- Email: [email protected]
The Students’ Side of the Question
T h e Students' Side of the Question D. H.
REID
A grictdtural and Mechanical College of Texas, College Station, Texas (Received for publication August 7, 1948)
P
There seem to be several ways that professors treat and think of their students. One professor introduces his students to all visitors as if they were honored guests, the other simply excuses himself and speaks to the student as, "Boy, what do you want?" The one man treats the students like men, the other treats them like school boys who are not to be trusted. I have given this example with the idea of bringing home to you that professors judge students very thoroughly and often. Now, comes the question, do students grade professors? I am not talking about the few disgruntled students who have failed in subjects, but I am talking about the students who have real ability to judge professors by the way they treat students. As an example, one professor took the opportunity to lecture his class for five minutes, scolding them for being late, be189
cause one student was late. Suddenly an "A" student, who was always on time, jumped up with his watch in hand, "Professor, how many students in this room?" The professor answered, "About 30." The student asked, "How much is 30 times 5 minutes?" and then gave the answer, "150 minutes." The student put his watch back into his pocket, sat down saying, "Rather an expensive waste of time." There was a marked silence in the room. The Texas A. & M. College plan of becoming better informed regarding teachers' work is presented briefly. There were several questionnaires sent out to the faculty and students. First, each instructor was asked to make an annual report of the work that he did (Form 2) and second, he was asked to fill out a blank questionnaire giving his frank opinion of the work of the head of his department (Form 3). Remember that both of these evaluations went straight to the Dean and were not shown to the head of the department. Then the heads of the departments were asked to make an annual evaluation of the staff members (Form 4), which in turn went to the Dean. Then comes the part of the questionnaires in which I am really interested. The first paragraph of the questionnaire reads: "Following is a list of qualities, that, taken altogether, tend to make a teacher the sort of teacher he is. In order that we may obtain information which will lead to the improvement of instruction, you are asked to rate each teacher you now have. Indicate with a check mark on each line at the point which most nearly describes him
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
ROFESSORS have become very well acquainted with the fact that they are asked every now and then to grade different students, but our Dean of Agriculture became interested in reversing the question entirely. He wanted students to "rate" the professors. That is, he would have each student fill out a form (Form 1) so that he would know, when he checked over the combined reports of the students, what they thought regarding the actual work and the weaknesses of the different professors. This would enable him to be of greater assistance to the different professors in overcoming their weaknesses and improve the general teaching at Texas A. & M. College.
D. H. REID
FORM 1
Name of Teacher Being Rated
Dept. of Teacher Being Bated
Student's Academic Classification (check one), Fr., Soph., Jr., Sr.; Approximate Grade Point Ratio Note to Students: Following is a list of qualities, that, taken altogether, tend to make a teacher the sort of teacher he is. In order that we may obtain information which will lead to the improvement of instruction you are asked to rate each teacher you now have. Indicate with a check mark on each line at the point which most nearly describes him with reference to the quality you are considering. Please be as impersonal as you can and omit any items about which you are not sure; do not sign your name. Highest
Lowest
Medium 1
0
10 2.
Presentation of Subject Matter
3.
Ability to Interest Students
.Clear, Definite and Foreefol.
10 Interest Usually Buna High.
10 4.
Scholarship 10 Stimulates Critical and Independent Thinking
Thinking Discouraged.
10
2
1
0
6. Tolerance and Liberality 10 7.
Attitude Toward Students 10
8. Personal Appearance 10 9. Personal Peculitaries
Remarks:
Enter any remarks here that you think may be constructive and helpful including any definite comments on Items 7 and 9 (use reverse side if needed).
