The University Senate approved the new course evaluation questions at its meeting Wednesday after a lengthy discussion about the subjective meaning of the words “quality” and “somewhat inadequate.”
Journalism professor Tom Bivins initiated the discussion when he said because students interpret the questions differently, they are too vague and some of their meaning is lost.
Bivins’ comments sparked a heated debate in which Bertram Malle, the psychology professor who has been heavily involved in the evaluation makeover, assured the Senate that the motion before it featured an improved product.
“The committees that have worked on this set have weighed many different perspectives (and) concerns,” said Malle. “The sheer number of voices and interpretations that are reflected in this particular document is quite impressive.”

Malle acknowledged, however, that input “doesn’t mean every concern was met.”
“I would urge you to consider the imperfect but vastly improved motion in front of you,” Malle said. “We can still do much better in coming years … but I hope you can recognize the difference between what we have and what is now possible to do with this new set.”
Senate President Gordon Sayre said meaningful course evaluation results are drawn from aggregate data, which matters more than individual students’ interpretation of the wording.
The motion passed with one opposed and two abstaining. Its passage clears the way for departments to formulate their own specific questions that will be tacked onto the basic evaluations.
ASUO President Emily McLain spoke to the Senate about course syllabus availability. McLain asked senators for feedback about the prospect of posting syllabuses before students register for classes, thus decreasing the number of drops during the first two weeks of the term and increasing productivity.
Faculty expressed some concerns, including the inflexibility that would arise out of posting dates and information that early, and how it wouldn’t allow them to fully analyze and consider the previous term when formulating the next term’s syllabus.
Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke updated the Senate on parking plans for the new basketball arena. A Parking and Transportation Committee is going to explore opportunities at the east gate of campus – possibly an underground structure. The cost of the structure and a traffic analysis report – which was expected at this meeting – are still unavailable.
Associate professor of architecture Peter Keyes was frustrated by the lack of traffic report, and made that clear before discussion on his motion to consolidate the cost of parking with the base cost of the arena project, thus ensuring the athletic department rather than faculty, staff and students would cover the cost.
“I think there will be no more clarity,” Keyes said of the parking planning. “None of us know how this will turn out. We don’t know and we won’t know for years.”
After some discussion, the Senate ultimately decided a traffic impact analysis was not crucial for the motion, and passed it. The motion had been tabled since January in anticipation of more detailed information about the parking situation.
Dyke also discussed the possibility of the University’s Riverfront Research Park facility becoming the site of a new McKenzie-Willamette hospital. The Eugene City Council voted 8-0 on Wednesday to make the University site its top choice for the proposed building.
McKenzie-Willamette had plans last year to build the hospital on part of RiverRidge golf course in north Eugene, but developers eventually scrapped the idea after running into strong opposition from area residents.
Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies Rich Linton said the University is happy to work with the city and research the new proposal, but the idea is still very much in its early stages. The project would likely force the University to relocate dozens of laboratories and art studios in the 27-acre area. The University also sent a letter to the city Wednesday detailing some of those questions and information about the site.
“In the coming days, we’re hopeful we’ll have more in-depth discussion with the city and the hospital about those issues,” Linton said.
News Editor Eric Florip contributed to this report
[email protected]