Rating our own professors

By Ryan McNutt - April 30, 2010

(Bruce Bottomley Photo)

Big changes are coming to Dalhousie course evaluations –most notably that students will be able to see the results forthemselves.

After months of consultations across the university, Senate hasapproved a policy statement for student ratings of instruction,mandating that:

  • they will be undertaken in all applicable universitycourses;
  • they will include a set of common questions (along withcustomizable questions set by individual professors, departmentsand programs);
  • the summary results to those common questions are to be madeavailable to students.

In practice, this will mean that starting in September 2011, allDalhousie course evaluations will include a common series ofquestions about teaching concepts such as communication,organization and engagement with students. Students will then beable to access the summary results of this section – notthe individual comments – through a secure website, providedthe professor has chosen to release the information.

Students welcome change

The Dalhousie Student Union, which has been pushing for studentaccess to student ratings of instruction data for years,considers the move a big step forward for both accountability andadds validity to the course evaluation process.

“What we wanted was something that would help studentslearn more about their professors’ strengths and weaknesses,and give the process of course evaluations more credibility,”says Shannon Zimmerman, outgoing DSU president. “Manystudents don’t give enough attention to filling them outbecause they don’t know what happens to that data.”

Alan Shaver, Dalhousie’s vice-president academic, haschampioned the change, admitting he was surprised Dalhousiedidn’t have such a system when he arrived four years ago. AtMcGill, where he taught for two decades, students have had accessto course evaluation data for years.

“When the students brought the concern to us, we did thedue diligence of benchmarking,” he explains. “What dothe other major research schools do? How do they implement such asystem? As we consulted with our stakeholders, we also saw howdifferent the evaluations were in different programs at Dalhousie.So before we could address making the data available to students,we had to take a step back and create a policy that wouldstandardize some of that data.”

A point of debate

Though the principles of the new evaluation system have beenapproved by Senate, there are still a lot of questions left toanswer and many months of consultations left to come.

“What Senate has approved at this point isreally the policy statement,” explains Susan Spence Wach,associate vice-president academic and the university’spoint-person on the project. “Now we have to figure out howto implement it. It's an important foundation from which we canwork through the details with further consultation.”

Already, the process is leading to some anxiety on campus. Dr.Shaver acknowledges the change has been the subject of significantinternal debate. “In some faculties, it was treated as a slamdunk,” he says. “In others, there were seriousreservations.”

Some of those reservations are being voiced publicly. CUPErepresents part-time faculty, teaching assistants and markers atDalhousie and is challenging the university on the issue, sayingthat course evaluations need to be decided at the bargainingtable.

“We would never agree to this because of privacy concernsand conflict of interest concerns; are the students going to haveto disclose their names, their motivations, their efforts andgrades?” asked Barb Moore, president of Local 3912 in arelease.

Ms. Spence Wach explains that while not all the details havebeen finalized, some broad principles have been established. Forone, students will only have access to the summarized statisticaldata on the common questions – not the completeevaluation. She also says the system will be opt-in –professors will have the option to agree to have theirsummary data accessible to students.

Will it work?

That part of the process – the opt-in – begs thequestion of whether enough professors will choose to make theircourse evaluation data accessible to students forthe system to be viable.

“There are some faculties and faculty members that haveconcerns or reservations about this system,” says Ms. SpenceWach. “The opt-in respects that while also respecting ourcollective agreements. That said, at other universities we’velooked at with a similar system, it appears to have broad facultysupport. We have excellent professors here, so based on thefeedback thus far I’m optimistic that this will beembraced.”

Several other questions need to be answered as the newevaluation system moves forward through the next stage ofconsultations: How to review courses taught by multiple professors,such as those in the Environment, Sustainability and Societyprogram? Should new faculty be given an exemption from the system,giving them room to learn without having their evaluationsavailable to students? Will the course evaluationitself move online at some point in the future? How will thedata reflect classes with a small sample size? How exactly will theopt-in process work?

These are hurdles other universities have cleared: Dr. Shavernotes a majority of Canada’s research-intensive universitiescurrently have some sort of student-accessible courseevaluations.

“There are universities in Canada that have been doingthis for a long time,” he says. “Has it undermined theeducation system in those great schools? No. We’re not thefirst to think of this.”

More importantly, he says the process of working with thefaculties to implement this system places increased attentionon the value of teaching.

