For students who wish to cut corners with their studies, the Undergraduate Council’s recent vote to allocate funds for the creation of an online study guide library seems almost too good to be true. Student-generated study guides—succinct little packages of reading summaries, source analyses, or useful formulas—often allow students to quickly scan through the basics of a semester-long course without ever having to attend a lecture or crack open a book.

While a great number of Harvard undergrads only use study guides as a study supplement rather than as a substitute for attending class and completing assigned readings, the overwhelming clamor for the creation of a study guide library—a method for all students to have easy access to study guides—is an unfortunate reflection of many students’ desire to avoid going to class and doing their homework.

Yet, as the existence and circulation of study guides is simply a fact of college life and in light of the demand for such a collection, the UC was correct in going forward with the creation of a study guide library. After all, the construction of an online study guide library was a central plank in the campaign platform of current UC President and Vice President Johnny F. Bowman ’11 and Eric N. Hysen ’11. It is all too easy for student representatives to let proposed initiatives slide once in office, and Bowman and Hysen’s leadership in this push for a library reflects their commitment to campaign promises.

Regardless of whether study guides are good or bad, the creation of a study guide library open to all students of the College will at least allow for equal access to these guides. Many social organizations and sports teams already circulate study guides over internal lists, giving members an advantage over those without such connections. Moreover, some TFs provide additional study materials to their students, such as lecture outlines and explanations of readings, which give some students within a class an edge over their peers in other sections. An open study guide library presumably would level the playing field and counter some of these inequities.

That being said, students should be aware that the official nature of the proposed study guide library provides no assurance that the study guides posted on it should be taken at their word. These guides are created by students and are subject to individual student interpretation (or misinterpretation) of course content. Since there is no oversight from course instructors or TFs, some material on study guides might be just plain wrong. Any student who decides to use a study guide as a replacement for attending class or doing readings does so at his or her own risk.

Those in charge of designing and overseeing the online study guide library must be careful as well. The public and official status of the project introduces a plethora of potentially sticky issues related to intellectual property. Students who create study guides often lose control over what happens to their work once it is shared with others and may not want it posted online. Some study guides that get circulated around campus were created several years ago, and their authors might have concerns about their ideas becoming public. Moreover, because study guides are not official academic documents, they may be cobbled together in a variety of questionable ways. Some might contain whole passages copied verbatim from professor’s copyrighted lectures. Others may lift information directly from Internet sources without properly acknowledging the true author. The individuals responsible for the study guide library must be able to navigate these murky waters if the library is to succeed.

Given the complex ethical and legal issues at play, the UC made the responsible decision to pass legislation that explicitly states that the implementation of the library is contingent on the approval of College deans and another vote by the UC—it would not have been wise to go forward with a project like this without the administration’s support. By putting themselves at the mercy of the deans’ approval, the UC is doing a good job of preempting the type of student government-University Hall clashing that has caused problems for the UC in the past and stymied some of its previous plans.

In the end, we hope that the administration does come through and approve the Bowman-Hysen plan for a study guide library. They have clearly put a lot of thought into the project, and the student body, in voting the ticket into office, has at least implicitly expressed its approval for the initiative. Though the pervasive use of study guides is troubling in its implications, if a study guide library is what students want, then the College should at least be open to their wishes.