Editorial: USAC’s online survey has potential in spite of flaws

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.