“I hope it achieves a greater buy-in from students in thecourse evaluation process. I hope it achieves a greaterunderstanding at the university as to what course evaluations are,and what they are not. And I hope it helps students choose theircourses.”

Readers Say

While faculty support the principle of transparency, it is the last comment in this article that alarms me. Students shouldn't pick courses based on popularity ratings. Not only is one person's horror story another person's favourite professor, but the idea of structuring your degree according to reports of personality - as opposed to mastering a discipline, intellectual development, or subject interest - is incredibly troubling.

Besides, conscientious teachers already twist themselves into pretzels angsting over student critique; how will this actually improve teaching?
If I could be assured that these evaluations were made only by those students who regularly attend classes and demonstrate a consistent level of effort in their work, I might be persuaded that they have some value. However, given that the "transparency" here works in only one direction, it appears that this is simply a marketing exercise pandering to the notion of education as just another consumer good. This may be of some short-term benefit to the administration, but it has no positive outcomes for either faculty or students.
An effective way to avoid the "slackers will skew the ratings" problem (as well as the "keeners will skew the ratings" problem) is to present the data in a way that permits viewing the ratings binned by grade; eg. A students had a mean rating of X, B students had a mean rating of Y, etc. Maybe even a scatter plot of the grades vs ratings. Going further, the system could also present rating data that has been detrended for linear & non-linear effects of grade.
As a doctoral student, I have current experience of both the learning and the teaching side of the educational process. The idea of standardized tests in the public school is aimed at the same goal of improved teaching accountability, but attempts to do so by measuring outcomes. The Dalhousie rating process makes no pretense of aiming at that goal. It is simply a rating of student satisfaction. Of course, whether a professor is stimulating or not is of some interest to everyone, as it is hard to learn if you are totally bored. However, that feedback already gets through as part of the Departmental information system. Unlike the new proposal, the current student evaluations are only one element among multiple considerations that yield an overall assessment of teaching effectiveness. I consider the proposed rating system to be totally bogus, and would not participate in it if I was a faculty member.
Although the article states that the new policy is "a point of debate," it presents a highly skewed perspective.

Nearly all of the article is devoted to the views of those in favour of the new policy. The 1,000 word article devotes less than 80 words to the opposing viewpoint and contains only one direct quotation from a person against the new policy.

If Dalnews wants to run stories on debates within the university, then it has an ethical obligation to present a balanced perspective that pays adequate attention to both sides of the issue. As it stands, this story is little more than a press release from the university administration.
This IS a good idea, but . . . N=1 in 2011 and N=2 in 2012 etc. is not going to provide very robust insights until a few years have passed and particularly so for those classes with enrolments <30.

However, the wise ‘powers that be’ could initiate the system with N=4, or 5, or 6 or more, based on all the previous student reviews already on file. Why are they not being used to good effect and to inform? Were those previous annual reviews meaningless? There is something odd here that does not add up.
Perhaps professors should publish their evaluations of students online, too, to help other professors to decide who to let into our classes. Just a thought.
It does not matter what policy the university enforces. There will still be some awful professors (definitely in engineering). The university should listen to the students comments and actually try to get the correct instructor to teach the appropriate class. It is very frustrating when you cannot comprehend the material, when the professor is lousy.

There are excellent professors at Dalhousie University and they should be commended for their great work.

This new policy will also give students a credible source to use when selecting professors for larger classes.
In my experience (36 years at Dal), academic administrators sometimes chose to ignore the guidelines for interpreting student ratings of instruction (SRI) and used invalid data to justify negative decisions in considerations of faculty for career development increments (salary), tenure, or promotion. Unless the SRI interpretation guidelines are strictly observed, SRIs will remain a tool for bullying faculty members and promoting grade inflation.
Students have a right to see the aggregate information. They pay hefty sums for the privilege to learn here. Give them some credit to be able to use the information wisely. The live in a world that caters to consumer rankings...MacLeans, iTunes, Amazon, etc. Besides, faculty members can embrace this version or not, but Ratemyprofessor.com is another alternative students can go to without our involvement.

The flaw in the practice as described is that faculty members have the ability to opt in. It would seem that those with good evaluations would have less to hide, and those with perennial low rankings would have little incentive to engage.

Good intentions, but unless mandatory, I fear it will be much ado over nothing.
Will Dal publish the rate of Professor participaction.

I fear this will go the way of the published salaries of dal employees (Fac/Staff) above 50K per annum (which was posted on-line a few years ago, but was removed and is available with a valid reason and a formal written request through HR).

