OCR Text |
Show L etters to the editor Student finds flaws in task force recommendations Faculty evaluations a must To the editor, I've discovered a flaw in the logic of the Stra tegic Planning Task Force recommendations for athletics. Recommendation No. 1 for football is to retain it on the condition that it generates at least $350,000 in revenue and averages a home attendance of 14,000. While this would certainly reduce football's gargantuan deficit (though one wonders who will pay the remainder of the deficit take a wild guess), there's one slight problem: gender inequity. However, having the foresight that they do, the SPTF saw to this by making concomitant recommendations to add two women's " sports and augment three existing ones essentially creating more than 90 female athletic opportunities.So, under the above "best case" scenario, football has half its deficit covered and athletics comes into compliance with Title IX regulations. Are we happy campers? Not! Aside from worrying about the remaining half of football's colossal deficit, creating 90 women opportunities would cost between $600,000 and $1.8 million. The former estimate is possible only if women's track is dramatically increased adding any other female opportunities bumps the figure above $1 million. Considering every a thletic program runs an astounding deficit (from $70,000 fro women's golf to $850,000 for men's football), where's the money for gender equity, under this scenario, going to come from? (Take another wild guess.) The SPTF seems not to have taken this into consideration. If I am wrong, please correct me. While I am at it, I'd like to congratulate the SPTF for recognizing that this campus simply does not want football. Certain student leaders, including certain newly-elected ones, dogmatically refuse to acknowledge this (and then they wonder why students are alienated from ASWSU). These leaders apparently believe if we throw enough money, energy, and time into marketing football, it will excel. They could be right (I doubt it), but the more fundamental question remains: should WSU be pouring yet more money, yet more time, yet more energy, yet more creativity, into promoting a clearly unwanted program? Or should we allocate those resources into promoting WSU's outstanding academic opportunities? Maybe it's time to ask the students, staff and faculty? Nah, democracy just keeps getting in the way. . . Johnn Tann WSU student r Q: What is more effective than Signpost classifieds? Call today! 626-7974 A: Nothing To the editor, On April 27 The Signpost newspaper of Weber State University printed the article "One year late: Evaluationsprivileges stripped away." It seems that the faculty senate voted to discontinue the pilot program of evaluations. The evaluations are (were) distributed to the students at the end of the quarter to give the teacher an evaluation to grade the teacher. The purpose of the evaluation as I see it are: 1. To let the teacher know what are hisher strong and weak points. To let the teacher get specific comments on how the course might be improved. 2. To let the school's administration know how the students perceive the teachers. To allow them to weed out the ineffective teachers. To make the university a better place to learn, thus improving the image and quality of education available at the school. The good intentions of the program far outweigh the negative. Mark Dyreson, a professor at the university, opposes the program because, "it simply becomes a popularity contest for professors." True. There will always be those people who will give bogus evaluations. Any scien tist knows that you need to get a wide range of input for the result to truly reflect the actual truth. I don' t think tha t we should start giving the evaluations to elementary students. I don't think that a college professor should lose his job over a negative result of one quarter of evaluations. I do think that we ought to be given some credit. We are college students. We are putting out a lot of hard work and hard-earned money here. Those evaluations are going to reflect an honest opinion. As far as the idea that it will be a popularity contest, I disagree. I have given good evaluations to good teachers that I really didn't like - because I learned from them. I also ha ve given bad evalua tions to teachers who didn't teach as effectively, even if I liked them. In each case, I explained why I felt that way. The professors are trying to add a touch of job security by eliminating a check and balance system. Is that right? Are the teachers here to teach, or earn a paycheck? The university is for the students. Give them back their evaluations! MarkGibby WSU student . vSVXly "X Editor in chief Accepting application! for the following 1994-95 positions Preferably communication major Macintosh computer literate Knowledgeable with PageMaker and Word Prior newspaper experience a must Advertising Manager Business oriented Macintosh computer literate Knowledgeable with PageMaker and Word Prior sales experience a must Production Manager Preferably desktop publishing or graphic arts background Macintosh computer literate Knowledgeable with PageMaker and Typestyler Layout and scanner experience a must All applicants must be full-time students Apply at Career Services or contact Laura Jane Hansen at G26-7974. l' 11 .,;---7l...i--rX: ,, - |