Let’s METIC the METIC

By  ANGELA HE ‘27 and ANDREW YANG ‘27

METIC = Minimally Effective Technique Initiating Change

“I think that our class needs to work on balance”

“We have a respectful class.”

“We all come prepared to class.”

These points are brought up in nearly every METIC, yet they are either never brought up again or never resolved. Years ago, the Student Council proposed for every class to conduct a METIC (Midterm Effort To Improve Classes), aiming to improve class dynamics.

However, METICs are a superficial attempt to show that we are doing something adjacent to improving the class. While it is packaged like a proactive step, the reality is that these evaluations rarely lead to meaningful change. METICs are a one-day event, where issues are raised but never revisited. We go through the motions of discussing class dynamics, but these discussions often feel forced and shallow. Problems are lightly touched on in a 10-minute conversation, but there’s no follow-up, no concrete plan to address the feedback provided.

All classes and all teachers do METICs in different ways. Some spend 10 minutes stating the obvious and another 10 minutes sitting and staring at one another. Others may send out a form and request students to submit comments online. These attempts often become a reiteration of the obvious. Or, they become assumed as a reiteration of the obvious. Even before the conversation begins, there’s a shared expectation that nothing new or groundbreaking will emerge. Students assume that what they might say has already been thought of by others, or that the issues being raised—such as class participation or balancing voices—are so common that they don’t require further attention.

This lack of follow-through can make METICs feel like a box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine attempt to address class concerns. This assumption that METICs only surface the obvious creates a self-fulfilling cycle. Classes may anticipate predictable feedback and brush off the discussion as just a formality. The time spent organizing and conducting METICs is also disproportionate to the minimal improvements that result from them. Without concrete changes or sustained efforts to address the feedback, both students and teachers are left wondering if that time could have been better spent.

These evaluations remain ineffective without challenging the assumption that METICs are just about the obvious. Problems are pointed out but never fully engaged with, leaving the classroom dynamic unchanged and the METIC experience ultimately a waste of time.

As METICs are treated as a one time event, students and teachers view them as mere checkpoints rather than genuine attempts to improve the class. However this is true, because in any case it is challenging to completely improve class dynamics through a 15-minute discussion. 

Harkness upholds a series of ideal qualities: respect, balance, and collaboration. When doing a METIC, it is hard not to evaluate a class through these three criteria. In fact, students and teachers tend to remain tunnel-visioned on these three criteria, preventing them from addressing minor details that can make the class more enjoyable and/or more productive. For example, some classes utilize the “small-group-discussion” method at the beginning of class, but these groups rarely change because people tend to stick with their old seats. However, it is crucial for students to hear from different classmates and understand different perspectives. What’s more, sticking to the same groups for the whole term is simply boring.

This phenomenon of focusing on the big picture during METICs is similar to how students and teachers put more emphasis on the majority opinion during METICs. When one idea is brought up multiple times, the class tends to remain “tunnel-visioned” on that idea and gloss over opinions brought up by a few students. It seems rational to focus on the big ideas in a METIC, but since one of Harkness’ core values is respect, it is irrational and paradoxical to not address minority opinions. However, a METIC is only 20-minutes long, and there’s only one per term. To maximize efficiency, students and teachers put more emphasis on the majority opinion, silencing the minority during a METIC and not considering all suggestions for improvement. 

Some teachers who agree that METICs are a waste of time don’t do them at all. Additionally, METICs don’t improve class dynamics because students and teachers tend to be “pigeon-holed” into the big picture or the majority opinion. As students and teachers do more METICs, they realize the ineffectiveness and unseriousness of METICs. However, it’s a “mandatory” activity, so they are reluctant to speak up against it. Thus, METICs evolved into an undercurrent of performative compliance. In other words, METICs currently exist as mere checkpoints. Nothing more.

While METICs were designed with the intention of improving class dynamics, they often fall short of creating actual change. With only a couple minutes to discuss, it’s no surprise that these evaluations often feel like a formality rather than a genuine attempt to make things better. To truly enhance our class dynamics, we need to rethink how we gather feedback. An anonymous online “complaint” form available throughout the entire term could help create more open dialogue and allow students to address concerns as they arise. When a “complaint” form is open throughout the term, the class has more time to address minority opinions. Additionally, these “complaints” are optional, so “complaints” will be more genuine. This gets rid of unproductive discussions around ideal Harkness norms. With this new method, discussions to improve classes become less of a formality and more of an intentional effort to improve classroom dynamics.