To the Editor:
Contrary to the opinions expressed toward the end of your article "D-Plan made coeducation possible in 1972" (May 6, 1995), many of us in the physical sciences find the D-Plan is not working at all well. We discuss it regularly, and then decide for some reason that nothing can be done.
The big problem is that the three-course-per-student load, combined with the distribution requirements for the AB degree, has the effect of forcing into nine-week quarters material that in other colleges and universities is spread over a semester and often over two semesters. It is not altogether a question of the number of classroom contact hours, because sequential mathematically based development of many scientific subjects requires more time to mull over and absorb than nine weeks allow. (We have heard similar complaints from colleagues in the humanities and social sciences.) The result is less time devoted to the major core curriculum, which places students planning to go on to graduate school at a serious disadvantage.
Year-round operation could be preserved by decreasing the weekly contact hours per course from four to three, and then teaching four-thirds as many courses. The standard course load would then be four. There would naturally be a corresponding increase in the number of courses required for graduation, thereby preserving the substance of a liberal arts education. Courses that are thought to deserve two semesters elsewhere could at least get two quarters of attention here in that way.
