In recent weeks, the issue of course evaluations has bubbled to the surface of hot campus topics, and with good reason. Despite the admirable efforts of students and administrators, the perennially abysmal rate at which professors make their information available (currently around 10 percent) has finally generated enough frustration within the student body to make the situation untenable.
In response to this added pressure, Lee Baker, chair of the executive committee of the Arts and Sciences Council, has proposed a policy which would force instructors to actively select a status for making their information available. This semester, when faculty members receive their evaluation forms, they will essentially have to say "yes" or "no" to allowing their evaluation data to be posted. Currently, more than 80 percent of professors do not choose either option, and by default their evaluations are not posted.
The new proposal will provide a proxy on exactly what percentage of professors are opposed to having their data posted and how many are "opted out" simply because they lack the motivation to opt in. Since Duke Student Government's Academic Affairs committee and many members of the administration believe most faculty opt outs are attributable to professor inaction, this policy should significantly increase the amount of information accessible to students.
Of course, this increase is contingent upon faculty feeling compelled to make their evaluation data available. So, it seems appropriate to remind faculty why access to this information is essential.
Perhaps it's best to start with what the issue isn't. The current debate is not a matter of: "We're spending $40,000 a year to go here, so you darn well better cough up the data." We are not seeking to condone the commodification of the undergraduate experience by encouraging students to "shop" for classes with light workloads or generous grading scales.
No, this is about helping students make thoughtful decisions about their all-too-brief four years on this campus. Providing information to students will help us make the most of our 34 credits, allowing us to take a range of classes that are most useful and interesting.
Faculty, too, should benefit from having students who feel confident about their choice of courses. Students who make informed decisions and take classes in which they are genuinely interested will be more engaged, enrich the intellectual climate of the classroom and produce higher quality work.
The issue isn't about forcing professors to share their data or threatening them with desperate measures or retaliation. Rather, the goal is to create a climate in which both students and faculty are eager to use the evaluation process as an opportunity to share the most complete and accurate information possible.
There are, no doubt, some undergraduates who do not take the evaluation process as seriously as any of us would hope. However, with a 94 percent response rate on in-class evaluations, and the vast majority of students providing honest, thoughtful data and comments, it certainly seems as if we are upholding our end of the bargain. I don't think it's asking too much to expect faculty to join us in this culture of openness.
All that's needed now from faculty is a commitment on the same level to which we, as students, have pledged ourselves.
Despite this reasonable call, some faculty will claim that student evaluations are based on the ease of a class and that they will have to adopt grade inflation or reduce workload to increase their rankings. Check out Thomas Nechyba's instructor ranking from Econ 55, a class in which mean exam scores routinely hover in the low to mid sixties (4.72 out of 5 for Fall 2004). Or Margaret Hodel, who teaches Math 41, universally regarded as one of the most difficult and demanding introductory courses on campus (4.78).
These instructors don't receive high marks because they or their course material is easy. They get them because they're good teachers.
Students are mature enough to evaluate professors' abilities and enthusiasm independent of their grading policies.
ECASC's proposal is a good first step in eliminating professor apathy that has plagued the current system of evaluations. However, continued improvements will require buy-in from faculty. Here is the chance for instructors to demonstrate their commitment to helping improve the undergraduate experience here at Duke. We, the students, have upheld our end of the bargain for too long, patiently waiting for reciprocity.
Now, it's their turn.
Joe Fore is a Trinity junior. He is vice president of academic affairs for DSG.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.