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
10 1. Preparation for Class Meetings
T H E STUDENTS' SIDE OF THE QUESTION
The students as a rule took the matter seriously and appreciated the chance to express their opinions. There was very little difference in the criticism of freshmen and seniors, although the freshmen were a little more inclined to be more critical. One thing that caused criticism was the "true and false quizzes." Evidentally the students at Texas A. & M. College do not like them. Some of the main criticism resulting from this study was that the numerous professors lack proper preparation of lectures. Weak professors are much inclined to ramble and get away from the subject. They may have very poor delivery, are inclined to speak in a monotone, not enough emphasis being used to make their talks interesting. The comments of the students were highly enlightening. Here are some of
them: "This professor is very egotistical, not inclined to give enough credit to students' opinions if they disagree with him." Another professor, we were told, "asks ambiguous questions and expects specific answers." Still another professor was classified as nervous, and the student suggested that he might do better in commercial work. Still another criticism was, "This professor covers unimportant points from the book in quizzes." The students object to this sort of quiz. By the way, the Dean's secretary admits that she has had her vocabulary greatly extended by the remarks of various students. For instance, one professor is inclined to "shoot the breeze," one was "full of bull"; another "holds students overtime." Another professor covers material too rapidly. Another, plays with key chain constantly. Another unconscious fault is, the professor picks out one or two students on the front row and lectures to them. One head of department told me that his students said that he inferred that he knew everything about a subject. The report was, the professor says, "I do not know of anything that can be added to make this more clear." Here is a comment which I thought very expressive: "This professor is a modern Marco Polo. If he has been every place he says he has, he must be as old as Methuselah." A criticism of some of the young professors was that they are inclined to be intolerant, the students objecting strenuously to intolerance. On the other hand, there was criticism of some professors letting the discussion get away from the subject into a "bull session," as the boys call it. In general, Dean Shepardson and the department heads consider that the questionnaire has helped them to better evaluate the teaching performance of the professors of the college so that they may dis-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
with reference to the quality you are considering. Please be as impersonal as you can and omit any items about which you are not sure; do not sign your name." In asking the students to "rate" the different professors, it was absolutely necessary that a student and a professor know nothing about the questionnaire, or rating sheet, until it was handed to the student, as the Dean did not wish any chance of collusion between the professors and students. In order-to have it a real surprise, the heads of departments were called into the Dean's office at four o'clock one afternoon and given the questionnaires. They were asked not to let the students know anything about what was going to be asked of them at nine o'clock the next morning. The idea was to simply go into the class at nine o'clock and distribute the questionnaires. The students were asked to take the necessary time to fill them out and hand them in at once. Remember, none of the professors knew anything about what was going to take place.
191
D. H. REID
FORM 2
A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS
Individual's Annual Report (Copies (o Individual, Head of Department, Dean, and Director) Name Department
_ Title Period
_ to
A. What do you regard as the greatest handicaps or obstacles to your effectiveness and service? (Use supplemental page if needed)
B. What new or»changed opportunities for service or development do you desire the College to provide for you?
(Over)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
This report is intended to provide an opportunity for the individual to make suggestions regarding his department, his work, and his relationships and to record, for the period covered, his activities that seem to him most significant. It will be preserved as a part of his permanent personnel record in the college and will be used as one of the bases for the annual evaluation of Staff members.
T H E STUDENTS SIDE OF THE QUESTION
C. Activities for the period
.
193
to
(Note: Report on the following points in the order listed, omitting any that do not apply.) (Use supplemental sheet)
SignatureDate
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
1. Relationships to students and student activities. 2. Research projects undertaken and research projects completed in period covered by this report. 3. Productive and creative activities (this may include reorganization of old courses, organizing new course, exercise revision and improvement; new cyllabi, new research techniques not otherwise published, etc.). 4. Professional activities and responsibilities outside the College. 5. Community and public relations. 6. Honors and distinctions received during the period covered by this report. 7. Administrative and committee assignments and activities (departmental, school and college). 8. Activities relating to teaching (not included in No. 3). 9. Activities relating to research (not included in No. 3). 10. Activities relating to extension (not included in No. 3). 11. List of publications (not included in any previous report of this type). 12. Others
194
D. H. REID
FORM 3
A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS
Evaluation of Head of Department (Copies to Dean and Director)
Head of Department..Date..
These are my general judgments of the department head: (Indicate by check) 1. General attitude toward subordinates 2. Professional leadership 3. Aggressiveness
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - . - - -
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Cood
Fair
Excellent
- - - . - - - - - - - - - - -
4. Professional ethics
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
5. Balanced appreciation of work in other departments 6. Loyalty to department and staff
-
- - - - - - - -
7. Personal interest in and relations to staff
- - - - -
8. Personal interest in and relations to students - - - 9. Willingness to delegate appropriate administrative duties 10. Administrative, attitude 11. Intellectual quality 12. Comments—
- - - - - - - - - - -
Excellent
Poor
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
Evaluation made by...
