11–20 of 86 posts
Welcome to the 21st century. That single minor incident now escalated into a news item of several days. Lot of lost PR points. All because they feel the need to control the course selection process. Sad.
I think this is a great example of both compromise and overreaction. In the end, they are clearly trying to give students the tools they want, but this should have been the first response, not the second. I can't find it now but the other yale student that wrote the chrome extension was the main catalyst. He took the complaints of Yale and removed them therefore forcing them to find new logic, which they did. Hats of…
It's the typical shoot first ask questions later philosophy that intelligent well educated teachers should never have used.
If they would have addressed their concerns from the beginning to the students i'm certain they would have complied.
"In retrospect, I agree that we could have been more patient in asking the developers to take down _information they had appropriated without permission_, before taking the actions that we did."
The entire note has an odd, arrogant read to it. If the new tool in fact provided complete comments as well as numeric scores, Yale would have cheered and saluted them ... but because they didn't, Yale shuts it down? Is that really the issue?
so will they allow the app now?
As I read the letter, first they're going to stop providing faculty evaluations, and then they're going to set up a bureaucracy overseeing student-developer use of university resources. After that, they may or may not reallow the app, but as the letter points out: > Just this weekend, we learned of a tool that replicates YBB+'s efforts without violating Yale’s appropriate use policy, and that leapfrogs over the harde…
In other words, death by committee.
I did get a chuckle at this backhanded positioning in the very first paragraph (which I highlight in _ _ below). Kind of set the tone of what I expected in the note, but was disappointed to see: "In retrospect, I agree that we could have been more patient in asking the developers to take down _information they had appropriated without permission_, before taking the actions that we did." The entire note has an odd, ar…
I did get a chuckle at this backhanded positioning in the very first paragraph (which I highlight in _ _ below). Kind of set the tone of what I expected in the note, but was disappointed to see: "In retrospect, I agree that we could have been more patient in asking the developers to take down _information they had appropriated without permission_, before taking the actions that we did." The entire note has an odd, ar…
So it sounds like to me that they are going to eventually take down the detailed evaluations and end it all. Did anyone else get that feeling?
So it sounds like to me that they are going to eventually take down the detailed evaluations and end it all. Did anyone else get that feeling?
Yep. And it's not over for the people who made this either, I'd wager... This was certainly not much of an apology.