Step 1: Writing

The primary role of writers is to compile questionnaires into prose reviews. They function as objective reporters, but we invite them to introduce personal flair into their writing. Objectivity, professionalism, and engagement are our primary values for writers. They write all reviews according to our writing guide, the contents of which are summarized below.

QuestionnaireThe questionnaire undergoes constant improvement in accordance with professor and student feedback. We are currently in the process of collaborating with faculty to develop more equitable and accurate survey methodologies.

Creative FlairWe do not compromise on objectivity from our writers. However, we invite them to add personal voice and creative flair to their reviews. Most commonly, this may manifest as an engaging hook such as this example from a course review for Greek Mythology (CLAS0900): “Why was Athena always the best at trivia? Because she had a "Midas touch" when it came to knowledge!“

Review StructureThe writing process begins by clearly outlining the course title, format, and goals, incorporating relevant background information to provide a comprehensive overview. For example, a writer might discuss how different prerequisite requirements prepare students. When available, we incorporate insights from instructor feedback while maintaining an engaging and unbiased introduction.

We then provide an insight into the instructor's pedagogy, such as lecture style, course pacing, and classroom environment, without making direct comparisons to other instructors.

Next, we examine course requirements, detailing the type of assignments and readings that comprise the workload–which helps students figure out how this course might fit into their overall schedule!

Finally, we conclude with an objective summary of students' overall impressions, noting any standout moments within the course content and the professor's unique approach. Each review is carefully crafted to ensure a fair and professional analysis of the course experience.

Additional standards we hold our writers to:

• Student Perspective: Phrase opinions in terms of student perspective, not personal perspective. We'll never say things like “This instructor was horrible…” Instead, we contextualize the feedback within the survey response. For example, a review might say, “Students without a hard-science background might find the readings too technical,” or “Students who did not take PREREQ1234 may find the initial two projects challenging; respondents find office hours critical for success in this course.”
• Consensus: Present the class's consensus. Avoid emphasizing extreme viewpoints when surveys overwhelmingly indicate moderate reactions.
• Insufficient Information: Do not write a review if there are less than three survey responses.
• Multiple Instructors: If there is more than one instructor, each instructor will be discussed separately. Do not compare instructors between classes.

Step 2: Editing

The primary role of editors is to meticulously review all written drafts and edit for grammar, professionalism and most important, objectivity. We hold our editors to the same standards as our writers, with the additional responsibility of critically assessing each review within a wider body. They edit all reviews per our editing guide.

Biased or Critical ReviewsOne of the most important things editors look out for are biased or critical reviews. If a review appears too harsh or sounds too biased towards one direction, editors reserve the right to comprehensively re-write, and reach out to an executive editor for advice. Our goal is to help connect professors with students that align with their course approaches – not feel attacked.

Grammar and FormattingContent and structure are interrelated, so we stress the importance of adhering to strict grammar and formatting guidelines. Here are some examples of those guidelines:

• Commas: Commas aren't necessary before dependent clauses, but they are necessary between independent clauses. Moreover, use the Oxford comma!
• Professor's Name: The professor's full name should be used the first time they are mentioned in a review. In subsequent mentions, “Professor [Surname]” should be used.
• Tense: Present tense should be used for general information that will likely remain true. Past tense should be used to describe reviewers’ evaluations and commentary. Typically, the introductory paragraph will be the only paragraph to contain present tense.
• Quotations: Quotes are useful unless integrated excessively. Sometimes they aren't always necessary and meaningful. Editors may change superfluous quotes into plain statements.
• Overuse of Words: Writers often end up repeating words like “students,” “effective,” and “relevant.” Utilize synonyms which may offer a slightly more nuanced and accurate meaning.

Step 3: Executive Editing

Our team of executive editors is chosen through a rigorous application process. They are required to have previously served as writers and editors for the Critical Review. All of them have extensive writing and editing experience. As the executive board of the Critical Review, they manage all parts of the organization, from website design to finance.

Most importantly, they carry out the organization's missions and goals, and continuously adapt those standards according to student and faculty feedback.

From start to finish, a course review will have undergone at least two formal sets of revisions, excluding the writer's own intensive process. This process is the result of decades of historical commitment to providing honest, constructive feedback to students and faculty. Since 1976, the Critical Review has grown alongside Brown University, adapting its methods and expanding its reach to reflect the evolving needs of the community.