If it doesn't work in the big promotional scheme (spin), it won't be made public).
There is a misleadng statement in the article that indicates that "All other information, from the identities of students to their comments, will only be made available to departments and faculties". Students should rest assured that no identifying information is associated with the statistical results of surveys. Unsigned student comments are returned to the professor but not kept on file. Signed comments are returned to the professor anonymously and the identities are held in the strictest confidence.
Peter, upon reviewing the story you're quite right - that statement did not explain properly what it was trying to get across. We've removed the sentence to avoid confusion. Thanks.
Since this initiative is largely driven by a response to student concerns about the quality of the education they receive, and promises them greater control over that quality, let me ask students the obvious question.

Do you really think your fellow students' views on a professor are worth all that much, enough to determine, as our Provost seems to hope, whether you take a course or not?

Let's be frank. Aside from the excellent comments made by Professor Campbell and others below, the truth is that bad professors (incompetent scholars and/or teachers) are obvious to everyone in any self-respecting university; departments and Faculties stuck with them (once they have tenure) have themselves to blame because there are ample means in place preventing their on-going presence here (eg, the tenure process). That is why there are far far fewer of those around than the Administration is implying by this initiative. Any self-respecting university has ample means in place already to ensure the quality of its faculty.

If you really are concerned about the quality of your education, petition the administration to stop wasting time and money on initiatives like this (which wrong-headed on many grounds), and get them invest in things that really help a good university education, like hiring enough professors to ensure decent class sizes. This starts by downsizing bloated administrations that have endless time to pursue such foolishness.
Some students give high ratings to "cool" professors, or for easy courses. But the aggregate data are meaningful, for high and low rated profs at least. Professors should have to opt in on relevant questions. E. g. "Did your professor and TA's provide enough support to give students equal chances to survive the weed out, on the basis of real merit"?

Dalhousie (like others) strings part time professors along. They work on pathetic wages, few benefits, and day jobs for years, hoping that someone might give them tenure. Some lose their contract, or throw in the towel and leave academia for better paying work. No wonder they're worried and skeptical.

To be effective, Dal needs a process where they can take profs to task for clearly sub par work. They should recognize the good and stellar profs. They should also ultimately grant part time profs tenure who have enough merit and experience.
Alright, lets face it: This idea has good intentions, but is a HORRIBLE waste of money!

First of all, Dalhousie's track record of listening to student issues and requests is one that leaves a lot to be desired.

Second, if a professor who is on tenure (one of the most over rated aspects of University lore) and they get a bad rating, what is Dalhousie going to do? Well, I'm going to save you the pain of thinking and tell you...NOTHING! It is a useless cause!
Come on Barb Moore, your union and others like it need to realize that this is a buyer's market.
Would-be students want information on which to base their choices. This is about transparency and quality assurance.
My good course / bad course experiences have largely, if not entirely, depended on the quality of the professor rather than the actual subject matter. While I agree that various students will have different views of a professor, once a certain threshold of incompetence is reached any student will leave a poor review. This system will make incompetence in teaching harder for profs and departments to hide.
I wholeheartedly agree with the criticisms of this initiative. The data will have minimal validity and truly be a simple popularity contest. The value of higher education is diminishing rapidly by encouraging this consumer-oriented thinking. This is revealed in a comment above: "Students have a right to see the aggregate information. They pay hefty sums for the privilege to learn here." That's right- they pay for a PRIVELEGE TO LEARN - they do not pay for an A. And unfortunately, those profs that make them work for an A are often berated and called unfair - "but we paid all that money... it's unfair that he didn't give me an A and that my belittling comments aren't publicly posted!" Please!

At a time when faculties are being asked to make huge budget cuts and do more with less, this is one of the most ridiculous initiatives I can think of to be spending money on. If students are going to complain about how much money they pay, they ought to be lobbying the administration to spend money in ways that enhances their education - a good start would be to cut a bunch of the administration! We could hire a lot more good faculty and make class sizes smaller with all the money being wasted on a top-heavy administration.

This is just one more slap in the face to most faculty how already bend over backwards to please their consumer-students. More people should realize that most students only sign their comments if they have something to complain about, so the majority of feedback which is really positive can't be used for any meaningful purpose - other than a slight shot at saving our sanity!
In theory I think this is a good idea to have professors rated in a public setting. However in smaller faculties/department, such as many disciplines in engineering, do little to enhance the overall educational experience professors can provide.

