The House Masters last week approved a plan for student evaluations of resident tutors following a College-wide push—with the notable exceptions of the Leverett and Quincy Masters.

The online evaluations will take place throughout reading period and follow a trial survey last spring by Cabot, Eliot, Kirkland and Pforzheimer Houses.

Leverett House Master Howard Georgi’s rejection of the plan is not unexpected—he has voiced his concerns since last spring over whether an anonymous survey could accurately gauge tutors’ performance.

“One of the things that I worry about in a formal tutor evaluation system is that it might undermine this delicate feeling of tutor community,” Georgi wrote in an e-mail to the House. “Our present system of tutor evaluation is very much informal, and certainly not something that can be captured in a sequence of integers from 1 to 5.”

Quincy House Master Robert P. Kirshner ’70 said he chose not to implement the survey because Quincy House can maintain its high tutor quality through having tutors evaluate themselves and allowing students to participate in the tutor selection process.

Kirshner wrote in an e-mail to the House last night that he would organize open discussions at the start of the tutor selection season “to ensure that the selection committee, the Senior Tutor and the Masters have an opportunity to discuss what Quincy will need from its tutors in the years ahead.”

Some tutors have also expressed reservation about the survey, saying it would create an adversarial relationship between them and their students. The Leverett tutors are “pretty universally against” the student evaluations and are even “a bit insulted by the idea,” Georgi’s letter to the House said.

But proponents of the survey—including students and other Masters—say the evaluation will solicit a wide range of student opinion that can be used to improve student life.

Associate Dean of the College Thomas A. Dingman ’67 said the aggregate data collected by the survey will better reveal trends in student opinion than individual criticisms.

In addition, receiving the information in January will give Masters the chance to talk to tutors who are underperforming, he said. The survey conducted last year came after hiring decisions had already been made.

Dingman added that the results will not bind the Masters in making decisions about reappointment.

Several House Masters said the survey can also inform them about particular strengths of their tutors. For instance, according to Cabot House Master James H. Ware, the House’s students enjoyed study breaks hosted by the tutors.

He added that improvements made to this year’s survey could increase its usefulness. In addition to being streamlined, the new survey will be made more professional by the same University Hall officials who create the survey that all graduating seniors complete.

Survey administrators also said they are considering prizes for participation to increase turnout this year.

Last year’s survey had mixed results, with low participation rates in Eliot’s survey and little valuable information gained in Pforzheimer’s, according to the Masters. Eliot House had a 35 percent participation rate, said Eliot House Master Lino Pertile, who was instrumental in forming the plan.

While Georgi’s efforts to lobby other Houses to drop the plan failed, he said that perhaps Leverett presented a unique situation.

“I tried to hard to convince other masters that this was the wrong approach,” Georgi wrote in the e-mail. “Each of the Houses is different, and it may be that in other Houses it will do more good than harm.”

But other House Masters said they are aware of the concern and that the survey is “still an experiment.”

“We’re trying to assess whether it really is helpful,” Ware said. “I’m telling my tutors I’m going to use the information cautiously. I’m not interested in hurting the morale of the House.”

—Staff writer Emily M. Anderson can be reached at emanders@fas.harvard.edu.