Moreover, the researchers gave the impression that they-were
credible and unbiased because they were the University's ow n
engineering students. They were about to graduate and would not
therefore undergo the trimestral academic calendar themselves, if it were
to be adopted at the University. Because of this, they were not expected
to either unreasonably endorse or not the trimester as a solution for any
other reason than its ow n merits.
The Graduate school of business served as a useful 'experimental
group' for the trimestral system, since these students were mostly mature
persons wh o worked in commercial and industrial firms during the
daytime and pursued graduate studies in the evening. However, having
to work the whole year round, they did not enjoy semestral nor summe r
vacations as did the undergraduates, and thus the conditions in the
Graduate School of Business could not be equated with those in the
undergraduate colleges when it came to the procedures and effects of the
trimestral calendar. Nevertheless, as a laboratory, it served its purpose in
confirming certain aspects, e.g. financial management and detailed
procedures of enrolment.
While the above studies dealt with the details of the trimester
system they did not discuss ho w the system, as an innovation, would be
accepted by the University's academic community. This concern had to
be left to the initiators of change, represented by the administrators of the
University, during the formal investigative stage.
One major advantage was continuity of leadership insofar as the
trimestral project was concerned. Even though the original proponent of
the trimester scheme was promoted to become the University President
and could not, therefore, continue to be concerned with the trimestral
details, his successor, the new Vice-President for Academic Affairs,
pursued the project with equal zeal, understanding and dedication.
History later credited him with successfully leading the University in
accepting and implementing the trimester scheme. In addition, the same
set of administrators - the Executive Officer, the academic deans and the
Dean of Student Affairs -- were in post from the beginning of the
conceptualization of the change to its final stages of implementation and
institutionalization.
The Vice-President for academic affairs personally handled the first
set of serious problems that came up. The most serious initial problems
were the disbelief and defiance of some key personalities on campus,