” based solely on student evaluations would be automatically fired regardless of rank or tenure. L”
What’s the problem with that?
Rank and tenure doesn’t guarantee excellence.
Rather, it discourages it.
By their own statement they are admitting that rank and tenure doesn’t guarantee excellence in teaching.
The problem is that none of those is a good measure of an effective professor.
Under the GOP plan we’ll soon have only standup comics “teaching” our college students.
1. Professors that heap on the work and are tough graders typically get lower evaluation scores than those who offer fluff classes and give out As like candy.
2. Even if a professor is "tough", they will still get get okay evaluations if students feel that the class was valuable.
3. Professors that do a consistently poor job will get consistently poor ratings over a period of years. This cannot and should not be ignored.
4. If you make a professor's job contingent on high student evaluation scores only, you may well end up with an education system that is biased toward push-over classes and grade inflation.
So, yes—analyzing student evaluations will weed out the obviously bad professors. However, you may also reward the ones that are bad because they don't really hold students accountable.
The best way to do it would be to more carefully scrutinize those professors with scores that are either too low OR too high. Because chances are that those at either end of the scale may be doing poor jobs. This is not to say that all faculty with high scores are too easy—some may well be truly excellent professors. However, you really do have to ask: why are the scores are so high?
I also think that you need an outside, objective entity to evaluate professors. Peer reviews don't cut it because faculty tend to protect their colleagues—many times out of a sense of self-preservation (e.g., you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours).
What’s the problem with that?”
One thing to consider is the fact that many students are overgrown liberal brats that despise instructors that insist they learn the subject matter, think, analyze, write clearly, arrive on-time for class, don't text and surf the web and yack to the student next to them. In other words, act like a mature adult.
When it comes to student evals most students don't fill them out. . .the other fact is, the slackers usually fill them out and let loose all sorts of allegations. . .too include the ultimate allegation—racism.
That is what is wrong with student evals. They should not be, must not be used when it comes to defining if an instructor is doing his job and doing it well.
The challenge is to find a fact-based method to do so. I have no suggestion regarding that as I am still thinking it over.
I teach college federal government classes. I examine the subject as “process” and “policy.” Process is the mechanics of government, how it is constructed and ‘works,’ whereas ‘policy’ is defined as a political philosophy and elected officials use process to implement policy.
That said, when engaging students I challenge them to think why they feel a certain way;
Meaning I challenge them when to offer a (usually uninformed) opinion.
That means I counter their usual liberal opinion with a conservative point of view.
That means most times I am taking the conservative side. I also argue the liberal side when necessary. I am trying to get students to learn both sides of an issue so they can come to their opinion honestly and from an informed perspective.
This results in end-of-course student evals that accuse bias and unfairness, trying to push conservative views on them. (Another good argument against using student evals, would silence the "other" - conservative-side).
A lot of professors get great evaluations because they give easy grades and go drinking with their students.
Those which challenge their thinking and demand real work for top notch grades often get punished in evaluations.