0regonV€meralt
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL
ode@oregon. uoregon.edu
ON-UNE EDITION:
www.uoregon.edu/- ode
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Ryan Frank
EDITORIAL EDITORS
Kameron Cole
Stefanie Knowlton
An “A”
for effort
Should I take a
crappy course or
a crappy instructor?
It’s a good
idea, but
students
shouldn’t
rely too
heavily on
the professor
evaluation
packet when
looking for
good classes.
Proactivity is good.
We like proactivi
ty. Furthermore,
we like anything
that empowers the student
body. So, in theory, we like
the professor evaluations.
Of course, in theory,
communism works and
women receive equal pay
for equal work. Reality, as
we all know, works a little
differently.
For those of you who
haven’t seen it yet, the pro
fessor evaluation packet is
a compilation of student
opinions on course and in
structor quality. You can
pick up one of these book
lets for free at various loca
tions around campus. The
ASUO put a lot of work
into the packet, and they
think it’s just great.
And it would be great
if the packet told you any
thing worth knowing. De
spite the student govern
ment’s best efforts, it
doesn’t.
In general, students tend
to evaluate their courses
based on two factors -
what they actually learned
or what grade they got in
the class.
Sometimes, not always, but some
times it’s the “easy A” classes that get
the 10s while more difficult courses
score considerably lower.
Going simply by the law of aver
ages, some of these classes probably
just suck. But it’s probably also true
that some of these classes are simply
difficult and that students vent their
frustration on the course evaluations.
Our purpose here is not to classify
University students as lazy sloths
who pout and kick their chairs when
ever they’re called on to do anything
difficult. But let’s face facts, shall we?
Sometimes it’s hard to be objective
about a particular class, especially
one that’s cost you innumerable
hours of sleep, your sunny disposi
tion and in very extreme cases, your
sanity. (J 202, anyone?)
The best way to find out what a
course or professor is really like is to
talk to students who have taken
them.
One of the ASUO objectives in pro
ducing the evaluation packet is to
“send a message to professors that if
they teach quality classes, they will
get quality students.”
There are a couple problems with
that goal. For one, a professor looking
at his or her score in the packet won’t
know what factors went into the
computation of that score any more
than prospective students will. A
score of one through 10 doesn’t tell
professors whether students think
they are inaccessible, or if they just
think there was too much reading as
signed for the class.
The only ways for professors to get
this kind of concrete, decidedly more
useful information is either from ac
tual conversations with students or
even the written portion of the evalu
ations. Unfortunately, these aren’t in
eluded in the ASUO packet.
The evaluation packet, without
critical insight into the rankings, is
just pages and pages of numbers.
So as winter term approaches and
Duck Call season is upon us, you
might find it helpful to consult the
professor evaluation packet. Just re
member to take the information with
a very large grain of salt, or you may
end up cheating yourself.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial hoard. Responses
may be sent to
ode@oregon. uoregon edu.
V^NNWAailAUY
ARRESTS HIM... me
JUST READS HIM
ws RI6HTS...
t
C>0B4(
p0ncf
01 «T
'■SAW^i
thoucht this was
rKr^Y WAY TO TRULY
DESTABILIZE IRAQ...