experimental "R and R" period had solicited comments from all participants even before the January experiment in 1969 had come to an end, and a questionnaire was circulated accordingly. The largest response (482 out of 774 returned) came from Jackson students. An "overwhelming majority" of the students who replied indicated that the January period had been "a rewarding experience." The records indicated that 65 percent of the Jackson students and 50 percent of the liberal

The faculty were far less enthusiastic. Only half of the faculty responding voted to retain the program and about 30 percent found Winter Study to be detrimental in some way.

The completion of two Winter Study periods became a degree requirement, beginning with the Class of 1974, and in addition to pursuing individual interests in "a variety of patterns," individual students could take regularly scheduled classes, although the offering of "standard" courses on an accelerated basis during January was discouraged. It was the College of Engineering that first authorized the giving of regular courses during Winter Study and permitted students to allow work completed during that period to count as the equivalent of two courses. It was at their insistence that the Winter Study Period had been extended to six weeks.

By 1971 each student had to make himself or herself accountable to some member of the faculty, who had to certify to the appropriate dean that the student had completed one or more projects of sufficient educational significance to be acceptable for meeting degree requirements. The faculty also were made accountable, with formal responsibility to be available, beginning that year, for the entirety of each Winter Study Period. The program had become sufficiently formalized by 1971 to have evolved into a "mini-semester," described by one disgruntled faculty member as "summer school in January." Even though Winter Study had much more academic content and faculty oversight by 1972 than earlier, parents continued to voice objections on several grounds. Many felt that the between-semester period was little more than an opportunity for their offspring to take, as one parent expressed it, "a glorified vacation," and demanded more structure and more guidance for students than then prevailed. Some members of the trustee Educational Policy Committee, who received many of the complaints, began to entertain serious doubts about the academic legitimacy of Winter Study.

Because of substantial student support for retaining the Winter Study Period and in order to provide the opportunity for those

Dissatisfaction with Winter Study continued to mount, partly because it took too great a proportion of the regular academic calendar. In spite of the wishes of many students, the faculty refused to continue the Winter Study Period beyond 1974. In the spring of that year seven students prepared a proposal to reinstitute Winter Study. The spokesman for the group came to the conclusion that the entire faculty, the administration, and the student body itself, were to blame for the demise of the program. They recommended that it be reinstated, after calling attention to nine different ways in which it might be improved. They deplored the increasing tendency over the years to offer conventional courses rather than "innovative experiences," and felt that the most valuable opportunities offered had been internships and "career apprenticeships." They recommended requiring three Winter Study periods instead of two.

William H. Wells, Assistant to the President for Governmental and Community Affairs, who assisted the Winter Study Committee in arranging placements for students interested in career apprenticeships, presented a thoughtful defense of Winter Study. He argued that the increasingly academic content of the program, its "enormous popularity" among students, and the enthusiastic reaction by individuals with whom students worked off campus, were all points in favor of its retention. Winter Study was, to him, "a program which enabled Tufts both to meet the varying needs of students and retain its academic curriculum and quality." In spite of some acknowledged weaknesses, Wells considered it to be a happy solution to the problem of how to broaden and enrich the students' academic experience and provide the flexibility which they demanded. But neither Wells' defense nor the student proposal prevailed, and an interesting educational experiment at Tufts became a matter of history.