Viewpoint

Residential College must keep evaluations

Yesterday, Residential College students received an e-mail message from LSA Dean Shirley Neuman and Associate Dean Robert Owen explaining LSA's case for changing the current evaluation system that the RC has used for more than 30 years. We find this message offensive to the RC community, both because of the words it uses and because of the implications of such language.

In this message, Deans Neuman and Owen explain how it is "standard practice within the LSA College to hold external reviews of departments and units at intervals of approximately every 10 years ... In 1998, the RC underwent an external review which involved an evaluation of the RC by four outside experts."

A small segment of the report from these external reviewers was also included in the e-mail message, stating, "... A number of RC students (including many who clearly like the written evaluations) said that the absence of grades in the RC is widely regarded by other Michigan students as proof of the College's 'flakiness' and lack of rigor. Just as lecturers in the RC express the desire to 'get more respect,' so too do students, and we suspect grades might help achieve this goal."

We resent this characterization of RC students as "flaky." We understand that this word was put forward by RC students, yet, in the context of this e-mail message, it seems as if Deans Neuman and Owen are using such language to justify their actions. They apparently view RC students as being "flaky," and they believe that somehow switching to a grade-based system will change this perception.

The fact is, the RC fosters a different and well-proven environment for learning. The University seems to look kindly upon diversity in its student body, so there seems no justification for limiting diversity of educational approaches. How the RC is regarded by the University community (as flakes, in this case), should play little to no role in deciding pedagogic value.

The biggest problem we find with the deans' decision is that they seem to have ignored the desires of the RC faculty and students. After lengthy discussions within the RC last fall, LSA was presented with a proposal detailing the specific wishes of the RC. Later, meetings between RC representatives and LSA administrators brought to light the most salient issues. After all of this work, which had gone on for several months, LSA responded with a plan containing few similarities to anything previously proposed by the RC community.

The current LSA proposal is, in effect, a mixture of the findings of the external community and its own desires for "equity for the students." As the new policy on grades stands, RC students will have to abide by the ruling of LSA, without ever having a forum by which to express their opinions.

Even more insulting to us is the perception that the RC "lacks rigor." Its most stringent requirement is the intensive language program, capped by the difficult proficiency test and literature class in the given language. All must complete these stages in order to graduate from the RC. Most students prepare for the proficiency test by taking 16 credits of intensive foreign language courses spanning two semesters. This curriculum is just as demanding, if not more so, than the language requirements of LSA.

Written evaluations are a key part of the philosophy - and they are rigorous. They are in depth, one- to two-paragraph synopses of a student's performance; they are both critical and constructive. To place them alongside grades deemphasizes their importance to students and faculty alike.

Written evaluations in the RC also reflect a professor's commitment to the students. To complete a written evaluation, an RC professor must know the students in his or her course - not only how they fared on papers and examinations, but how they interacted in class discussions and how much enthusiasm they showed. The written evaluations are completely necessary for this intimate relationship to continue.

The LSA proposal also sets a very dangerous precedent whereby LSA has the ability to govern the RC without regard for the wishes of community members. Such a precedent will no doubt cause further difficulty in the future when more divergent opinions appear. It is imperative for LSA leave some power for self-governance with the RC.

If LSA takes away our written evaluations, or overshadows them with letter grades, the fabric that holds together the RC - the University's most successful living-learning community - begins to tear apart.

- This viewpoint was written by RC seniors and Daily staffers Heather Kamins, Aaron Rich and Jacob Wheeler.