University of Virginia Library

Evaluation
Explained

I write in response to the
insidious inferences of your
December 2-3 "Letters-to-the-Editor"
columns. The conclusions
regarding the critique of Philosophy
3, the 1968-69 Student Curriculum
Report, and the editors are
misguided calculations. The
conclusions have no validity and
have nothing to do with the truth
value of the Report of the
questioned critique.

I submit the following facts and
points of information for the
consideration of Mr. James Cargile,
Messrs. Barry and Pape, and your
readers:

A subjective part was added to
the 1968-69 evaluation format for
an important reason: to examine
the complete context and content
of each course. There were minor
purposes: to balance inaccuracies in
the statistical representation of
"consensus;" to provide
substantiation of opinion: and to
provide observations that would
not emerge in a purely statistical,
objective analysis. The subjective
analyses of the Report recognized
consensus as a portion of the
available evidence, but not as the
entire picture. The more demonstrable
the accuracy and breadth of
consensus, the greater was it's
strength as evidence.

The Curriculum Report (and its
stated editorial policy) has ultimate
objectives: 1) to show student
consensus concerning each course;
2) to present facts and informed
opinion about each course; 3) to
provide grounds for revision or
continuation of specific aspects of
curricular substance and policy; and
4) to provide a reasonable and
reliable basis for course selection
and registration. These ultimate
purposes were the over-riding
concerns of the Report. They were
the final criteria for departmental
and supervising editors, the final
considerations in justifying each
critique.

No claim has been made that the
Curriculum Report is complete or
faultless. It contains some excesses
and oversights. But none are by
intention.

Anyone so interested in the
Report could, by innuendo,
develop a "devil's theory" or an
"angel's theory" concerning any
critique in the booklet. One could
infer any number of things in
regard to what is stated and why it
is stated, all without ever considering
the truth.

And if the criticism and counter-attack
involved status quo, the
individual might even accomplish
the refutation convincingly.

But, such a theorizer would not
be considering the validity of the
criticism in question; he would be
skirting the substance of the
criticism and looking for an easy
rhetorical disclaimer.

Like a devil's theorizer, Professor
Cargile has written to The
Cavalier Daily with his complaint.
He has vainly attempted to use
grades to calibrate my personal
integrity, my reliability, and my
interest and ability as a student. I
question his actions: Is his contention
true? Is it germane? Does such
intimidation justify his contentions?
Can he embarrass me and
discredit the Curriculum Report in
one fell blow?

Further, Is Mr. Cargile aware of
the realities of the Philosophy 3
course? Is he concerned with
realities?

Rather than scapegoating, perhaps
Mr. Cargile would do better to
harness his investigative energy to
an inquiry into the nature of the
course in question. Perhaps he
ought to discuss Philosophy 3 as
the critique did with former
students who have sat through the
course. The results of such an
inquiry would be a reliable measure
and would be a fulfillment of the
Curriculum Report's ultimate purpose
to scrutinize the curriculum
in order to revitalize it. If Mr.
Cargile were to proceed without
malice or indignation, I doubt that
he would be concerned with
complicity in libel.

The Curriculum Report claims
to be not merely a just reflection of
consensus, but more importantly,
the facts as could best be ascertained.
There is no pretense of
infallible truth. There is no malicious
representation. If offers only
informed opinion. Printing the
truth about something is not libel,
but rather, no more than should be
expected.

If critique revelations are questioned,
the questioning ought to be
done with reason, and not with
vindictive measures or blanket
denials. Accusatory implication is
an expedient. Re-examination of
course goals, techniques, practices,
and circumstances demands reason
and concern. The Curriculum Report
be definition begs
contradiction, but contradiction in
practice before rhetoric.

If an individual believes any
critique to be an inaccurate representation
of a course, he is
welcomed to correct it. But he
cannot negate what he regards as
untrue with a e; such action does
not disallow the validity of the
criticism.

In the case in point, Mr. Cargile
could counter what has been said,
rather than infer why it was said or
who said it. He could tell us, for
example, that there is no
"poodah," that the work is more
than memorization for quizzes, that
exams are short, that there is great
correlation between text and lectures,
that discussion session
more than prepare students for
quizzes, that, in short, the course
cannot be considered a mockery.
Let Mr. Cargile refute the Curriculum
Report by telling it why the
course does not fit the description,
and not why the description itself is
a threat to his status-quo.

My own involvement in curricular
work has neither for purposes
of retribution or patronage. I was
committed to genuine curriculum
reform and dedicated to the ideals
of truth and reasonableness. There
is little correlation between my
motivation for grades and my desire
for curriculum reform. I remain
concerned about the Virginia curriculum.

I did, in fact, receive and deserve
Mr. Yalden-Thomson lowest recorded
grade as a first-year man.
My personal recourse from the
bewildering nature of the logic
course was in neglecting the text
and ignoring the exams. Falling
logic was a mistake on my part, but
no so regrettable to merit pettiness.
I intentionally did not write the
Philosophy 3 critique, since I
questioned my judgment in the
matter.

Not that it's relevant, but Mr.
Jackson Lears (co-editor of the
Report and a C+ student in logic)
was the author of the critique in
question. The statistical analysis
was prepared by Ronald Cass and
his staff on the basis of a 15% class
response (29 of 196). Cass' original
review was based solely on the
minority response. It was inconclusive
and was rewritten on the
basis of further investigation. This
was editorial policy, not-license.

If consistent, the next inference
should be that Mr. Lears is only 2½
grades more logical than I with a
little less reason for personal
vendetta. I note, however, that the
critique, for all its harshness, could
have been written by an A+ student
in logic and it would still stand on
its own merits or demerits as
informed opinion.

I submit that "a harmful truth i
better than a useful e."