Course evaluations are roadmap for improvement, should remain mandatory

To the Editor of the Reporter:

In a letter published in last week's Reporter, Professor Slater reported on undergraduate education from the other side of the desk and, not surprisingly, was appalled at the behavior of many of his fellow students. He speaks for many of us who are troubled by the apparent transformation of the live classroom into a parody of the virtual university-where an image of unengaged students beside a TV remote control or an ATM comes to mind. He offered some welcome specific recommendations for the tightening of classroom policies and disciplinary consequences. We must turn around the attitudes and behaviors that produce a devalued classroom where effective teaching and learning is an unpleasant battle.

However, his worry about the effect of tougher classroom policies and codes of behavior on the subsequent evaluations of faculty is unfounded. Previously in the Undergraduate College and currently in the College of Arts and Sciences, I have regularly reviewed hundreds of student evaluations. I know that the more students have learned, the better their evaluation of the instructor and course! I know that students evaluate well an organized section where they are held to account and the instructor is fair. I know that evaluations, good or bad, are rarely a surprise to faculty.

I have seen no evidence of the student retaliation and resentment that Professor Slater fears and which leads to his call for an end to mandatory evaluations. I have been visited by student delegations carrying the most severe complaints about faculty members and received their assurances that the entire class was in rebellion and would show it on the evaluation. The terrible evaluations never materialized because, while students well understand resentment, they cannot believe that a course evaluation offers possibilities for retaliation. Written comments-always a forum for extreme opinions, but most often only useful as feedback to the teacher-offer an opportunity to vent but not to retaliate. The disaffected students described by Professor Slater won't seek revenge because they also are disengaged from the evaluation. They probably were absent when the evaluation was administered.

Course evaluations do offer the teacher a roadmap for improvement. The research is very clear about the improvement of teaching and learning-it can happen and can be measured. The range of ratings among faculty and courses tells us about real differences in the classrooms of UB. Course evaluations should remain mandatory because they remind the teacher and the university about what needs improvement and what is working well. But they must also be mandatory to obtain the benchmarks we need. Furthermore, when student evaluations are abused because they are the only information about teaching, it is the tenure review that needs fixing, not the evaluation. Let us not exaggerate the importance of student evaluations by eliminating them.

There are many courses where the very classroom policies Professor Slater calls for are old hat and the students are accountable for their learning and behavior. I'd bet that, taken together, the student's evaluations in orderly sections are no worse and probably better than those in the undisciplined sections, like the one he audited. To me, this situation cries out for more than rules for student behavior. Excellence in the classroom is a responsibility we hold in common and cannot solve alone. New faculty should have an experienced colleague as a classroom mentor, and we shouldn't entrust to students those parts of the evaluation that are rightfully the responsibility of faculty. Every classroom should be a place for effective teaching and learning. Evaluations can only help.

Clarifying general service fee policy

To the Editor:

The April 8 Reporter article titled "FSEC hears overview of new uniform service fee" contains information that requires clarification. The General University Service Fee (GUSF) policy promulgated by Senior Vice President Robert Wagner in December can be summarized as follows:

- Effective July 1, 1999, the 7 percent GUSF will be assessed on revenues from eligible activities which are deposited into state (income fund reimbursable), University at Buffalo Foundation (UBF), Research Foundation (RF) and Faculty Student Association accounts.

- The 7 percent GUSF replaces the administrative and maintenance and operation fees that currently are charged by these four university entities.

- The GUSF is charged on revenues deposited into the accounts from sources external to the university. Therefore, transfers between the accounts of the four approved entities will not be assessed the GUSF.

- The following revenues are specifically exempt from the GUSF:

- Sponsored program activity administered by the RF or UBF indirect cost rate

- Clinical practice plan revenue

- Revenue from the campus' state-appropriated allocation

- Accounts funded by overhead revenue

- Dormitory Income Fund Reimbursable account revenues

- Gift revenue (covered by other policy)

- Endowment (covered by other policy)

To guide the transition from existing policy to new policy and procedures, the GUSF Committee was established. The GUSF Committee is charged with overall responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the policy and guidelines in the establishment, implementation and monitoring of the service fee. The committee is chaired by Kevin Seitz, associate vice president and controller, and includes campus-wide representation.

Documents related to GUSF and an email link to direct questions related to the new policy can be found on the controller's Web site at http://www.avpc.buff alo.edu/.