195
T H E STUDENTS' SIDE OF THE QUESTION FORM 4
A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS
Annual Evaluation of Staff Member (Copies to Dean, Director, and Head of Department) Name.
..Department
Year..
Last
Evaluation made by.. Head of Department
A.
Careful reading of "Individual's Annual Evaluation Report" (Form 2)
-
B.
Conference with the individual being evaluated
C.
Examination of actual research or reports of progress
D.
Consultation with fellow workers (specify)
E.
Judgments and reports of students or county Extension workers - -
-
F.
Contacts with former student and alumni -
-
G.
Reports and records of committee service
H.
Examination of publications or of other productive and creative work
I.
Evaluation Committee
J.
Other
-
. . . -
- - - - - - - -
1. Knowledge of Subject Broad and accurate
2.
B. 3.
Generally satisfactory
Expression of Thought A. Written
Unsatisfactory
Oral
Initiative and Resourcefulness
4. Punctuality with respect to mail, meetings and reports 5.
Dependability
6.
Recognition of work in other fields
7. Human Relationships 8.
Research Aptitude
9.
Professional Improvement or Development
Satisfactory
Generally satisfactory •
Unsatisfactory
Alwaya dependable
Usually dependable
Mot dependable
Balanced appreciation
Mild appreciation
Lacks appreciation
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
This report is made upon the basis of the items checked.
196
D. H. REID
10. Ethical Standards A. Professional B. Personal 11. Quality of Work 12. Personal Characteristics
Generally satisfactory
Often of poor quality
Objectionable mannerisms not serious; appearance generally neat
13. Ability to Motivate or Lead 14. Public Relationships (with other agricultural workers and rural people) 15. Extra Professional Activities
Work moderately effective
Moderately active
Comments:
General Judgments: 1. Should be retained as member of staff - - - - - - 2. Should be considered for early promotion - - - - - - 3. Present assignment of duties should be changed by (specify) . 4. Should this individual be encouraged and aided to find employment elsewhere? Yes No._ 5. Should be informed by_ that connection with the College will be terminated in Date
6. Needs greater opportunity for: (specify) A. Study in recommended field B. Research C. Observation and study within and outside Texas D. Other 7. Special efforts which I have made to assist this individual in his professional improvement and adjustment-
Has this evaluation been discussed with the individual concerned ?
Signed, Date
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
Generally satisfactory
T H E STUDENTS' SIDE OF THE QUESTION
course, that it has been well worthwhile. In general, only the better students offered comments and I think the outstanding fact was that any professor who had a real interest in his students and a real knowledge of the subject did not need to fear these reports of the students. Of course, the real value of such a questionnaire lies in the attitude of the professors. If they accept the criticism and try to cure themselves of bad mannerisms and disconcerting habits and really try to put their work in better organized form, then we believe that the questionnaire is of real value.
News and Notes {Continued from page 184)
Poultry Council held at Pullman recently. He replaces in this position, John P. Miller, Assistant Extension Poultryman.
Raymond E. Cray, Egg Marketing Manager, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, has been appointed Professor of Poultry Science in the Ohio State University and the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, effective March 28. Mr. Cray's duties will consist of research and teaching in the economic phases of poultry marketing and management.
