5 ms·

> In doing so, the developers violated Yale’s appropriate use policy by taking and modifying data without permission, but, more importantly, they encouraged stu

> In doing so, the developers violated Yale’s appropriate use policy by taking and modifying data without permission, but, more importantly, they encouraged students to select courses on the basis of incomplete information. To claim that Yale’s effort to ensure that students received complete information somehow violated freedom of expression turns that principle on its head. I think she doesn't really know what free expression means. It does not mean, "you can say what you want as long as we agree with it." That's certainly how I read "more importantly, they encouraged students to select courses on the basis of incomplete information". Free expression means that the administration cannot control the message; people can say what they want. This is OK; win in the marketplace of ideas ("maybe I should evaluate my courses with more contextual information"), not by treating your students as children who can't decide for themselves how to consume information. Also, this bit about reconsidering whether to provide the data at all is childish. "You're not interpreting our data the way we want so now you can't have any! I'm taking my ball and going home!" It's worth remembering (both here and in the thus-far imprecise and confused discussion of who "owns" the data) that the students are the ones providing the evaluations being aggregated here; at the very least, it's unclear why they'd be expected to continue doing so without getting some quid pro quo benefit from it. Stop trying to control everything and trust your students to be smart and thoughtful.

jsun 13y ago
Not everyone acts as rational machines, professors' egos have to be stroked too. They'd like to think that they can't just be reduced to a number between 1 and 5. Besides which, I think exposing rating systems for courses creates perverse incentives. It's been well studied that students who get better grades rate courses higher. Is that really what we want to be measuring professors against?
- chatmasta 13y ago
  Yale students write Yale course reviews in order to see their grade. You get an email saying "a new grade has been posted," then you fill out the review form, then you see your grade.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Don't you think students already have a pretty good idea of what their grade will be before they write the review?
    - mkaziz 13y ago
      Nope. From Northwestern University, and I've often ended a quarter with no idea whether I'll get an A or a C.
- icambron 13y ago
  > Not everyone acts as rational machines OK, but now you're arguing that Yale students shouldn't be exposed to free expression because they're incapable of handling its consequences. I think that's silly, but fine: it's a real argument. But let's stop pretending this kind of paternalism is consistent with even a modest notion of free expression, because it's very clearly not. It says "you can only say things we approve of, because we know best." Being right about knowing best doesn't make it not a limitation on free expression. Free expression as a principle necessarily doesn't hinge on whether you think the individual expressions are right. That's, like, the whole point of it. [1] You're also arguing that 1-5 rating systems are silly and Yale shouldn't bother collecting them, but that has nothing to do with the YBB+ website or how students will interpret it. For example, wouldn't those perverse incentives you mention be in place already, given that providing feedback to professors was the whole point? Ratings don't magically transform from useful evaluation tools to misguided oversimplifications just because students have convenient access to them. Either they carry useful information or they don't. [1] I'm not taking a free expression absolutist position here. (I'm tempted to, but it's totally unnecessary for this discussion.) The point is that to the degree to which you make rules about what kind of thing people can express is, well, trivially the degree to which you limit free expression. And limiting the ability of students to transmit truthful data about the courses they're taking is a very strong limitation, and it would be hard to formulate a consistent, principled policy that permits this kind of restriction and doesn't just say, "you can't say things we don't like".
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > OK, but now you're arguing that Yale students shouldn't be exposed to free expression because they're incapable of handling its consequences. Odd, I read jsun's comment to be claiming that the professors were incapable of handling the consequences, not the students.
    - icambron 13y ago
      You're right. That should say "because professors are incapable of handling its consequences". I think the point stands, though.
  - 13y ago
- ghobs91 13y ago
  Just as students probably don't want to be reduced to a number between 1 and 4.
callesgg 13y ago
That would be the definition of "freedom of speech" in many western countries. (or at-least i believe it is similar in similar countries other than my own, i have not fact checked that.) For example in Sweden we have laws that provide "freedom of speech". It means that one can ALMOST say what one wants to anyone. One may however not say/or behave in a way that is intended to offend a group of people. Saying such a thing leads either to Jail or a Fine.
- icambron 13y ago
  Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are synonymous, but I think the former is a clearer phrase. Freedom of expression is generally never absolute (e.g. the US has libel and incitement laws ruled consistent with the Constitution), but for what it's worth, I believe European laws against offensive speech are absurd and make a mockery of free expression. It's not really free if people liking it is a criteria for being able to say it. The law, of course, is not in play here, because Yale is a private institution not wielding government authority. But the degree to which it supports free expression is exactly the degree to which it lets people say whatever they want.
  - callesgg 13y ago
    Are you making a mockery about my country's laws? I am deeply offended. You know that, it is a criminal offense punishable by jail time to do such a thing.
chris_wot 13y ago
I agree with the second paragraph, but not the third. It's not really childish to remove data that is being used incorrectly. Once the information is removed, then it becomes up to the people using it wrongly to gather that data, and then use it wrongly. Till then, you could be reasonably said to be trying to reduce harm.

