An Apology
By JOHN LOTT
Collegian Editor
Ihe signed column of last Fri
day written by Mel Ziegler about
Pro! R. Wallace Brewster’s Politi
cal Science !i course has provoked
a wave of letters and telephone
calls from Dr. Brewster’s colleagues
and from students. If one conclu
sion can be drawn from this re
sponse, perhaps it is this: Dr.
Brewsters reputation as an instruc
tor, scholar and human being ap
pears unassailable. What has been
brought under serious question is
the responsibility and judgment
exercised by Editorial Editor Zieg
ler in writing the column, and by
The Daily Collegian Editor in per
mitting such remarks to be pub
lished.
The Collegian has received let
ters from the Dean of the Liberal
Arts College, from several political
science prolcssors, from 'he depart
ment s tiding head expressing the
feeling of the department as a
whole, and from students who have
Brewster Analysis
Called Critical
Generalization
TO TlUi EDITOR: As a sth
term student majoring in Po
litical Science and having had
Dr Brctvstcr lor Political
Science 3. I would like to ex
press my dissatisfaction with
Mr. Ziegler's Critical "Analy
sis” ol Dr. Brewster and his
Course. Mr. Ziegler's desire to
expose the Penn Slate student
body and faculty to Ihe “state
ness” of Dr Brewster’s course,
and to open our eyes to the
"m ore prepared” incoming
freshmen is indeed admirable.
However, ''mollhtence” has
done little more than criticize,
and his generalizations and
simplifications of Political Sci
ence 3 and of the man who
tenches ll clearly reflecl Mr.
Ziegler's inability to balance
resource and reason.
Granted, there is much room
for improvement in Political
Science 3. but I sincerely doubt
the usefulness of such'a method
as Mr Ziegler lias employed.
Rather, the products of hi«=
method may be resentment and
diss a t i s faction. Perhaps,
strangely enough, these pro
ducts may have even served
as the motivating factors for
this particular column of “mel
fluence.”
—William Slrawn
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FOLLET BOOK COMPANY WILL BUY BOOKS NOT USED ON THIS CAMPUS
Editorial Opinion
taken Dr. Brewster’s course. We
also have received a telephone call
from an officer of the University
chapter of the American Associa
tion of University Professors and
several late-night anonymous calls
All the opinions expressed support
of Dr. Brewster as a man of integri
ty whose teaching and published
work is widely respected. And all
protested and questioned the sense
of responsibility displayed by the
Collegian in this situation.
It has been pointed out that Dr
Brewster has long been a champion
of student rights, especially in the
realm of a free student oress. It has
been noted that his work in the
AAUP has illustrated this, and
that, indeed. Dr. Brewster has been
one of the leading supporters of a
student course evaluation program.
His textbook, in addition to being
hailed for excellence by the State
Department, has also gained highly
-favorable critical reviews abroad.
In an attempt to offer construc
tive suggestions to improve the first
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Restraint Urged
TO TIIE EDITOR: The Depart
ment of Political Science ,el
comes constructive criticism
from any and all students of
ils course offerings. The mem
bers of the Department, how
ever, are unanimous in de
ploring the unsubstantiated, un
founded ad hominem attack
unon an individual professor.
The venomous nature of that
attack could hardly serve a
I HATE \ Ifl BV GOLLV.NOBODV BETTER
/VZT\ THE WHOLE r SET IN MV U)AV TODAV!
| -j | ■ Ji~
I — c i u
"1 Il’M 60NNA 6ET SIAIJ6tfIH?O>,
Today Is The Last Day Books Will Be Accepted
Thursday Is The Last Day Books Will Be Sold
CUP ft SAVE
ACCEPT BOOKS
LAST DAY TODAY
SELL BOOKS
THURSDAY, JAN. 13
IS THE LAST DAY
RETURN MONEY FOR
INCORRECT BOOKS
JANUARY 13-14
RETURN MONEY AND
UNSOLD BOOKS
JANUARY 17-21
TO THE EDITOR: The recent
attack on Professor R. Wallace
Brewster by Me] Ziegler is
without doubt a serious abuse
constructive purpose. In the of freedom of the press,
future, we hope that those who One might be inclined to dis
claim to write under the pro- miss it as juvenile (and, as it
tection of free speech and free turns out, ignorant) exercise
press will exercise the right in criticism were it not filled
with a degree of restraint and wi(h maJiciolls wn om and un
responsibuitv. , . „ . . .
. bridled viciousness.
—William R. Monat „ .
Acting Head surely a responsible news-
Department of paper requires maximum
Political Science standards of mature judgment.
—Raymond Ayoub
Professor of Mathematics
THE USED BOOK AGENCY
NON-PROFIT STUDENT OPERATED USED BOOK AGENCY
Due
Course Evaluation booklet, Mi
Ziegler chose a particular course
and its professor as an example.
Mr. Ziegler has taken the course
and received an above - average
grade. He himself has maintained a
consistently high academic stand
ing. He wrote on the assumption
that these factors qualified him to
make a critical evaluation.
Perhaps his approach and as
sumptions were unfortunate. Sub
sequent reaction has obviously
made it embarrassing, not only tc
Dr. Brewster, but to The Daily-
Collegian as a whole. While Mr
Ziegler’s basic aim was to point up
the weaknesses of the course guide
his overall comments have obvious
ly appeared to some readers as an
unprovoked attack on Dr. Brewster.
