Advertisement

Undergraduate Use of Consumer Course Guides Expands

Administrators, Professors Worry That Statistics May Be Misunderstood; Attention Paid to Student Input Varies Widely

"Then [Bok]...asked [the Confi editors], 'What are you doing? What you think is a wonderful joke is a deadly thing for people who are nontenured--it could seriously jeopardize their career,'" Gingerich says.

Similar previous conflicts had prompted Bok and the CUE to start an objective, statistical review of Harvard courses in 1972.

In its earliest days, the CUE Guide represented a collaborative effort by students and professors, but by 1977 its editors believed that its editorial independence was crucial.

"What is and what is not printed in these pages is determined solely by the student editors and not by an administrative agency," the editor-in-chief wrote in a preface to the 1977 edition.

But in the summer of 1985, directly before the CUE Guide went to press, Dean K. Whitla, director of the office of instructional research and evaluation, ordered editors to delete or temper criticisms of several instructors.

Advertisement

Editor-in-chief Barbara S. Okun '86 told The Crimson that Whitla ordered the editors to eliminate the words "condescending" and "arrogant" from descriptions of professors.

Whitla, who had consulted an advance copy of the Guide in order to predict course enrollment, threatened to cancel the book and fire the staff if the criticisms were not omitted, Okun said.

Okun made the changes, but protested administration "censorship" in a preface to the book inserted without approval.

Now, the CUE Guide is entirely written and edited by undergraduates, but the policy guidelines, including acceptable language and the format of the questionaire, are set by the CUE.

Most recently, the Guide's Faculty supervisors decided to review the questionnaire of the CUE because it had been met with several criticisms.

According to Dean of Undergraduate Education David Pilbeam, the CUE noticed this year that some of the questions on the form could be interpreted in a number of ways.

"For the first time in living memory, it became clear that many questions were ambiguous," Pilbeam says.

Pilbeam adds that although the Committee will not change the form this year, it will be testing some new questions in a focus group.

Advertisement