Hiring the Blind to Lead the Blind

Undergraduates and their parents have the right to be furious with Harvard College. We pay a staggering sum for what is supposed to be the best college education in the country. But the shortage of faculty and graduate-student section leaders has led the administration to look the other way on the practice of peer undergraduate teaching and grading--routinely in more quantitative disciplines such as computer science and sometimes even in the Core. How can we be getting our money's worth if our classmates are allowed to teach us and evaluate our work?

There is a reasonable argument for why stellar undergraduates should be allowed to grade objective work in elementary math or science courses, where a single answer key exists: they can probably do the job as well as any graduate student, and there is a shortage of available graduate students. Less defensible is the argument that these undergraduates should be allowed to teach courses in sections to other undergraduates; nevertheless, this practice is widely accepted in the computer science department, and it occurs in the natural sciences.

As for the humanities, the social sciences and the Core, no argument is strong enough to justify undergraduates either grading essays or teaching sections. The Educational Policy Committee (EPC) recognizes this in a passage on page 22 of the 1998-1999 Information for Faculty Offering Instruction in the Arts and Sciences:

"[W]hile course assistants may participate in the evaluation of students, they should not be involved in the subjective evaluation of essays and examinations" (emphasis added).

The directive is clear, but it carries no legislative authority because the EPC is an advisory group to the Dean of the Faculty, not a policy-making body. As a result, there have been several violations of this unofficial policy. But the administration appears to be unaware of the problem.

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles assured me in an e-mail that "the policies of this Faculty" concerning the evaluation of subjective work by undergraduates "are unambiguous." The language of the EPC's statement allows for interpretation, but this is not supposed to be one of those qualified statements the administration is so found of making, which usually begin with "ordinarily." Indeed, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education Jeffrey Wolcowitz asserted in an e-mail that his office, which oversees spending for section teaching, "read[s] the `should not' with the force of wrong and inappropriate."

Susan Lewis, the director of the Core program (which oversees its own section hiring), stated in an e-mail, "Core courses don't hire undergraduates to teach sections. If they can't staff with teaching fellows or teaching assistants, they lottery the course." It should follow from these assertions that undergraduates do not grade the subjective work of their peers at the College. Unfortunately, the facts prove otherwise.

Last spring, Professor Stephen Jay Gould hired two seniors to lead sections in his overcrowded Core course, Science B-16, "The History of Life." Both of these students were responsible for leading discussions, grading homework, grading the 15 page term papers and participating in the collective grading of the final exam.

Referring to the situation in Gould's course, Wolcowitz writes, "[M]y sense is that, if the facts are as you state in the specific case you cite, it is the exception rather than the rule in the role that course assistants play." This parsed statement only underscores the fact that there is no rule at Harvard College regarding peer undergraduate grading. Despite what the EPC may have intended, section hiring is essentially left to the discretion of course heads.

But the deans cannot have it both ways. Peer undergraduate grading cannot be viewed as "wrong and inappropriate" on the one hand and be allowed to occur on the other.

Gould's course last semester is the most glaring exception to the EPC recommendation, but in several other courses the use of undergraduates to help teach and grade has become an accepted practice. In General Education 156, "The Information Age, Its Main Currents and Their Intermingling," for example, Professor Anthony G. Oettinger employs an undergraduate to assist him and to provide feedback on response papers.

Professor David Layzer often used undergraduates as co-section leaders in his Core courses, Science A-18, "Space, Time, and Motion," and Science A-22, "Chance, Necessity and Order," which were taught entirely in section (both courses are no longer offered). Layzer wrote me in an e-mail that he finds this practice to be beneficial to all of the students involved, particularly to the undergraduate section leader who is able to gain extraordinary experience.

Professor Gould offered this reply to my questions concerning his course: "I had two undergraduate teaching fellows because that's what I had. If I could have had all graduate students, I would have." He concluded our conversation curtly: "Look, whatever the rules of the University are, I'm willing to follow them." I take this to mean two things: first, in hiring two seniors last semester as teaching fellows he was in compliance with the existing rules; second, if the rules were to change, he would follow them.

Despite the possible benefits from a situation such as Layzer's, where undergraduates share responsibility with a more experienced instructor, I strongly believe it is inappropriate for undergraduates ever to teach and grade their peers. There are exceptional students at this college who will, I have no doubt, become effective teachers in the future. But for the moment we are all members of the same community. We have neither the qualifications, nor the depth of understanding in our field, nor the disinterestedness, nor the authority to formally judge or instruct one another. One example of the problems with this practice comes from a senior who took Gould's course last spring. Wishing to remain anonymous, he told me this about his section leader: "When she handed me back my paper, she said, `I don't know if this is an A or a C, so I gave you a B.'"

The issue here is not just whether the final grade given is ultimately the right one. Grading is by its nature imperfect. Something much more important is at stake: the quality of undergraduate education at Harvard. William Mills Todd III, the dean of undergraduate education, agrees. When I asked him whether he thought the subjective grading of undergraduates by other undergraduates was ever acceptable at the College, he responded, "Absolutely not." He was equally reassuring when I asked him if he would support a Faculty Council resolution prohibiting this practice from happening in the future. "Yes, absolutely," he wrote.

From this senior's perspective, the undergraduate experience will continue to be compromised as long as the practice of peer grading of subjective work continues. It Is time for the Faculty to legislate on this issue. Our education has suffered long enough.

Daniel M. Suleiman '99 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.