Shop ’Til You’re Dropped

BY SARAH R. LIEBER

About 200 students shuffled out of William James Hall last Tuesday convinced they had taken part in a twisted psychology experiment. Most were utterly confused, others just infuriated by the exceptionally unfair lottery used to determine enrollment into the popular class, commonly known as Psych 15. Far from any sick joke or experiment, the lottery was taken quite seriously by Professor of Psychology Daniel M. Wegner and his teaching staff, who arbitrarily decided to base class admission on the ability to find a seat in the packed hall.

Students who arrived punctually to class were given priority in enrollment—white index cards were distributed to 135 students in actual seats, while some 70-odd students sitting or standing in the aisles received colored slips. At the time, it seemed as though the teaching staff was merely trying to estimate the number of students taking the course in relation to the room capacity. To the surprise of nearly every student there, however, Wegner announced that those with white cards would be joining his class this term. Students who were unable to shop the class that day or came late and couldn’t find seats were eliminated from the class roster and prohibited from enrolling. The “lottery” came as a shock to many who have long admired Wegner as a renowned professor. Considering his plans to take a leave of absence next year, it was no surprise that students were spilling into the aisles.

Lotteries occur frequently for undergraduates at Harvard, where professors who wish to maintain the integrity of smaller, discussion-based lectures choose to limit enrollment through standard and fair procedures. Unlike his fellow colleagues, Wegner decided to create his own method, one that failed to give priority to seniors and concentrators, many of whom needed this foundation class for their concentration requirements.

More important than the procedural flaws in Wegner’s lottery, however, is the conflict between his and the community’s values. Harvard institutes shopping period at the start of each semester in order to give students the rare and vital opportunity to develop their academic interests. It is the only time that the uninhibited student, not yet bogged down by pressing deadlines and class responsibilities, is encouraged to experiment with new classes. Rather than promote intellectual inquiry, Wegner’s lottery contradicted the spirit of shopping period, undermining the enriching academic experience it is meant to foster. A disturbing conflict between school policy and classroom values became apparent in this case when students were penalized for heeding Harvard’s advice to explore as many classes as possible.

When asked in an interview why he chose this method of selection, Wegner alluded to two sides to shopping period. While students actively engage in evaluating classes, teachers, syllabi, and so forth, so too do professors take the time to select students in order to create the best learning environment for their class. Certain criteria such as good attendance and punctuality are among the values professors seek to uphold in the classroom. “Shopping period goes both ways,” Wegner argued. “The students are shopping and so are professors…If you were in the room in a seat at the time the class began, I thought that was good enough criteria for you to be in the class.” While attendance and punctuality are certainly valuable attributes, they should not be the determining factors for enrollment in a class.

Looking back on the series of events, Wegner pointed to the Office of the Registrar and the structure of shopping period as the two main culprits in this conflict—his selection process was a necessary response to a very flawed administrative system that was not willing to help professors deal with enrollment constraints. In recognizing some of the downfalls to his own method, Wegner admitted, “It may not have been the most fair solution. But I thought it was the most reasonable method given that there was no administrative support for solving this problem with the current shopping system.” When it comes to capping small, yet popular, classes, the Registrar offers two possible solutions for professors: moving to a larger classroom (provided one is available) or instituting a lottery. For Psych 15, the former was not an option because there weren’t enough teaching fellows to manage the increased enrollment. Wegner was unable to accommodate a larger setting without undermining the quality of the project-focused class.

There’s no question that students and faculty would respect a professor’s wishes to limit enrollment in order to promote quality. Rather than take his frustration out on students who were eager to take his class, Wegner should have instituted a fair lottery that gave priority to seniors and concentrators.

In cases where professors fail to protect student rights, it would be reassuring to know that the Harvard community can rely on its academic departments to criticize faculty members who step out of line. Reluctant to challenge an esteemed professor’s wishes, however, the psychology department opted not to intervene under these circumstances. Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology Ken Nakayama, who is also the head tutor in psychology, justified the department’s reservations, claiming, “The general policy has been to allow professors wide latitude in the conduct of their classes, including how they manage their enrollment. Such policies have sufficed in the past. Given the disappointment and confusion here, this policy should be reviewed.”

Though Wegner attests to having dealt with each and every one of the complaints he received over the course of this week, only twenty more students were added to the class, while others were left by the wayside, mistreated and wronged. The university must take a stance in order to prevent future infringements on the rights of its students. Whether through standardized lottery procedures (for example, an online lottery) or more efficient administrative services, we must institute fair enrollment policy before we can promote intellectual exploration.

Sarah R. Lieber ’07, and editorial editor, is a philosophy concentrator in Mather House.