DURING the last two weeks, many students have expressed anger over the way in which some mainstay Core classes have been lotteried. As various courses were limited, calls of injustice grew louder.

Much of this concern, however, seems misdirected since course lotteries are nothing new. They have long been an inescapable nuisance and will remain so as long as students share common preferences. The real issue that must be faced is what caused the lotteries to prompt such confusion and outcry this term in particular.

To answer this, one must locate the factor that distinguishes the 1988-89 academic year from all of its predecessors. The answer is obvious--the drastically-shortened shopping period. Implemented this year at the behest of the College faculty, this innovation has only served to confuse and handicap students seeking to construct a decent schedule for themselves.

For example, in previous years, when lotteried out of a course, students had several days to locate a suitable replacement, as opposed to the several hours given to the sophomores booted out of Rembrandt." Granted, the University waived late fees on study cards, but this policy has not been adequately publicized outside of Holyoke Center. Thus, fear of financial penalties led to even more frustration and panicked course searching last Wednesday.

FOR students, the shortened shopping period is a logistical nightmare. Last term, undergraduates officially had eight days to test the waters, but classes actually met on only five of those, with many not convening on Friday as well. In addition, those lectures that were held often ran short on space and syllabi, making it impossible for students to receive an adequate impression of the course. Toss in a major Jewish holiday on Wednesday, and the result was pure chaos.

This disarray led to the filing of a record number of course change petitions, as students attempted to correct problems in their schedules with Drop/Add forms. Ironically, one of the aims of the new plan was to enable faculty to get an idea of the composition of their classes sooner; the vast number of last-minute changes shows the falsity of this reasoning.

In a similar manner, earlier sectioning, another goal of the abbreviated shopping period, was rendered impossible by the presence of students who continued to switch in and out after the nominal deadline, thus sabotaging any hope for an earlier start.

ANOTHER aim of the shortened shopping period was to reduce the bureaucratic backlog at the registrar's office by getting all the paperwork done sooner so professors could present accurate class lists more quickly. The avalanche of change requests this year, however, demonstrated that this aspect of the plan an obvious failure.

This term, once again, there simply was not enough time for undergraduates to sift through the possible offerings. Although shopping period did include six class days with no major religious holidays, both students and professors seemed somewhat stymied by the timing. There were noticeable problems, as Tuesday/Thursday classes met only twice, some seminars did not meet until the day before study cards were due, and unequal demand led to the poorly-run lotteries.

These lotteries became the focus of student discontent, but they are merely a symptom of the problem. While there is no feasible way to eliminate lotteries, a longer shopping period would clearly reduce their disruptive power.

Re-extending the shopping period to two weeks would also eliminate much of the confusion faculty and students were forced to undergo during the last few weeks. The abbreviation was intended as an experiment, and it is already clear that it has failed to solve the faculty's problems while actually creating new difficulties for the student body.

The University should consider the confusion and dissatisfaction that has resulted from the abbreviated shopping period and promptly resume the scheduling structure of the last several years.