An Open Memo

To: Undergrads, Members of the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE), Dean for Undergraduate Education Lawrence Buell

From: DM

Nietzsche said that there is no such thing as fact, only interpretation. No other dictum is as important as this one to keep in mind as we approach the end of our beloved Shopping Period. With study card day looming over us, now is the time to consider our most important reference material--not the Confi--The Crimson's own recycled yet still funny jokes about the accents and titles of our professors--but rather the CUE Guide.

As usual, this year's black book of old reading lists and scientific surveys is supposed to "provide undergraduates with reliable information to be used during the process of choosing courses." No one, I am sure, can reasonably deny the utility of the good efforts of the folks at the CUE Guide. It is from this respectful perspective that I proffer a few suggestion at this timely moment.

The initial problem is basic. As I scope potential courses for the new semester, the first thing that strikes me when looking at the CUE Guide is the absence of the survey for the course I am thinking about taking. No doubt, everyone who takes a seminar or tutorial experiences this same problem.

Sophomore tutorials are sparsely reviewed. This year's volume contains no survey results for Government, Economics, or English, choose from just some of our largest concentrations. Since nearly all concentrations have tutorials, information about the reading lists and the various teaching fellows and professors would be invaluable.

Though the CUE Guide actually publishes the survey results of some seminars, my criticism extends well beyond the tutorial system. Too often it seems to me, departmental courses have no review, or if they have the survey tables, they have no written write-up.

To be sure, this is not always the fault of the CUE Guide staff. Indeed, the introduction to the book clearly states that the heads of each undergraduate course are offered the opportunity to be evaluated: "Instructors are not required to participate in the evaluation process; if a course does not appear in the Guide we were most likely unable to obtain the instructor's permission." What is up with that? Teaching undergraduates at the world's best university is a privilege, one that should be conditional upon the assent given to evaluation.

Perhaps some professors worry about academic integrity or pedagogical freedom, and therefore do not participate. Granted, these are not unimportant issues, but students retain a legitimate claim to the opinions of their fellows before enrolling in a course. This does not threaten academic freedom. It responds to it.

Last year, Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield '53 told me that student evaluations of professors lead to a situation in which those who know are judged by those who do not. Considering that Professor Mansfield himself won the Levenson Teaching Award last year, I wonder it he would reconsider his view of the know-nothing demos.

To restore the spirit of liberalism to matters of education, I will make an analogy. Just as the government should structure markets to ensure competition, regulate safety features and provide information to consumers, the University must ensure that its departments and professors are responsible to their students by providing adequate information about the courses being offered.

But are the instructors and the University the only guilty parties? Perhaps not. The editors of the CUE Guide absolve themselves pre-emptively for not choosing which courses are evaluated and printed. In boldface type they write, "This decision is entirely in the hands of the instructors." But this seems impossible. Indeed, they state further that for courses with enrollments of less than 15 students, there are no writeups, just survey tables. Is it possible that in such courses, students unanimously elected not to fill out the second page of the CUE Guide sheets?

Clearly, some choices on the part of the CUE Guide staff appear to exist. One might similarly ask, "Where on earth do all those Expos evaluations go?.

Essentially my criticism is twofold: first, the publishers of the CUE Guide are not providing us with all of the information they receive; and second, they are not getting enough information because some professors and departments refuse to be evaluated.

A good reform would include three steps. First, the University should mandate that all classes and courses be evaluated. Second, if neccessary, more money should be allotted for the CUE Guide so that a more comprehensive edition can be published Finally, if it proves financially unfeasible to publish reports for classes of 15 or less students the records and questionnaires should be made accessible to students who wish to see them.

The University has done a good job over the years of making undergraduate education a higher priority. Indeed, on occasion they even find it useful to ask our opinions on these issues. Consider this an answer, Dean Buell, to a question that needed asking.