Fred Wentworth Frasier, 40-year old Extension Poultryman, Washington State College, died at his home in Pullman on Sunday, December 19, 1948. For the past three years Mr. Frasier had been suffering from the creeping paralysis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Although confined to his bed for over a year, he had continued to arrange poultry programs, and to dictate and approve news stories and articles to within a few weeks of his death. Mr. Frasier had served for 16 years on the Agricultural Extension Staff following his graduation in 1932.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
cuss weaknesses and really plan to do better. This is shown by the fact that at least six of the professors have conducted similar quizzes, you might call them, of their own, since the ones referred to were completed. We feel that these quizzes enable the teachers to plan to do more and better organized work than they have been doing. Strange to say, the students showed no liking for the "crip" professor, and students really showed that they appreciated the work of the professor who makes them work hard and outlines his material so that they feel, when they have finished the
197
REID
A grictdtural and Mechanical College of Texas, College Station, Texas (Received for publication August 7, 1948)
P
There seem to be several ways that professors treat and think of their students. One professor introduces his students to all visitors as if they were honored guests, the other simply excuses himself and speaks to the student as, "Boy, what do you want?" The one man treats the students like men, the other treats them like school boys who are not to be trusted. I have given this example with the idea of bringing home to you that professors judge students very thoroughly and often. Now, comes the question, do students grade professors? I am not talking about the few disgruntled students who have failed in subjects, but I am talking about the students who have real ability to judge professors by the way they treat students. As an example, one professor took the opportunity to lecture his class for five minutes, scolding them for being late, be189
cause one student was late. Suddenly an "A" student, who was always on time, jumped up with his watch in hand, "Professor, how many students in this room?" The professor answered, "About 30." The student asked, "How much is 30 times 5 minutes?" and then gave the answer, "150 minutes." The student put his watch back into his pocket, sat down saying, "Rather an expensive waste of time." There was a marked silence in the room. The Texas A. & M. College plan of becoming better informed regarding teachers' work is presented briefly. There were several questionnaires sent out to the faculty and students. First, each instructor was asked to make an annual report of the work that he did (Form 2) and second, he was asked to fill out a blank questionnaire giving his frank opinion of the work of the head of his department (Form 3). Remember that both of these evaluations went straight to the Dean and were not shown to the head of the department. Then the heads of the departments were asked to make an annual evaluation of the staff members (Form 4), which in turn went to the Dean. Then comes the part of the questionnaires in which I am really interested. The first paragraph of the questionnaire reads: "Following is a list of qualities, that, taken altogether, tend to make a teacher the sort of teacher he is. In order that we may obtain information which will lead to the improvement of instruction, you are asked to rate each teacher you now have. Indicate with a check mark on each line at the point which most nearly describes him
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
ROFESSORS have become very well acquainted with the fact that they are asked every now and then to grade different students, but our Dean of Agriculture became interested in reversing the question entirely. He wanted students to "rate" the professors. That is, he would have each student fill out a form (Form 1) so that he would know, when he checked over the combined reports of the students, what they thought regarding the actual work and the weaknesses of the different professors. This would enable him to be of greater assistance to the different professors in overcoming their weaknesses and improve the general teaching at Texas A. & M. College.
D. H. REID
FORM 1
Name of Teacher Being Rated
Dept. of Teacher Being Bated
Student's Academic Classification (check one), Fr., Soph., Jr., Sr.; Approximate Grade Point Ratio Note to Students: Following is a list of qualities, that, taken altogether, tend to make a teacher the sort of teacher he is. In order that we may obtain information which will lead to the improvement of instruction you are asked to rate each teacher you now have. Indicate with a check mark on each line at the point which most nearly describes him with reference to the quality you are considering. Please be as impersonal as you can and omit any items about which you are not sure; do not sign your name. Highest
Lowest
Medium 1
0
10 2.
Presentation of Subject Matter
3.
Ability to Interest Students
.Clear, Definite and Foreefol.
10 Interest Usually Buna High.
10 4.
Scholarship 10 Stimulates Critical and Independent Thinking
Thinking Discouraged.
10
2
1
0
6. Tolerance and Liberality 10 7.
Attitude Toward Students 10
8. Personal Appearance 10 9. Personal Peculitaries
Remarks:
Enter any remarks here that you think may be constructive and helpful including any definite comments on Items 7 and 9 (use reverse side if needed).
