Some professors say that they find that the written comments on the back of the form are most useful for improving their courses.

"I take very seriously what's written on the back, positive and negative," says William M. Todd III, incoming dean of undergraduate education.

Owen J. Gingerich, professor of astronomy and the history of science, says he's used the student reports as well.

"Certainly in my own courses we've made significant changes because of the questionnaires," he says.

Faculty and administrators say that the CUE numbers are often used to help decide which teaching fellows to hire and which junior Faculty to promote.

"Evaluations have to be a part of every promotion case," Todd says.

But most professors agree that they cannot rely exclusively on the CUE numbers to evaluate teaching ability.

Todd says that he supplements the CUE evaluations for TFs with visits to the class sections.

"I balance my own evaluation with that of the students," he says, adding that students cannot always perceive the qualities that make a good teacher.

Some instructors take the view that the statistics provide much more valuable information than written comments do.

"I felt that the numbers were useful, and the narrative was useless at best, and usually mostly confusing," says James E. Davis, head tutor of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology.

"They should try to write meaningful prose or let the numbers speak for themselves," he adds.

Professors who prefer the written comments in the Guide acknowledge that it can be difficult to interpret.

"I'm not thrilled with the presentation of the results in the CUE. In the past three or four years it's become incredibly mechanical," says Professor of History Mark A. Kishlansky.

Recently, worries that students misinterpret the statistics presented in the Guide has led the editors to include a translation of "CUEspeak" and further clarification of what the numbers mean in their introduction.