With respect to your editorial of Jan. 16, on course evaluations, I support your desire to have an open evaluation process for courses. I do, though, think that you are confused about the argument in favor of this procedure.
You state that "As students we are consumers, paying customers who have a right to learn more about a 'product' before purchase." As an economist, and an educator, permit me to say that this is nonsense.
"You" did not purchase your admission to this institution. We (the faculty and administration) evaluated you and finally admitted you, which is to say we permit you (as we did not permit many others) to study here for a few years before you go away somewhere else. Duke's contract with you (read the Trinity College Bulletin) says that you have many obligations to fulfill in order that we not tell you to go away before you receive a degree.
Your tuition and fees cover between one half and two-thirds of the cost Duke incurs to educate you (collectively), and so Duke appeals to its endowment, and its friends, to subsidize your studies here. Thus to say that you "purchase" my course can only mean that you "spend" your time in it. You neither have, nor do not have, "rights" (property?, civil?, human?) with respect to it. Rather you have obligations to the College as set out in the Trinity College Bulletin, and I have obligations to the University as set out in the Faculty Handbook.
As an economist, I am pleased when a student successfully employs a market metaphor. But as an educator, I would be remiss in not calling a student's attention to a misuse of a market metaphor.
E. Roy Weintraub
Professor,
Department of Economics
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.