OMG PCR, WTF
Remember when we told you about how Penn Course Review had improved its internal structure by adding in a better search function and other fancy new doodads? Unfortunately, it seems that the new system is fraught with many alleged errors, like listing professors under wrong courses and giving other false information. That ain’t right! And yet, these concerns shed light on an even larger issue. The entire concept of PCR is kind of… Well, how much do you value the opinions of other undergraduates when forming your own academic decisions? Professor Max Cavitch of the English Department summed up these concerns quite nicely in an email sent out to English majors today:
A new and “improved” beta version of the Penn Course Review went on-line today. DO NOT USE IT. It is FULL of errors. For example, dozens and dozens of courses in the English Department alone are listed under the wrong professor and/or course title.
The Dean of the College has been notified of this fiasco and will hopefully pull the site by the end of the day. In any case, no student or faculty member should under any circumstances be using PCR. Students should be talking directly to their academic advisors in the College and to their major and minor advisors in English (and any other major or minor programs you’re connected with) for sound and accurate advice about courses.
Also, please write directly to SAS College Dean Prof. Dennis DeTurck and to Director of Academic Advising Dr. Janet Tighe to demand that PCR be mothballed unless and until its accuracy can be proven and it can be managed responsibly. In its current form it is an insult to all Penn students and faculty.
While the claims made about the incorrect information on the new site may or may not be true, Cavitch’s point about the validity of PCR itself stands: How is it fair- for professors and for ourselves- to allow collective judgements about a class to have any weight when considering our academic careers?
Granted, sometimes taking “The Easy Class” to fulfill the University’s many requirements is the quick and dirty solution, but your undergraduate career at Penn is based mostly on the notion of broadening your academic horizons. To boil it down further: take what you want to take!
In the end, then, PCR is neither “good” nor “bad,” but simply “out there and ripe for misuse.” Appreciate all the work that went into the new PCR site (It looks great and runs wonderfully!), but take the content with a grain of salt.
This post has been altered from its original version.
Tags: News, academic, classes, pcr, penn course review, the internets, wtf
Previous post: AT-Whoa.
Next post: Ring The Alarm, Or Not.
Comments RSS: Subscribe to this post.
By Sophia on October 31, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Sorry, but no matter how interesting a class sounds to me, I would often much rather take another class that’s mildly interesting instead of taking the one I really want to with a professor that is collectively considered painful to listen to. PCR is important because it helps people avoid professors who will make them dislike a class that sounds interesting on paper. No matter how interesting the subject material, I don’t want to hear about it from someone who makes me want to jump off a cliff.
Everything on the new PCR is exactly as it was on the old one… the layout is just so much better, that people are finally catching the errors. Congratulations to PennApps on making such a better program!
Im sure professors hate it, but PCR is awesome. in my experience, its been pretty darn accurate. i use it to avoid the truly awful professors out there and to help me balance my courseload. i know teaching isnt a big priority for many professors, but being a student and/or learning is pretty big with most students
I wonder what Cavitch’s reviews are like…
The course review is essential in departments where the professors are hit-or-miss. Take calculus. Taking calc with a bad professor is likely to make your experience miserable, while a good professor will make you more engaged (and may improve your performance in class).
He’s actually a really good teacher. I’ve had him two years in a row now and he’s really knowledgable/engaging.
Wait, the new PCR is WAAAAAAAAAY better. And I already liked the old one. The new search options blow the old ones out of the water. This will make life so much easier. And Cavitch should stop kvetching (see what I did there?) about the beta. He obviously doesn’t know what a beta is, or else he wouldn’t get his panties in a bunch about it. Betas always have mistakes. That’s why they’re the betas. You’re supposed to calmly tell the creaotrs about the mistakes, and then they fix them for the final product.
If you have found Penn Course Review useful in the past, I encourage you to the following. Rather than email Dr. DeTurck “to demand that PCR be mothballed”, I would urge you to write to Dr. DeTurck calmly explaining that you find PCR to be a useful service and that you find Cavitch’s reaction unnecessarily incendiary and antagonistic. This should serve in nice contrast to the anger and spite in Cavitch’s email.
Suggested letter:
Dear Dr. DeTurck,
I am writing to you about the new Penn Course Review, as Professor Cavitch suggested. In addition, I am writing about Professor Cavitch. I feel that PCR provides a useful feedback service to both students and faculty and it is something we should support as a community.
I feel that Professor Cavitch reacted inappropriately and unprofessionally and I urge you not to acquiesce to his “demand” that PCR be “mothballed”. Although he claims to speak for both students and faculty, I can assure you that I am one such student who politely disagrees with his point of view.
I would also note that the data presented on the new site is the same as that on the old site (as far as I can tell). Does Professor Cavitch also advocate pulling the original site “by the end of the day?” I find it unfortunate that Professor Cavitch does not seem to be willing to discuss this issue in a rational manner and instead attempts to force his viewpoint onto the entire Penn community.
Respectfully,
(name)