What is the Best Way to Run a METIC?
By SAM ALTMAN ‘26 and JINMIN LEE ‘26
Originally introduced by the Student Council, a METIC is a Mid-Term Effort to Improve Classes. Teachers hold METICS in different styles, according to their discretion. For instance, some prefer to leave class to let students discuss what is going well and poorly, while others send anonymous Google forms to students. The purpose of a METIC is to address problems in class by finding feasible solutions that the students, teachers, and departments can agree on.
To conduct the most objective and useful METICs possible, teachers should anonymously send out questions that improve the class and have students submit answers anonymously without their names. Students should be able to be blunt and almost confrontational (as it is their only chance in the whole term) so that teachers will be alert enough to meet them at a middle ground. Whenever students have concerns, they should be expected to propose a tangible solution the teacher could implement. The teacher should then stay in the room and address the suggestions, explaining why certain proposals are acceptable or not. When the discussion is finished, the teacher should write a summary of the main concerns and share them in department meetings to form department-wide standards for teaching. Finally, it would be helpful if students could hold teachers accountable for change by submitting a form to the department chair.
Firstly, letting the teacher leave the class is a terrible idea because some students are not interested in improving their learning.
Unfortunately, some students at Exeter are often driven more by a desire to impress their teachers than to learn. Thus, students are unwilling to do a proper METIC and frequently completely refuse to talk when the teacher leaves, choosing to scroll on social media or talk about unrelated matters. Yet, the rare group of students who truly wish to improve the class are left with no choice but to frantically come up with ideas without the help of their classmates. This situation is inherently backward to the spirit of Harkness as it lacks cooperation. For instance, when our English teacher leaves the classroom, people intentionally don’t speak because they want to “save their points” to get Harkness points. This example illustrates why it is necessary to have a teacher present for METICs, who will ensure student participation.
However, students who truly desire change are not given ample time to think about what they can improve. Anonymous questions sent out before class as homework allow students to genuinely ponder their learning instead of making up points on the spot.
Exonians are busy and do not have the time or mental bandwidth to think deeply about what needs to change in their class unless they are prompted to do it as a homework assignment. This phenomenon leads to a world where students develop surface-level points in the METICs. We often see buzzwords like “good cooperation” or “good classroom environment” on the METIC board instead of actual changes. However, if students spend a substantial amount of time the night before, they can imagine what needs fixing.
Nonetheless, even if students have brilliant ideas, they worry about voicing concerns. If METICs become anonymous forms, students will not worry about being whistleblowers to problems as their names won’t be attached to their suggestions.
Often, students are afraid to voice true concerns because of repercussions, such as the teacher not liking them. Because teachers hold the power in the class, students often feel pressured to praise the teacher instead of criticizing them. Nevertheless, introducing anonymous suggestions allows students to say what’s on their minds without concerns.
Whenever there is a whistleblower, the sound needs to be loud enough. Radical requests are necessary for actual change.
The reason why students shouldn’t be worried about being whistleblowers is because a healthy confrontation is necessary for actual change. In his book Phenomenology of Spirit, one of the most influential philosophers Georg Hegel argues that every idea is a “thesis” that only develops in a clash with an “antithesis” that directly contradicts the thesis. When two opposing ideas clash, they will eventually form a “synthesis,” which is an offspring of both the thesis and the antithesis. This synthesis becomes the new thesis; consider it a middle ground or compromise of the two ideas. Following Hegel’s idea, students must propose an antithesis to a teacher’s method, which is, if necessary, radical enough to enact sufficient change. If the antithesis is strong enough, the synthesis will lean more toward what the students deem necessary. Of course, most students will not be so bold as to say something so opposing in class and without prior preparation. It is for that reason that anonymous, public, and thought-out feedback is of the utmost importance going forward.
However, complaints are useless when students don’t offer a counter-plan. Students should offer a tangible prescription for change for teachers to arbitrate and consult their department about, establishing more stable standards for teaching. That change could be measured, and teachers should be held accountable by allowing students to submit a reflection form about improvements made after METICs at the end of the term.
Then again, none of what we’ve discussed thus far would do any good if there were not a true opportunity for change. That is, it doesn’t matter how much students lament about the difficulty or inefficiency of a class if there is no system or expectation in place for how that translates into true reform. On the part of the students, it is imperative that when they give criticism, students also suggest a reasonable solution. On the part of the instructors, the METIC must be seen not simply as a task to placate students who just want an easier class but as an opportunity to make their class a better learning environment.
As an extension of that, the teachers should honestly attempt to arbitrate solutions and even consult the department if the students present a consistent and/or major issue. All too often, there seems to be a disconnect between what the students want the METIC to be and what the instructor actually makes it. As almost every Exonian will know, even at the exact same level, the difficulty of a class can swing massively from instructor to instructor, often to the point that an A student could suddenly become a B student, even while trying twice as hard. This often stirs up a lot of resentment among the students, and that tension is at its peak in the middle of the term. Teachers may often feel like students are only trying to change their standards to those of other teachers, and, in a sense, they are. However, a more centralized standard for teaching, test difficulty, and grading must exist within the department. The METICs, which often can be confrontational, are but a reflection of the large disparities that students feel from term to term. As such, when teachers see that a large portion of their students are highly concerned with the course, they should bring that up to their colleagues or even the school to ensure a more stable standard for teaching.
Then, perhaps at the end of the term, students could submit a form to reflect on what changes (if any) were made following the METIC. We suggest the department heads directly email a form to all students so the students can offer feedback on what the teacher did for the METIC.
This may seem like a whole lot of work for very little change. But, take our word for it: if you ask the average Exonian what they think about METICs, most will remark that it’s useless or that we should abolish them. In most classes, our current system consists of taking two minutes to nominate a “scribe,” having said scribe write down a few things that the class comes up with on the spot, having the teacher come back in, read the suggestions, and say something to the effect of, “I’ll work on it,” or, “Tough luck.” It’s hard to say that either party is to blame, but apathy has nevertheless seeped into this process. If we implement a system in which students can put thought into what they want to say in advance, not face repercussions about being more confrontational in their comments, and have the entire class address them as a whole with the teacher, we will have the ability to bolster the effectiveness of
