While calls for public course evaluations have been swirling around since at least January, members of the University Senate’s Student Affairs Committee are looking to finalize a resolution to present to the floor, according to Spec. A subcommittee will release a report assessing the current systems already in place at Columbia and other schools. Among the Ivies, Harvard’s open evaluations are often cited as one of the first of such measures and generally seen as a success.

The proposal has picked up momentum in recent months after Deantini and Prezbo endorsed the measure. Many others have expressed their support despite the initial resistance from some faculty members. Still, some issues remain to be worked out. As GSAS student Cristina Camille Perez Jimenez points out in Spec, TA evaluations should hold special consideration as they are “weighted as part of our ongoing pedagogical training.”

Currently, student-run CULPA remains the most popular option for evaluations, though samples a limited number of students. If passed, the new system would incorporate more quantitative data besides student testimonies. Some members of the USenate hope to make some of the evaluation data available by the end of the academic year.