Poor questions yield poor results

Did it really take a survey of the student body for the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate to figure out that students like having free transportation from campus into Boston on the weekends? Or that not all students have Fleet/Bank of America accounts, and, in fact, they do not like paying ATM surcharges? Senate efforts to reach out to the student body are admirable, but this survey was laughable. It seemed to simply provide statistics to validate already known attitudes.

The Senate survey did highlight one concern worth considering further, however. Slightly over half the students polled said that they would like a "shopping period" in which it would be easier to add or drop classes.

Under the current system, however, there are no restrictions on "shopping" around and enrolling in a class that a student does not originally register for, other than the inevitable wait list.

We could have senators pushing for a change that really does not need to be made. The poll data must be analyzed well or else unnecessary and detrimental changes will follow. Though half the students polled wanted a "shopping period," less than one-third actually thought that the current system hindered their ability to change classes.

Polls are limited by the questions they ask, and how the answers are interpreted. If the questions have obvious answers, then the results are useless. If answering a question in the affirmative would require impractical changes, then the results are useless. The Senate, with some financial help from the University, has spent over $6,000 on survey equipment since 2001, but it will all be wasted unless the Senate uses it sensibly. The Senate's latest survey is a warning that asking impractical questions can waste everyone's time, and that the answers to the sensible questions may push for the wrong results.