There are many good, but also many terrible professors in any undergrad program. However in a bigger faculty, you can dodge them by simply selecting a different professor for the same class/curriculum. However in a smaller undergrad program like in engineering, you cannot avoid the "terrible" professor since there is only that one professor that can teach that class, or the number of students simply don't allow for more professors to teach the class.

I think this will be useless for engineering students, it will just tell you whether to learn the class material on your own, or actually show up to class.

I think the money invested in this program could be better spent for teaching professors how to teach, and present information so that students can get more out of their education.
No surprises here. Dalhousie whores itself out to whatever trend seems to create marketability, with little or no concern for quality of education. I'm ashamed to be a prof here sometimes. Are there PUBLISHED studies that link ratings to educational outcomes? If not, why are we relying on anecdote and consumer desires to make important decisions like this one. Making these ratings available on-line will have cost countless thousands of dollars in salary and administrative hours that could certainly be put to better education - or even marketing! - use.

Do the professors and staff get a public forum where we can rate the performance of our administrators? I'd sure like to see that.

If job evaluations are going to be publicly available, let's make them publicly available for ALL university-funded positions, from janitors to the President.
Claire Campbell's point is a good one. The opinion of a professor can change greatly student to student. It will be on those reading reviews to judge which comments should be taken seriously and which should not. Smart comments will be evident compared to ranting comments. Take this discussion for example. Where Ms. Campbell's comments are thoughtful and to be taken seriously, others are knee jerk reactions that seem more whiny than thoughtful. They may have legitimate concerns, but they're not presenting them that way.
Dear Alan:

I appreciate the ideas you have put forward. In the same league, I would also like to see the past grades in all courses for all my new students. Honestly, it will be of great help, as it would allow me to see the strengths and weaknesses of my students and help me design my pedagogy for each individual accordingly. By the same logic used for public SRI, knowing all past grades of students would greatly boast the quality of teaching. by the way, when are we starting mandatory courses in Politics and Public Relationing for faculty members or may be some university-wide directive recommending A+ for all students would be helpful.

Happy politics/public relationing and good bye education.
It's common knowledge that course evaluations aren't so much a measure of teaching effectiveness as they are a mark of how effectively a particular professor woos students with her/his personality, mode of dress, pop-culture hipness, etc. There's lots of evidence, too, suggesting that students make up their minds about a prof -- and do not change them -- within 30 seconds of the first meeting.

As a proud Dalhousie graduate, I know that I may have learned the most from professors I did not particularly like. That is, I am happy to admit that my most memorable learning experiences came from those profs who dared to cajole, harangue, and provoke students -- rather than (as Dal admin would have it) merely pander to a shameful consumerist ethos in fear that students' educational dollars might be taken elsewhere. Let them, I say.

So, hear, hear, to Campbell et al. who have the backbone to question the inanity of Dal's higher admin. Kudos to you, and phhtt to all those students who would rather be amused and entertained than educated.

Oh, and -- please -- are we supposed to be persuaded that something is good simply because McGill has been doing it for umpteen years? Sheesh.
Following up on Russ Murdoch's comment, Susan Spence-Wach agreed, during a meeting with our department, that course evaluations are not good sources for information about the quality of course content. Apparently the administration is fine, then, with students selecting their courses on other grounds.
Give_Me_Access_to_Students_Grades does a great job of illustrating my initial point. It really goes to show you can obtain a PhD but that won't make you any less childish when other kids won't play nice. If a student brought an issue to a professor and presented it in the tone and language of many of the posts here, they wouldn't take them seriously. Seriously.

Like it or not, profs are in the customer service business. That's known before they ever get into it. Just like people who work in grocery stores and at restaurants, you have to deal with some upset and unreasonable people. Don't brand them all bad because of a few.

I would focus my efforts towards thoughtful dialogue with senior administration, instead of the people who largely fund this little ol place. Additionally, without them, other sources of funding would stop coming in as well.

Happy whining.
In the many and careful discussions of student evaluation over decades in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, among the problems which keep recurring is that of trust. Can we trust the administration to use the information gathered appropriately? Will administrators take the very great pains required to learn the differences involved between this teacher at this stage in his or her development teaching this subject, to these students, in this form, at this time as opposed to that teacher at that stage in his or her development teaching that subject, to those students, in that form, and so on? My experience, and that of very many of my colleagues in the Faculty, is that we cannot. Yet both justice and usefulness require exactly this. The incapacity or unwillingness of the editors of this administrative medium to report the state and character of the debate at Dalhousie on this issue has justified our distrust of the administration once again.
I for one think this is a great idea. As a graduating student, I have used the rate my professor website over the last 4 years and whether or not people see it as valid, it has been quite accurate. A detailed set if informative comments about the professors at Dalhousie set up by Dalhousie can only improve upon the benefits of this website.

