The Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) this year has instituted a number of changes in its annual course guide in an attempt to widen the scope and increase the information in the book, editors said last week.

Courses will be reviewed regardless of enrollment for the first time. In past years, only classes with more than 14 students were reviewed, said Nicole M. J. David '89, editor-in-chief of the CUE Guide.

The guide will contain only statistical evaluations of the smaller classes, however, because written evaluations would be too costly, said Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education Steven E. Ozment, who chairs the CUE.

In addition, the CUE's new computer-read evaluation forms ask students to use a one-to-five rating scale, instead of the one-to-seven scale used in prior years.

Although statisticians say the new scale willaccurately represent student opinion, somestudents have complained that the new ratingsystem does not allow for enough variation, Davidsaid. She added the decision to switch scales wasmade last year.

The CUE originally narrowed the scale so thateach number would stand for a descriptivemodifier, David said. When members of thecommittee could not agree on which words to use,the idea was dropped. "We were left with thesmaller scale and no reason for it," David said.

CUE editors do not, however, plan to switchback to the old scale, David said. "The morechanges you make, the more confusing it is," shesaid.

Professors contacted said they do not generallyread the statistical summaries of the CUEevaluation anyway. "I find the written formshelpful," said Professor of English MarjorieGarber. "But the statistics just aren't thatinformative."

Almost all faculty members contacted said theytake students' written responses seriously indesigning their classes. "I try to alter my courseabout 10 percent each year as a result of what theCUE says," said Dillon Professor of InternationalAffairs Joseph S. Nye.

But not every professor uses the CUE as advice.Some say they feel the CUE is not objective enoughor it is too scientifically presented.

According to students in his class, AssistantProfessor of History Pericles B. Georges said lastweek that the CUE Guide was strictly censored anddid not accurately reflect students' opinions.Georges refused to comment to The Crimson on hisstatements.

However David said that the guide is notcensured. The faculty committee does not see thebook until after it has returned from thepublisher, she said.

Nevertheless, students who write for the guidehave said they felt pressured to restrain theirlanguage ever since the faculty accidentally gothold of CUE Guide drafts two years ago andattempted to change descriptions calling someprofessors "arrogant" and "condescending."

"There is the onus that the guide is funded bythe faculty. That doesn't skew what we put in, butsometimes we have to be careful about what wesay," David said.

"Last year's guide was a little bit cautious,"said Richard S. Eisert '88, an editor of the book."I don't think the CUE Guide should be so strictwith itself that it can't be honest."

Others, including David and Garber, said theybelieve the CUE Guide can never represent theviews of all students perfectly. "Since the textis in the nature of a paragraph, it would be hardfor it to speak with the voice of 400 people,"said Garber, who teaches Literature and Arts A40b,"Shakespeare."

In an effort to diversify the perspective ofthe guide's write-ups, the CUE has consideredincluding quotes from student questionnaires inthe book. "But then you have the problem ofanswering why you put in that one quote," Davidsaid. "Once you get into minorities you might aswell xerox the forms and print that."

And there are some, of course, who do not thinkstudents' view are relevant. "I think the CUEaccurately represents what students say," saidProfessor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield."Students are honest. But their judgment isdubious.