• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

After 11 months, the undergraduate government has launched a survey on the expected cumulative progress requirement. Unfortunately, several design flaws suggest the survey’s data will be more anecdotal than scientific. Still, ECP deserves attention, and this survey should serve as a catalyst for critical discussion.

The Undergraduate Students Association Council has long argued that the requirement, which mandates continual unit progress, puts unnecessary stress on busy students and inhibits those who work or are involved in extracurricular activities. The survey is an attempt to quantify its effects on the student body.

But two major problems with the survey’s design mean the data may not be as conclusive as the council had hoped.

Although students in the College will receive the survey via e-mail, there is no requirement to complete it – participating depends entirely on self-selection.

Students who dislike ECP will be much more likely to respond than those who are unaffected or unaware of its existence. Considering the survey has over 50 questions, it is also likely many will be intimidated by its length.

The survey Web site is open to anyone with an Internet connection. There are no mechanisms insuring students don’t submit the survey more than once, and it is even possible for non-students to find the site and impact the results.

After such a long span of preparation, it seems that the council could have produced a better design. But despite its flaws, the survey should not be dismissed. It will still provide context to the debate.

USAC has publicly opposed ECP for years, but the university administration maintains that ECP does more good than harm. University administrators told councilmembers the best way to evaluate ECP would be to conduct a university-approved survey, and this imperfect effort is the result.

It was the university that steered USAC toward the monitored design because of fears that any other system might result in leaks of confidential student records. But had the university supported the survey, it’s not hard to imagine that a methodology with more safeguards could produce more substantial data.

USAC officers also blame various administrators for bureaucratic red tape that complicated the project and contributed to the 11-month process.

Design flaws and delays aside, the survey still has potential.

The site will be online for two weeks, giving any student who cares about the issue time to respond. By the end of the first day, several hundred responses had already been filed, though there is no way to know how many of the responses represent individual students separate from USAC’s campaign.

The administration should not simply ignore USAC’s efforts. There is an important debate to have concerning ECP’s justification and impact, and though this survey is clearly flawed, it should not impede that discussion.