It's not just about getting an A, its about learning properly, and having the OPPORTUNITY to get an A if the effort is put forth. The quality of the professor is so critical, not just for the final mark, but for triggering future interest in the subject. For example, though I did well, I had a terrible accounting professor who talked about current events all class, so I needed to teach myself the curriculum through a ton of studying. This turned me off of the subject, and I like to think had I known in advance about the poor quality of the teacher, maybe I could have avoided him and things would be different.

Professors afraid of this new policy are likely the ones who get bad reviews because they are bad teachers. Professors who are good teachers have nothing to fear, as this new policy will just help further expose those who are weak at teaching.
This article presents this issue as a fait accompli, more or less. It is not. As my colleague Jerry Bannister indicated, while the article says it is a point of debate, it reveals almost nothing about the reasons it is being debated and opposed by many faculty members. One of the major problems with Dal's administrative approach to this issue is that it is following this equation: administration is a CEO, faculty members are employees at their company and students are mere consumers. Higher education does not work this way.
A professor of mine in Beirut used to repeat that a campus is about faculty members, students and libraries. I wish the resources put into this rating issue were invested in purchasing more books that students badly need on campus, and also perhaps get students some better food to eat while studying at Dal.
Very interesting comments from Faculty Members. It seems that the majority are not in favour. Yet, those who support the idea, have not commented in large numbers.

I ask the community this. Ask students if they have used Rate My Prof, and ask if they have found it somewhat accurate.

I have checked this site out, and having known numerous faculty in Science/Engineering, the comments have been "Bang On". Generally speaking Students are honest in their opinions, whether we agree or not is a another debate.

Faculty should address their fears, as I suspect they do not trust the Admin folks as it may be linked to their Merit Increases, Tenure and "Professorial Rise Through the Ranks" promotions.

I particularly like the earlier comment about have all Dal Employees (regardless of position and rank) submitting to the rigors of "Public Reviews" and "Public Performance Reviews". Perhaps only then will Dal be able to float the deadwood.
1. Characterizing students' opinions as little more than a reaction to the entertainment value of the class is an insult to students.

2. Whether student ratings are available through Dal or not is essentially moot. Students talk. Prior to taking any class, most students discuss the course and prof and determine its value informally, anyway. Dal can take charge and provide answers to fair questions or leave it to the 'popularity contest' that already occurs.

3. The particular questions asked by the student rating questionnaires are too general to result in meaningful feedback. Questions should be direct and relate specifically to instructional factors that impact course satisfaction (i.e. 'constructive criticism'). Further, questions regarding rate of class attendance and expected course grades would eliminate the doubt of credibility in students' opinions.

Example:
- Did the professor's explanations add value beyond those of the textbook?
- Did you largely teach yourself the material?
- Were lectures organized clearly? (i.e. was it clear what you had to know?)
- Was feedback on essays/projects unambiguous in regards to opportunities for improvement?
- How similar was the difficulty of exams/assignments with your expectations?
- Did the physical classroom environment adversely impact your learning?

4. If this cannot be done within the compressed 10 minute in-class evaluations, perhaps an online survey on BLS/OWL can be done at the students' leisure over the final week of classes. This would result in more meaningful written comments also (rather than rushing students already late for the next class).
Profs need to opt in for their ratings to be posted. Most won't. Those that do will pander to students and give away A's. I'd be interested in seeing the class averages of those that do and do not opt in. This is just a PR gimmick.
Questionnaires in Chatelaine magazine are popular and have face validity (they seem to measure something) but no demonstrated statistical reliability and no predictive or construct validity.

The problem with informal ratings of teaching performance suffer from the same concerns:

1) They are not necessarily reliable (in the statistical sense - that is, if the same student filled out the same survey for the same prof at different times in the same year or across different years, the numbers wouldn't necessarily come out the same).

2) They have no proven predictive validity (do high ratings of teacher effectiveness predict - statistically - student outcomes in the short AND the long-term?). And,

3) They have no proven construct validity (they purport to measure the quality of a teacher but may, in fact, measure popularity rather than teaching effectiveness/skill/ability).

