Online Add/Drop a no-brainer

Displaying its uncanny mastery of the obvious, the University has finally begun the process of implementing an online add/drop system. The shift from the current paper-based system has been technologically possible for years, but red-tape and a lack of organization slowed its progress. Dean of Undergraduate Education James Glaser is supporting changes to the process and the administration should make this "no-brainer" switch as soon as feasible.

For both students and faculty, the current process is cumbersome and unnecessarily complicated given the readily available technology. A professor's signature is required to add or drop a class. At least in the case of dropping a class, there seems to be almost no justification for this requirement. It certainly does not help with a professor's record-keeping, as most simply sign the sheets without recording who dropped. In some cases, department secretaries or chairs end up signing the form without informing the professor.

If all additions and drops were processed in real time online, the professors would always have an accurate record of who is in the class. Since there is a considerable lag in processing the paper forms, professors of medium to large courses must often spend the first few weeks taking head counts or having students sign in. If the lists were quickly integrated with Blackboard, a professor could send class emails with confidence that everybody was receiving them.

For a student who already knows he or she is dropping the class, getting the signature can be awkward and time-consuming. Some professors are difficult to track down, and nobody wants to tell a professor that they are taking another course. In addition, a professor's approval (as evidenced by the signature) is unnecessary. No professor would ever bar a student from dropping a course, so it makes sense to save the instructor time and hassle and remove them from the process all together.

Adding a course presents a thornier problem, and more careful consideration will be necessary. In some cases professors must decide whether to exceed the enrollment limits, and often must pick who from the waitlist will get a spot. Critics correctly point out that it might be problematic to rely on professors to go online and approve additions. Since this process would require a more active role on the professor's part, it is likely that some would be more responsive than others.

The new system should address this issue, either by creatively working around it or extensive faculty education on what their responsibilities would be. Faculty members ought to support the change, even if it increases their role slightly, as it should make their record-keeping much easier.

Requiring the signature of academic advisors also seems unnecessary, as their approval is usually perfunctory. Many advisors, flooded with add/drop requests at the beginning of the semester, simply sign the forms and hand them back. Perhaps the rules could be amended to require only seniors to get the add/drops approved, to ensure they remain on track to graduate. If and when the advising system is overhauled, these procedures could be revaluated.

The new system could be prone to abuse by students who, given the newfound ease of add/drops, might excessively change classes. But such scenarios can easily be discouraged, perhaps by only allowing a certain number of changes to be made a semester. Changes after a certain date or in excess of the limit would have to be processed the old-fashioned way.

In any case, student government and the administration should iron out the details of the system with due haste. While the issue is certainly not the most pressing problem on Tufts' agenda, the need for change is relatively obvious and the solution relatively simple.