At the meeting, Himel introduced a third proposal that would create a mandated, College-wide midterm course evaluation system that would allow students to provide feedback to their professors mid-semester.

Himel said he thought the end-of-the-term Q Guide evaluation and the proposed mid-term evaluation system would both be “important data points” in assessing a course.

Currently, the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning informally facilitates mid-semester evaluations that some professors and teaching fellows distribute to their students.

But Lewis slammed the proposal, saying he thought a peer evaluation system among faculty would provide more useful feedback than a second student evaluation.

“The Q Guide, as presently formulated,...serves the principal purpose of making students think we care what they think,” Lewis said, adding that “we know, scientifically, that the Q Guide numbers correlate strongly with what students think of professors after watching them lecture for thirty seconds with no sound.”

“I doubt that has much to do with good teaching or quality learning,” he added.

The CUE, an exploratory group, only discusses potential undergraduate education policies. If a mid-term course evaluation were to be adopted, the decision would be made by a different committee.

—Staff writer Rebecca D. Robbins can be reached at rrobbins@college.harvard.edu.