We teach and learn about these concepts for a reason: Because we should be sensitive to problems of measurement and interpretation.
I am even older that Colin Stuttard, and taught from 1964 to 2002, and have taught various classes at Dal and Smu since retirement. I am sorry that faculty commenters have taken such a defensive tone, and one that seems dismissive of both students and those faculty who get good ratings. Most studies do not show that well-rated profs also give out higher marks.
I am like almost everyone in feeling uncomfortable about being rated, by students or anyone else. Yet I see the point in both improvement of teaching, and giving students a feeling of being more than just silent customers in the university.
University of Toronto had such a system when I taught there from 1968 to 1975, and faculty concerns were much the same. In fact, though, it worked pretty well and no one suffered irreparable damage.
Let's talk about this calmly.
I'm kind of ashamed that after reading the article I thought it was a great idea. It sounds great, in the article, kind of like a full disclosure clause of education.
After reading some comments I quickly thought about denying I ever agreed with the article. While giving information like this out may sound good, it realistically provides no benefit. If RateMyProf and Dalhousie evaluations haven't made profs up their game, this won't either. The university is riddled with horrible professors who contribute nothing to the educational experience of students and who couldn't care less, because they have tenure. Ask any student in first year stats. I agree that it's nothing more than a bad idea covered up by time and money put into it by the university.
This article seems like nothing more than a press release by a nervous administration who has no intention of taking any of the concerns seriously, but felt the need to give the protestors reason to believe they're being heard.
As a student, I have nothing to lose or gain from this change. My objective opinion is that it should be abolished. The changes to the evaluation are much needed, but publishing the results needs to be an all-or-nothing thing, allowing profs to opt out is only going to cause complaints.
Several people mentioned the site www DOT ratemyprofessors DOT com, so I decided to examine its aggregate ratings for various universities. A few results are listed below. Cape Breton University comes out on the top of this list, and the University of Toronto at the bottom. That might tell us something about rankings.


Acadia,3.44

Cape Breton University,3.51

Dalhousie,3.35

McGill,2.89

Mount Allison,3.51

Queens,3.4

St. Francis Xavier,3.46

St. Mary's,3.27

University of British Columbia,3.29

University of Toronto,2.22
"“We would never agree to this because of privacy concerns and conflict of interest concerns; are the students going to have to disclose their names, their motivations, their efforts and grades?” asked Barb Moore, president of Local 3912 in a release."

Translation: "This could potentially have a negative effect on union member's paycheques and we absolutely, positively cannot have that. Just ask the local CUPE chapter in Toronto about the garbage strike last summer. We don't care about the interests of anyone but ourselves"
I would like to see the aggregate information. Yes, there will be issues with the data, but probably less so with full-class evaluations than with websites where only those motivated (irritated) enough will post. It also seems likely that most of those who don`t bother to go to class either will miss evaluation day or will not bother to fill out the evaluations, or will give average ratings across the board, minimizing their impacts.

I also think that assuming that students will attempt to use this information to find 'easy' courses gives both too little credit to the students and too much credit to the rating questions. I don't see how a 1-5 rating on things like clarity or promptness of marking translates to how easy the course is. Actually, I would hope that the harder courses are taught by the more organized and clear profs.

Student experience is important, especially where there are many options within a faculty. Even for required classes, there is often a choice of different sections. I have taken 'harder' classes to avoid profs that I've had a bad experience with, and I would have liked to have had information about perceived faculty concern for students and clarity of teaching before signing up.
"Students will then be able to access the summary results of this section – not the individual comments – through a secure website, provided the professor has chosen to release the information."

What prof with bad ratings is going to release this information? On a second note it seems to me that individual comments seem just as important as ratings.

Excellent Idea, poor follow through.
It's telling that many of the comments above echo higher admin's belief that those who question the accuracy and usefulness of SRIs are motivated by "fear."

Such an inference not only ascribes to the dissenters a high degree of self interest -- assuming, as it does, that such profs must score poorly on evaluations -- but also ignores both their professional obligation to ask critical questions and their oft-iterated commitment to quality education.

Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that those professors who don't care about teaching aren't interested in the debate, either?
While I believe the intentions are honorable and well meaning, this initiative would be a huge waste of time and money. As previously stated by others:
- A prof is unlikely to change his/her teaching style based on easily dismissible student comments, especially if they are tenured.
- For any student pursuing a specific concentrated degree or honors degree, there are required classes. Regardless of who the prof is and what their "score" is, you may just have to suck it up and endure bad teaching anyway.
- I loved the comment about Stats 1060 - This course is a prime example. There is very little teaching by the profs and the students pretty much teach themselves and each other on BLS. For three hours a week they listen to tenured profs read off prepared slides in waste of time lectures. Has this been brought to admin's attention? I'm sure it has. Has anything changed? I know it hasn't.
Dalhousie should look to spending money more wisely.
As a student going into my third year I would definitely look at the aggregate information in making my course choices. I am in a small program where many of my required courses are only taught by one professor. Like others have noted this means I have no options to improve my educational opportunities.
I can understand why some professors might be threatened because some students are satisfied with easier courses and popular teachers. In saying that I recognized that the majority of students attending our university are doing so to gain a high level of knowledge and education.

I was enrolled in a course this year that I was originally extremely excited about the subject matter. It was a smaller class which was going to provide a great chance for learning. On the first day I met the prof I thought they were a fantastic person, great attitude, positive and fun to be around. While thinking this about the person, I can honestly say that the reason class attendance was so low within weeks was the complete and utter lack of ability to teach.
Given the opportunity to talk over coffee Im sure could understand while this person was so well liked, but ask the majority of students who have taken their classes, it is impossible to gain knowledge. What I learned is to not expect faculty support, that i have to teach myself and that I have a fantastic text book. Thats it. I am not saying this because I didnt like the professor,I'm not saying it because I did poorly in the class, I received an A.

My personal experience with the evaluation process in this class included the professor staying in the room and collecting the evaluations. If you want to talk about the reasons why students don't give proper evaluations you might think about the way to make sure students can evaluate more honestly. Teaching style has a huge impact on the level of education I can receive. If I can't learn anything, why would I come?
Questionnaires which try to shape qualitative experiences into crunchable number form are always deeply frustrating to me. The forms ignore subtlety and distort my input; the teaching quality questions often seem 'leading' and to me reveal a limited understanding of the varied facets of good teaching.
I have myself benefitted from having good teaching evaluations; however, I have grave reservations about their use as a tool by the administration - Dr. Hankey's comments about trusting to insight are relevant here.
If students are really intended to use previous students' comments to help choose their courses, especially in the humanities, the statistical data beloved by so many administrators is the wrong format: it has to be much more open-ended. As a student, I wanted to know which professors were the most inspiring, who seemed to have the greatest depth of thought, a real passion for ideas; who was eccentric but thought-provoking, outrageous and challenging; who could communicate to me new ways of seeing. Sometimes those same teachers set impossibly frustrating tests, handed my work back very late, deeply offended cherished ideas I had, and were not endlessly available to their students. Sometimes they were difficult people, and sometimes many of their students resented them. But these were the kind of 'inspiring minds' I came to university for.
Instead of RATINGS there should be descriptive, qualitative commentary. Ratings implies rankings - we don't need rankings. The work of the university, at least in the humanities, is not so 'pigeonholable'; sometimes students have to acquire large amounts of technical information, and other times they need to encounter radically different approaches to the world. We need good, clear courses and caring professors, but I'd also want room for the diversity of experience as well and fear these 'measurements' work against that.
"Like it or not, profs are in the customer service business. That's known before they ever get into it. Just like people who work in grocery stores and at restaurants, you have to deal with some upset and unreasonable people."

Nope, they are not in the customer service business. Not the good ones. They are mentors, aiding students on the path to clear thinking. You cannot buy or sell thinking (unlike, say, groceries); but if you get close enough to it, pay attention, and emulate it, you might just learn how.

