Right On “Q”

For Harvard students, finals period brings more than just a host of papers and semester examinations; it also brings semi-annual desperate pleas from the administration to evaluate their courses for the recently renamed “Q” (formerly CUE) guide. The system for evaluating has long been flawed, and student participation has suffered as a result. Today, a motion will go before the Faculty to enact substantive and extensive reform of the course evaluation process. We strongly encourage the Faculty to attend the meeting and usher Harvard’s course evaluation system into a new and more effective era.

The chief fault of the current course evaluation system is that professors are not required to open their courses up to evaluation by students. The opportunity for students to evaluate their professors and Teaching Fellows (TFs) is an unusual role-reversal that allows for reflection and pedagogical improvement, not simply for what Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 notoriously called “the rule of the less wise over the more wise, of students over professors.” Ratings also play a role in the tenure process and help improve the benchmark for a Harvard education.

If today’s motion is passed, all courses with five or more enrolled students will be required to participate in course evaluations (smaller classes being exempted because of the compromise of anonymity). This recommendation follows the January 2007 report of the Task Force on Teaching and Career Development, which stated, “allowing even a minority of faculty course heads to ‘opt out’ undercuts the validity of the course evaluation system for the majority.” It would also bring the guidelines for professors in line with those for TFs, who are currently required to be evaluated even if professors decline a full evaluation for their courses, thereby overturning the Faculty’s hypocritical and pompous position that teaching evaluations are important until one gets a Ph.D.—but unnecessary after.

This mandate will demand reciprocation. The motion includes the expectation that students participate in course evaluations. Although complete enforcement is impossible, the motion does provide an incentive. If it is passed, students who submit their course evaluations will have their grades made available to them early. It is the responsibility of conscientious students to complete their Q evaluations, and “the explicit expression of that expectation has proved effective at other institutions,” according to the agenda for today’s Faculty meeting. This carrot for filling out evaluations is both fair and necessary given the low response rates for evaluations.

Most students who take advantage of the Q Guide realize that their own participation is as important as the participation of all of their peers. Many fail to participate in evaluations, however, because of the unfortunate timing. Students currently have only until their final exam to complete that course’s evaluation. This restriction—which is meant to prevent students’ exam experience from affectig their evaluation—is profoundly misguided. Not only should the complete reflection on a course include their impression of the final exam, but students also should not be expected to fill out their Q forms when they could be studying for their tests and writing papers. The proposed reforms will extend the course evaluation period beyond the examination period, concluding when grades are released. This too will boost participation in addition to providing a more complete picture of a course to both faculty members and fellow students.

In short, the Standing Committee on Pedagogical Improvement has outlined a progressive and effective package of reforms. Similar reforms were tabled last May to be more fully thought out. Now that a more comprehensive plan has been produced, the Faculty no longer has any good reason to further postpone action.

“A strong tradition of faculty self-governance in the area of teaching” and Mansfield’s grumblings about “less wise” students are just a sampling of the poor excuses that faculty members have given for avoiding real reform in the way courses are evaluated at Harvard. Today, members of the Faculty have the opportunity to end their hypocrisy and submit themselves to the same type of rigorous evaluation they frequently demand of their students. We hope they do not balk once again.