The popularity of The Primary Source course evaluation guide should signal to Tufts that its students are concerned with the quality of their education and deserve all available tools so that they might match the best professors with the most interesting courses. And at an institution that prides itself on student-centered academics, there is no reason why professor evaluations, including hand-written student comments, should not be public.
As it now stands, only The Primary Source offers a valuable tool for students during the course selection process. The Source guide, published annually, serves an invaluable purpose, printing almost all of the reviews the editors receive while making few, if any, changes. The guide, to be released today, includes the candid opinions of more than 200 students, and is both exhaustive and useful. Unfortunately, many who disagree with the magazine's politics will inevitably refuse to recognize its substantive value.
Also compensating for the University's disservice, the senate intermittently produces a course review guide, now an online a replica of the published version. But while this project seems to be a top priority of some chairs of the Education Committee, it founders under others. This semester, the senate has not even published a new course evaluation guide.
The responsibility for publicizing student evaluations should fall on the shoulders of the administration, which rightly touts the quality of its professors, but nevertheless censors student evaluations. What better selling point for prospective students and donors than a public demonstration of Tufts' confidence in its faculty? Tufts professors are supposed to be focused on their students more than their research and writing, and there should be some official measure of this guarantee - a promise made on nearly every admissions tour and in every information session held by Tufts.
The system to collect this information is already in place. At each semester's end, students fill out a form that calls for numerical evaluations and written feedback, the latter giving a fuller and more accessible picture of a professor's performance. And because evaluations are filled out before grades are assigned, releasing this form would address one major complaint about the Source and senate guides - that disgruntled students, who have received poor grades, use these venues to air their gripes.
The chief argument against publishing course evaluations has always been that student comments represent the extreme perspectives. The fact remains, however, that professors give class time to fill out the evaluations, and most, even non-disgruntled students, take at least a few minutes to complete the form. Many people who have mediocre experiences certainly reflect this in both the number evaluation and the written portion of the form, as well they should.
The excuse that there is no efficient way to aggregate and distribute this information simply does not ring true in this age of high technology. Just as the senate has used a posting system for student evaluations, the administration could have students complete an online form and then wait to release the information until classes have ended and professors have assigned grades.
In its nascent stages, before the online system could be tested, those that would be charged with disseminating the information - this newspaper, perhaps in conjunction with the senate and other media outlets - would have the ethical obligation not to sensationalize the content by publishing only the controversial comments. Quickly, Tufts could develop an electronic system modeled after the senate website, or the methods used for the residential housing survey.
If logistics aren't the problem, there is no logical reason to keep evaluations secret. The administration can't be trying to protect professors who receive sub-par evaluations. A student-centered university would never let bad teachers remain in the classroom - no amount of scholarship could compensate that shortcoming.
If Tufts is worried that public comments will expose the few poor teachers that happen to be prolific writers, it's a risk the University will have to take if it wants to continue boasting that its teaching quality is unparalleled.
Just as professors are held responsible for the scholarship they produce, they should be responsible for their performance in the classroom. Most professors at Tufts are both well-respected in their fields and pedagogically skilled - it's rare to hear otherwise, though there are obviously some exceptions. The worst that happens is that those who have consistently shirked their teaching responsibilities to focus on research will alter their methods with a public airing of their deficiency.
Fully released evaluations might also help students seeking to balance classes heavy on writing with those focused more on reading. Written comments also address the fairness of a teacher's grading system, something that is important to all students.
That Tufts offer quality teaching is not simply a student expectation; it is promised by the University. The professors attract students to Tufts just as much as the school's proximity to Boston and its quaint campus. Students choose Tufts so they might have the opportunity to know good professors and be taught by educators who are concerned with their progress. Tufts' professors should be held accountable for this responsibility - praised for their successes, and called on to improve their shortcomings. The Source and senate offer a reasonably efficient model for evaluating teaching quality. Now, however, it's high time for Tufts to proving through action, not words, that it joins students in their quest for a quality education.