jsun 13y ago

Not everyone acts as rational machines, professors' egos have to be stroked too. They'd like to think that they can't just be reduced to a number between 1 and 5. Besides which, I think exposing rating systems for courses creates perverse incentives. It's been well studied that students who get better grades rate courses higher. Is that really what we want to be measuring professors against?

chatmasta 13y ago
Yale students write Yale course reviews in order to see their grade. You get an email saying "a new grade has been posted," then you fill out the review form, then you see your grade.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Don't you think students already have a pretty good idea of what their grade will be before they write the review?
  - mkaziz 13y ago
    Nope. From Northwestern University, and I've often ended a quarter with no idea whether I'll get an A or a C.
icambron 13y ago
> Not everyone acts as rational machines OK, but now you're arguing that Yale students shouldn't be exposed to free expression because they're incapable of handling its consequences. I think that's silly, but fine: it's a real argument. But let's stop pretending this kind of paternalism is consistent with even a modest notion of free expression, because it's very clearly not. It says "you can only say things we approve of, because we know best." Being right about knowing best doesn't make it not a limitation on free expression. Free expression as a principle necessarily doesn't hinge on whether you think the individual expressions are right. That's, like, the whole point of it. [1] You're also arguing that 1-5 rating systems are silly and Yale shouldn't bother collecting them, but that has nothing to do with the YBB+ website or how students will interpret it. For example, wouldn't those perverse incentives you mention be in place already, given that providing feedback to professors was the whole point? Ratings don't magically transform from useful evaluation tools to misguided oversimplifications just because students have convenient access to them. Either they carry useful information or they don't. [1] I'm not taking a free expression absolutist position here. (I'm tempted to, but it's totally unnecessary for this discussion.) The point is that to the degree to which you make rules about what kind of thing people can express is, well, trivially the degree to which you limit free expression. And limiting the ability of students to transmit truthful data about the courses they're taking is a very strong limitation, and it would be hard to formulate a consistent, principled policy that permits this kind of restriction and doesn't just say, "you can't say things we don't like".
- saraid216 13y ago
  > OK, but now you're arguing that Yale students shouldn't be exposed to free expression because they're incapable of handling its consequences. Odd, I read jsun's comment to be claiming that the professors were incapable of handling the consequences, not the students.
  - icambron 13y ago
    You're right. That should say "because professors are incapable of handling its consequences". I think the point stands, though.
- 13y ago
ghobs91 13y ago
Just as students probably don't want to be reduced to a number between 1 and 4.

callesgg 13y ago

That would be the definition of "freedom of speech" in many western countries. (or at-least i believe it is similar in similar countries other than my own, i have not fact checked that.) For example in Sweden we have laws that provide "freedom of speech". It means that one can ALMOST say what one wants to anyone. One may however not say/or behave in a way that is intended to offend a group of people. Saying such a thing leads either to Jail or a Fine.

icambron 13y ago
Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are synonymous, but I think the former is a clearer phrase. Freedom of expression is generally never absolute (e.g. the US has libel and incitement laws ruled consistent with the Constitution), but for what it's worth, I believe European laws against offensive speech are absurd and make a mockery of free expression. It's not really free if people liking it is a criteria for being able to say it. The law, of course, is not in play here, because Yale is a private institution not wielding government authority. But the degree to which it supports free expression is exactly the degree to which it lets people say whatever they want.
- callesgg 13y ago
  Are you making a mockery about my country's laws? I am deeply offended. You know that, it is a criminal offense punishable by jail time to do such a thing.

chris_wot 13y ago

I agree with the second paragraph, but not the third. It's not really childish to remove data that is being used incorrectly. Once the information is removed, then it becomes up to the people using it wrongly to gather that data, and then use it wrongly. Till then, you could be reasonably said to be trying to reduce harm.