Trying to Make the Grade

The editors of the CUE Guide may be able to please some of their readers some of the time, but recently, it seems, at task hasn't been easy. First they were accused of being overly subjective. More recently, they've been criticized for carrying objectivity to a new extreme.

Two weeks ago the CUE editor appeared before the students-faculty Committee on Undergraduate Education to announce several changes in the book's style and format. The changes came in response to a groundswell of criticism from professors since the beginning of the academic year.

Last year, the Faculty directed the Guide to show professors their students' original course evaluation forms. That directive exposed the Guide to unprecedented criticism--it enabled professors to cite discrepancies between individual student comments and CUE Guide writeups, says Steven E. Ozment, CUE chairman and associate dean for undergraduate education.

Armed with the original data, about a dozen professors and several departments this fall sent letters to Ozment complaining that the Guide's course reviews were too subjective.

In an effort to allay their critics' concerns, the Guide's editors recently agreed for next year's book to preface articles with professors' statements of their course objectives. They also agreed to condense their commentaries and temper their remarks.

After listening to the editors' presentation, the committee launched into a discussion of the Guide's strengths and weaknesses.

A different sentiment emerged from that reflected in the early critical letters. Committee members criticized the Guide for bending over backwards in an apparent effort to cover all bases.

The writeups are too watered down, some said, They're noncommittal and they vacillate, others commented.

"They're always, 'On the one hand . . . on the other," said Professor of Anthropology Sally F. Moore. "That may mean something to you, but it doesn't mean anything to me."

They send to be, "wishy-washy," added Brian C. Offutt '87.

"I get the impression that most of the courses reviewed in the CUE Guide get pretty good writeups, said Orment, questioning the Guide's ability to be discriminating.

The committee members were reacting to CUE Guide descriptions like the current," edition's review of Anthropology 139, "Fantastic Archacology."

"Some students say Professor Williams delivers well-organized. Well prepared lectures; others say he lectures in "confusing, rambling style," it reads.

CUE Editor Barbara S. Okun '86 acknowledged the committee's critique, explaining that any "wishy-washyness" result, from the Guide's desire to be fair and even-handed.

Besides, she added, "We don't want to come out and say some courses are terrible. No matter how bad the guy is, we always try to say something nice."