Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Editorial: Reforming course evaluations

In addition to making the evaluations more accessible, the University ought to incorporate a number of other changes into the system. To begin, the registrar should add a question to the course evaluation asking students to compare a course’s workload to that of the average Princeton course. Students have only a finite amount of time to distribute amongst their academic and other commitments, and it could be vitally important to know in advance whether taking a particular course would render one’s workload unmanageable. Students previously enrolled in a course are best qualified to provide this information.

Furthermore, the registrar’s choice of what information to display can be improved. Currently, students filling out evaluations are asked to provide written comments in addition to a numerical ranking for each of the distinct components of a course, from lectures to readings to papers. The registrar does not publish these comments, however. Instead, the only written responses published are those answering the question of whether students would recommend the class — a question far too often answered by a simple and not especially helpful “take it” or “don’t take it.” Much of the information currently not published likely would be helpful to students selecting courses, and the registrar should begin publishing the entire course evaluation.

ADVERTISEMENT

In particular, the registrar should enable students to view and to search the database for evaluations written about particular preceptors — a topic about which the current system provides no information whatsoever. Given the important role that preceptors play in grading students’ work and helping them master the material both in class and in office hours, a preceptor’s teaching style can often be the key that determines how much a student learns in a course.

Some might worry that broadening the system would lead students to sensationalize their reviews, but considering that the comments now published are generally thoughtful and reasonable, this concern seems unfounded. Moreover, even if some sensationalism does occur, it is still important to provide students with as much information as possible when they approach selecting courses.

Although some of this information already exists on the Student Course Guide, the reviews posted on SCG are scarce and often representative only of those students with strong feelings towards a course — those who loved it or hated it. Because the course evaluations are University-sponsored and must be filled out (or at the very least, declined) before a student can see the prior semester’s grades on SCORE, the data they yield is far more comprehensive. Hence, it is important that the registrar make course evaluations as informative and useful as possible.

ADVERTISEMENT