Such was not the intention
However, after reviewing the situa
tion, The Daily Collegian Board of
Editors believes it necessary to
make public apology to Dr. Brews
ter for any unintended embarrass
ment stemming from this incident,
Serious Abuse
o-Loeil Advertising Managers, Robert Sayers and Victor Sandham; Co-Credit
Managers, Diant Specht and Kenneth Bender; Classified Advertising and Promotion
Manager, Ruth Roseff; Circulation Manager, Dick Welssman; Office Manager,
Sally Snyder.
City Editors, Dtb Stoddard and William F. Lee; Sports Edlfor, Alex Ward; Assistant
Sports Editor, Lew Thompson; Editorial Editors, Joyce McKeever and Mel Ziegler;
News and World Affairs Editor, Laurie Devine; News and Features, Kathy Case;
Personnel Director, Sally Brown; Editorial Columnist, Richard 0. Spasnolll.
JOHN LOTT
Editor
PAGE FOUR
LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE HUB
The student Course Evaluation booklet published last
week has made a notable advance in the area of student
involvement in academic affairs. Bu( in its present for
mat the booklet falls short of its maximum value.
A useful course evaluation will offer guidance both
to the student pondering a choice of electives and instruc
tors and to the professor in analyzing his own effectiveness.
Such generalizations as "it contributes (or does not
contribute) to a well-rounded education" or "ihis course
serves (or does not serve) as an adequate introduction"
aren't really saying anything that will benefit either stu
dent or instructor. The booklet is filled with these useless
ambiguities.
Currently courses are evaluated through questionaires
distributed among student enrollees with the statistical re
sults religiously converted to prose form. The questionnaire
is a collection of twenty yes-no answer-type questions,
concluding with a solicitation for “additional comments”.
As it is, however, the questionnaire is too rigid and
inflexible and often irrelevant. A yes or no answer to
such questions as “Do you think this course has contributed
to your well-rounded education” or “Can you ea-ily find
the important material in the text” will not necessarily
provide an accurate indication. A new type of question
naire which will require more than an overly-generalized
response from the student, with space provided alongside
the question for him to express his feelings in his own
words will provide a more intensive analysis of the course.
The major failure in the first Course Evaluation book
let is evident with ils use of compiled data. Once a more
imaginative questionnaire is drafted, student reviewers
responsible for writing the course summaries should be
left with ihe freedom to convert the data into meaningful
analyses, instead of the dry verbalized data that is now
used.
Students in high academic standing who have com
pleted the particular course they are reviewing with either
an A or B grade should be employed to do the writing.
Another vital improvement for the course evaluation
processes would be. to de-emphasjze the classroom policies
of the teacher in favor of more concern with his ability
to arrange and deliver his material. Whether the instructor
bases his exams on the text or his lectures is not nearly
as important as the substance of the course.
A Student-Operated Newspaper
60 Years of Editorial Freedom
Satlij (Enllpntan
Successor to The Free Lance, est. ISB7
Publisher: Collegian, Inc.
Owner: Collegian, Inc.
Known bondholders, eic.: None
Circulation: 9,000
Copies Printed: 9,000
Member of The Associated Press
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1966
SELLING YOl
mefffuence
Course Evaluations
Last in a series
ARTHUR RAPP
Business Manager
By MEL ZIEGLER
Editorial Editor
In Memory of William Jeffrey
Honorary Sigma Phi Alpha, 1934
If I have done any deed worthy of remembrance,
that deed will be my monument.
the Brothers and Pledges
of Alpha Kappa Lambda,
successor to Sigma Phi Alpha
600 D 6RIEF!
Prejudiced Melfluence
Note to Mr. Zeiglcr- Attached
yon will find a carbon of n
tetter to the editor. It trill
probably never find its trail
to print, therefore I felt obli
gated to send you a copy.
TO THE EDITOR: Two basic
issues seemed to have emerged
concerning the recent USG
publication “Course Evalua
tion.’' The first concerns who
shall judge This issue con
cerning the qualifications one
needs in order to offer respon
sible and constructive criticism
has managed to generate suf
ficient controversy. Ot equal
importance, is the question con
cerning what should be done
with the data once it has been
collected and tabulated 1 sug
gest that the data, as such, are
“dumb", and will remain so
until spoken for by an individ
ual interested in answering a
question or proving a point.
Further, that researchers in
both the collection and inter
pretation r>! (lata have an un
canny wav of seeking what
they want to see in the data:
of abstracting in relation to
their desires and expectations
In relation to tile second
—Agesilaus
tvev and snoopv are
HAVING A FIGHT!
\3 0©
•° • 1
STAND STILL, AND
Fight like a man!!
ersr
£sp l
point I would like to focus
attention on Mr. Zeigler’s re
cent article, "Whv a Professor
Failed." 1 would like to U'k
Mr. Zeiglcr In clarih the bases
tram which he made his inter
pretation. Unless USG offered
him additional data not pre
sented m the ''Evaluation.” I
see no reason to accept his
conclusion that Dr. Brewster
should he considered a failure.
Mr. Zeiglcr, if he did no' ob
serve additional data, appears
lo he the taihire Ills article is
seems prejudiced and sensa
tional in its approach. Such
techniques, although they sell
papers and create public impr
est. appear to be irresponsible.
Certainlv (he license to edi
torialize implies some measure
of responsibility. Unfortunately
Mr Zeiglcr did not seem to
demonstrate his re.-PonMbilil'-
either to his m anv readers or
to Dr. Brewster.
In conclusion 1 would submit
that Mr. Zeiglcr needs to re
examine his own methods be
fore undertaking lo evaluate
the methods of others.
—David E. Butt
Instructor of speech