As students get ready to grade their professors this year, the University hopes that the new online format of teaching evaluations will improve the convenience of the system and augment the quality of responses. Still awaiting the results of this new system, professors have expressed a wide range of reactions to the change—from trepidation to gratitude.

Joe Bruno, vice president for Academic Affairs and Provost, explained that the University had multiple motivations for changing the format of the teaching evaluations.

“First, we hoped to cut down on the enormous amount of paper used; remember that each evaluation was done in triplicate,” Bruno said. “Second, we expect to realize savings in the staff time devoted to separating forms, counting the responses, and entering them into the database. We also hope to improve the yield of the responses.”

According to Benedict Bernstein ’09, student chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, the faculty agreed to the implementation of the online system by a majority vote two years ago; however, as electronic collection becomes a reality this year, some professors have voiced concerns about specific aspects of the system.

“It seems the whole situation was instituted for the convenience of administrators; convenience trumps validity,” said Professor of African American Studies and Art History Peter Mark. “I think that [the implementation of the new system] is a case of poor judgment which mistakes quantity of response for quality of usefulness.”

Indeed, the University has consistently emphasized its projections of greater response length in validating the switch.

“In our pilot studies we actually counted words and found that students tended to write much more in the online system than they did with the old forms,” Bruno said.

Mark wonders whether students will take evaluations as seriously when they complete them outside of the classroom environment.

“Leaving access to the evaluations open 24/7 is a mistake,” Mark said. “I want sober students to be doing my evaluations. If a student gives an answer influenced by whatever he or she is doing at 2 a.m., that’s unconscionable.”

At the same time, other professors have expressed approval for the move to the Internet.

“It’s convenient to have them online—If I were a student I would appreciate that,” said Professor of History Philip Pomper.

Pomper also noted that he greatly appreciates the class time that will be gained now that the evaluations are completed online.

Alternatively, some professors worry that because the evaluations are now mandatory for all students who want their grades on time, those who are frequently absent will complete them somewhat unreliably.

“[The new system] puts professors in the place of enforcing attendance or forcing students who did not attend class to make an uninformed evaluation,” Mark said. “I have to face the fact that I am being evaluated by students who don’t know me.”

Although the importance of the biannual evaluations has been stressed in e-mails sent to the student body, professors and administrators alike still worry that students do not grasp the enormity of their role in molding the University’s classrooms.

“I think that students do have a sense that evaluations are involved in tenure, but they might not know that [their evaluations] are considered in salary and pay increases as well,” Bernstein said.

Overall, Bruno says he trusts students to take evaluations seriously, regardless of where they fill them out.

“Judging from the constructive tone one sees in the vast majority of teaching evaluations, I do think students understand the importance of their opinions,” Bruno said. “I thank students for their thoughtful contributions and look forward to more of the same.”

Mark, however, voiced concerns over whether a compulsory evaluation system would alter students’ priorities in writing course evaluations.

“The student incentive ought to be ’I want to give an evaluation,’” he said. “Not ’I want to get my grades on time.”