Oh, and because they are mentors, learning to think has everything to do with having a productive and rewarding relationship. That is why I've informally 'interviewed' nearly every professor I've worked with for the past seven years. If students want to know whether they will (probably) learn from a particular professor, they should go and meet him or her before hand. However, if they're at school simply for the grades or even just the degree, then having a good prof is beside the point anyway and rating is unnecessary.
Student evaluations should DEFINITELY be available to students because they will benefit the students as they will then be able to decide whether a class is right for them based on the professor's teaching habits. What concerns me is the fact the the professors have the final say about whether or not the evaluations becomes public for their classes. This concerns me because potentially bad professors will most likely choose not to have their evaluations made public because they do not want future students to know that they are bad professors. This is upsetting because if a professor is terrible and does not release their evaluations, prospective students will not know to avoid that professor's classes. I know that sounds kind of bad, but wouldn't you want to know which professor you should avoid because he/she is an unfair marker or a hard person to contact about problems?
Dana Loewen: Fine. Then the students pay a large amount of money to be mentored. The way they have been addressed in the comments by the people here, whose salaries they help pay, is condescending, dismissive, generalized and preachy, not something you'd expect from, mentors. Call it what you like, but at the end of the day they are paying for a service and have the right to evaluate it.
What did students do before teaching evalutations? Some students don't care about quality. Some felt that all teaching meets an acceptable standard.
Others talked to students who had taken the course. Comments were taken in context and came from an identifiable source. For my part I took 8:30 classes believing any prof prepared to teach that early had to be dedicated.
Might we offer some publications to review in regards to similar topics (all on the iotasolutions.com website):

Bonk, C. J., Wisher, R. A., & Champagne, M. V. (2007)
Toward a comprehensive model of e-learning evaluation: The components. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Flexible learning in an information society (pp. 258-269). Hershey, PA: The Idea Group, Inc.

Sachs, D. & Champagne, M.V. (2005)
Better Information: Embedded Assessment in the NACTEL Program. In Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

Champagne, M.V. (2003)
Embedded assessment: An evaluation tool for Web-based learning environments. In T. Duffy and J. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner Centered Theory and Practice in Distance Education: Case Studies. Erlbaum, NJ.
IOTA - thanks for providing us with a group of homogenous studies to review. Hopefully you would be able to provide a more comprehensive list of studies to support your claims about the use-value of this type of evaluation system. Any critical references you could provide? How about somebody that is outside of this set group of Champagne et al?
Dear 'buyer's/'consumer students',

Profs cannot provide us with the quality of education we seek as 'academics' if they are expected to constantly lower their expectations in order to accomodate student/consumer 'needs' (outside, of course, those with actual special needs). In my opinion, a degree is something that is earned. The idea of 'purchasing' a degree cheapens the whole experience of becoming trained in a discipline. If profs followed what some of these vocal student/consumers want/suggest, they would be teaching neat little units and assigning 20 pages of reading a week. I am of the opinion that the inquiries many of us are engaging with simply cannot be summarized in such a short unit, nor do I think our mastery of them be accepted by completing one. The world is a messy place, and learning to deconstruct/reconstruct our opinions/interpretations of it is a painful, long and messy process that, to be honest, I don't think many people actually in university today are willing to go through. People want easy answers, easy degrees, and easy money.

Student/consumer, when will you realize that in the end, all of this will hurt you and your capacity to be successful in the real world? Will it be day one of your first 'real' job when you're thrown into a real world situation and think, 'damn, why didn't the prof talk about this?'.
I'll give you your answer - it's because 'this' didn't fit within a 20 page reading, nor could it be bound within a single learning unit.
Its not about purchasing a degree or getting an easy A. Its about learning. Students that attend university do so with the intentions of learning. There are the few that go for the "experience", but they quickly get weeded out or change their attitude. With the cost of today's education and the competition in the job market, a student wants the best education they can get and the most knowledge they can extract. Having good teachers is critical in helping those students learn. There is nothing more depressing than having a professor stand up in front of the class all day and talk about general day to day events and tell jokes that are not necessarily related to the subject matter. Even if he gives easy marks you go away with nothing. I have had great professors that gave hard exams. I hated the exams but always felt prepared and it was a good feeling. Those professors always had my admiration. I had other professors that did nothing in class but gave easy exams or curved the results to get enough people to pass. In those classes I did much better, but I didn't feel that I learned anything. I always felt cheated in those classes. Most of the time, those professors were trying to be buddy buddy with the students to keep from getting bad reviews.

Also, what does the students marks have to do with whether their evaluation has any credibility. If the low marks were due to the professor not teaching a subject well, then that is the only thing that matters. A good prof will always get good reviews more often than not, and a bad prof will always get bad reviews more often than not. The average rating will speak for itself, rather than a few disgruntled troublemakers.

I think most students just want accountability for the teaching that goes on. They pay a lot for their education and just want to get their moneys worth, and I don't mean buying a grade. I mean really learning. Without some criteria that can be seen by the general public, how can there be?

Join the conversation, but keep it clean, stay on the topic and be brief. Read comments policy.

Characters remaining: 2000

(optional)