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
10 1. Preparation for Class Meetings
T H E STUDENTS' SIDE OF THE QUESTION
The students as a rule took the matter seriously and appreciated the chance to express their opinions. There was very little difference in the criticism of freshmen and seniors, although the freshmen were a little more inclined to be more critical. One thing that caused criticism was the "true and false quizzes." Evidentally the students at Texas A. & M. College do not like them. Some of the main criticism resulting from this study was that the numerous professors lack proper preparation of lectures. Weak professors are much inclined to ramble and get away from the subject. They may have very poor delivery, are inclined to speak in a monotone, not enough emphasis being used to make their talks interesting. The comments of the students were highly enlightening. Here are some of
them: "This professor is very egotistical, not inclined to give enough credit to students' opinions if they disagree with him." Another professor, we were told, "asks ambiguous questions and expects specific answers." Still another professor was classified as nervous, and the student suggested that he might do better in commercial work. Still another criticism was, "This professor covers unimportant points from the book in quizzes." The students object to this sort of quiz. By the way, the Dean's secretary admits that she has had her vocabulary greatly extended by the remarks of various students. For instance, one professor is inclined to "shoot the breeze," one was "full of bull"; another "holds students overtime." Another professor covers material too rapidly. Another, plays with key chain constantly. Another unconscious fault is, the professor picks out one or two students on the front row and lectures to them. One head of department told me that his students said that he inferred that he knew everything about a subject. The report was, the professor says, "I do not know of anything that can be added to make this more clear." Here is a comment which I thought very expressive: "This professor is a modern Marco Polo. If he has been every place he says he has, he must be as old as Methuselah." A criticism of some of the young professors was that they are inclined to be intolerant, the students objecting strenuously to intolerance. On the other hand, there was criticism of some professors letting the discussion get away from the subject into a "bull session," as the boys call it. In general, Dean Shepardson and the department heads consider that the questionnaire has helped them to better evaluate the teaching performance of the professors of the college so that they may dis-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
with reference to the quality you are considering. Please be as impersonal as you can and omit any items about which you are not sure; do not sign your name." In asking the students to "rate" the different professors, it was absolutely necessary that a student and a professor know nothing about the questionnaire, or rating sheet, until it was handed to the student, as the Dean did not wish any chance of collusion between the professors and students. In order-to have it a real surprise, the heads of departments were called into the Dean's office at four o'clock one afternoon and given the questionnaires. They were asked not to let the students know anything about what was going to be asked of them at nine o'clock the next morning. The idea was to simply go into the class at nine o'clock and distribute the questionnaires. The students were asked to take the necessary time to fill them out and hand them in at once. Remember, none of the professors knew anything about what was going to take place.
191
D. H. REID
FORM 2
A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS
Individual's Annual Report (Copies (o Individual, Head of Department, Dean, and Director) Name Department
_ Title Period
_ to
A. What do you regard as the greatest handicaps or obstacles to your effectiveness and service? (Use supplemental page if needed)
B. What new or»changed opportunities for service or development do you desire the College to provide for you?
(Over)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
This report is intended to provide an opportunity for the individual to make suggestions regarding his department, his work, and his relationships and to record, for the period covered, his activities that seem to him most significant. It will be preserved as a part of his permanent personnel record in the college and will be used as one of the bases for the annual evaluation of Staff members.
T H E STUDENTS SIDE OF THE QUESTION
C. Activities for the period
.
193
to
(Note: Report on the following points in the order listed, omitting any that do not apply.) (Use supplemental sheet)
SignatureDate
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
1. Relationships to students and student activities. 2. Research projects undertaken and research projects completed in period covered by this report. 3. Productive and creative activities (this may include reorganization of old courses, organizing new course, exercise revision and improvement; new cyllabi, new research techniques not otherwise published, etc.). 4. Professional activities and responsibilities outside the College. 5. Community and public relations. 6. Honors and distinctions received during the period covered by this report. 7. Administrative and committee assignments and activities (departmental, school and college). 8. Activities relating to teaching (not included in No. 3). 9. Activities relating to research (not included in No. 3). 10. Activities relating to extension (not included in No. 3). 11. List of publications (not included in any previous report of this type). 12. Others
194
D. H. REID
FORM 3
A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS
Evaluation of Head of Department (Copies to Dean and Director)
Head of Department..Date..
These are my general judgments of the department head: (Indicate by check) 1. General attitude toward subordinates 2. Professional leadership 3. Aggressiveness
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - . - - -
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Cood
Fair
Excellent
- - - . - - - - - - - - - - -
4. Professional ethics
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
5. Balanced appreciation of work in other departments 6. Loyalty to department and staff
-
- - - - - - - -
7. Personal interest in and relations to staff
- - - - -
8. Personal interest in and relations to students - - - 9. Willingness to delegate appropriate administrative duties 10. Administrative, attitude 11. Intellectual quality 12. Comments—
- - - - - - - - - - -
Excellent
Poor
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
Evaluation made by...
