A Faculty Course Ratings Guide may soon resume its place among the tools students use to choose their courses and teachers.

Saint Louis University students have been without such a guide since the demise of the long-running Grapevine in 1986.

During Joe Hodes’ 1998-99 Student Government Association Presidency, the creation of a student-based faculty and course evaluation guide again became a major objective.

One was finally published last year after several months of evaluation and struggle.

However, the guide was very short and included only a handful of professors, making its usefulness limited.

“The old system and the book pretty much died,” said Nick Fagan, Chair of the Faculty Course Ratings Committee. “We’ve given up on the old system.”

“We need everyone in the book or its useless,” said Fagan.

Last year’s attempt at a course ratings guide created concerns as to how the guide would be created and how it would be used.

“Professors are afraid of being rated on things that are not pertinent to teaching,” said Fagan.

On the contrary, Fagan says, “Studies have shown that students can be unbiased and evaluate based on the questions.”

“In the past, some faculty members were somewhat reticent,” said John Slosar, President of the Faculty Senate.

Slosar added that the faculty has worried the guides may be used for more than the simple purpose of assisting students in deciding which courses and teachers to take.

“I’m not sure the faculty has had time to react to what is being put together this semester,” Slosar said. “There was a presentation last semester, but I think it was more informational. But what was presented was well-received.”

The Course Ratings Committee is working on a system that will be statistically accurate, inexpensive and consistent.

The committee has also been working on a plan that will placate the faculties fears, while remaining useful to the students.

The committee has been focusing on evaluation systems that are proven and widely respected, such as the IDEA evaluation system.

This system was created at the Individual Development and Evaluation System (IDEA) Center at Kansas State University, and has proven to be a widely used system.

“We are looking for a fair, accurate and valid system,” said Fagan.

The committee develo

The first phase, involving research of various evaluation systems, has almost been completed.

The committee will then decide which system to use and develop a proposal to be presented to the faculty, provost and students.

The third phase will be to sell the plan, followed, hopefully, by implementation.

Fagan believes the third phase will be the most difficult.

“It’s going to be hard to convince the Provost,” said Fagan. “It’s going to be even harder to convince the faculty.”

Yet there are some things working in the committee’s favor. University President Lawrence Biondi, S.J. backs the evaluation idea, Fagan said.

In addition, some of the faculty seem receptive.

Fagan stressed that the faculty course evaluations were not simply intended to point out the good and the bad.

“It can help teachers teach better. It can help students learn better,” said Fagan.

The committee’s tentative schedule puts the start of phase three at the end of February.

Depending on the outcome of the committee’s proposals, implementation will soon follow.