195
T H E STUDENTS' SIDE OF THE QUESTION FORM 4
A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS
Annual Evaluation of Staff Member (Copies to Dean, Director, and Head of Department) Name.
..Department
Year..
Last
Evaluation made by.. Head of Department
A.
Careful reading of "Individual's Annual Evaluation Report" (Form 2)
-
B.
Conference with the individual being evaluated
C.
Examination of actual research or reports of progress
D.
Consultation with fellow workers (specify)
E.
Judgments and reports of students or county Extension workers - -
-
F.
Contacts with former student and alumni -
-
G.
Reports and records of committee service
H.
Examination of publications or of other productive and creative work
I.
Evaluation Committee
J.
Other
-
. . . -
- - - - - - - -
1. Knowledge of Subject Broad and accurate
2.
B. 3.
Generally satisfactory
Expression of Thought A. Written
Unsatisfactory
Oral
Initiative and Resourcefulness
4. Punctuality with respect to mail, meetings and reports 5.
Dependability
6.
Recognition of work in other fields
7. Human Relationships 8.
Research Aptitude
9.
Professional Improvement or Development
Satisfactory
Generally satisfactory •
Unsatisfactory
Alwaya dependable
Usually dependable
Mot dependable
Balanced appreciation
Mild appreciation
Lacks appreciation
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
This report is made upon the basis of the items checked.
196
D. H. REID
10. Ethical Standards A. Professional B. Personal 11. Quality of Work 12. Personal Characteristics
Generally satisfactory
Often of poor quality
Objectionable mannerisms not serious; appearance generally neat
13. Ability to Motivate or Lead 14. Public Relationships (with other agricultural workers and rural people) 15. Extra Professional Activities
Work moderately effective
Moderately active
Comments:
General Judgments: 1. Should be retained as member of staff - - - - - - 2. Should be considered for early promotion - - - - - - 3. Present assignment of duties should be changed by (specify) . 4. Should this individual be encouraged and aided to find employment elsewhere? Yes No._ 5. Should be informed by_ that connection with the College will be terminated in Date
6. Needs greater opportunity for: (specify) A. Study in recommended field B. Research C. Observation and study within and outside Texas D. Other 7. Special efforts which I have made to assist this individual in his professional improvement and adjustment-
Has this evaluation been discussed with the individual concerned ?
Signed, Date
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
Generally satisfactory
T H E STUDENTS' SIDE OF THE QUESTION
course, that it has been well worthwhile. In general, only the better students offered comments and I think the outstanding fact was that any professor who had a real interest in his students and a real knowledge of the subject did not need to fear these reports of the students. Of course, the real value of such a questionnaire lies in the attitude of the professors. If they accept the criticism and try to cure themselves of bad mannerisms and disconcerting habits and really try to put their work in better organized form, then we believe that the questionnaire is of real value.
News and Notes {Continued from page 184)
Poultry Council held at Pullman recently. He replaces in this position, John P. Miller, Assistant Extension Poultryman.
Raymond E. Cray, Egg Marketing Manager, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, has been appointed Professor of Poultry Science in the Ohio State University and the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, effective March 28. Mr. Cray's duties will consist of research and teaching in the economic phases of poultry marketing and management.
Fred Wentworth Frasier, 40-year old Extension Poultryman, Washington State College, died at his home in Pullman on Sunday, December 19, 1948. For the past three years Mr. Frasier had been suffering from the creeping paralysis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Although confined to his bed for over a year, he had continued to arrange poultry programs, and to dictate and approve news stories and articles to within a few weeks of his death. Mr. Frasier had served for 16 years on the Agricultural Extension Staff following his graduation in 1932.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on June 21, 2015
cuss weaknesses and really plan to do better. This is shown by the fact that at least six of the professors have conducted similar quizzes, you might call them, of their own, since the ones referred to were completed. We feel that these quizzes enable the teachers to plan to do more and better organized work than they have been doing. Strange to say, the students showed no liking for the "crip" professor, and students really showed that they appreciated the work of the professor who makes them work hard and outlines his material so that they feel, when they have finished the
197