Student evaluations are at the core of the current crisis that technical and scientific education is undergoing in many industrialized nations, particularly in the US. Essentially, we have "gone soft" and allowed the bad habits of our culture (where emphasis in comfort, consumerism and abundance has become excessive) to spill over to education. There are many excellent universities in the US, but even there, grade inflation has been well documented. The situation is much worse in the rest of the educational institutions.
It used to be that education was truly a competitive endeavor, where excellence was the only standard. Unfortunately, due in part to the politically motivated illusion of the "opening" of education to all (for example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), we have in fact pushed aside the standard of excellence for the sake of the ill-informed complacence of the majority. Now, using the terminology of business administration, universities refer to students as clients, and assume that a "happy client" is equivalent to an educated student and a job well done. This could not be further from the truth.
The irrational use of student evaluations as instruments for measuring teaching effectiveness by university administrators is overwhelmingly responsible for the problems of grade inflation and falling standards. We should not blame the students for this situation; many do not understand the implications of their actions. It is the university system that empowers them with the glorification of student evaluations. Usually, when we need an opinion on an important subject, we ask an unbiased expert. Students are neither unbiased nor experts. Why then does someone ask for their opinions and use them so irresponsibly? Clearly, it is in some cases a matter of money, keeping the paying clients happy (private institutions) or in the case of public institutions, keeping the voting population happy.
I think the following analogy is quite effective. Thousands of people depend on bridges to go from A to B. Thousands drive over bridges daily. However, if we wish to know if a bridge is structurally sound, we do not survey the users on their opinion regarding the soundness of the bridge, even though they are "familiar" with the bridge (in a superficial way), they are the users of the bridge and they are many. Instead, we ask one or two unbiased experts their opinion, and base our decisions on these latter opinions. There is a tendency in education to collect a lot of "data", regardless of its quality. The data is then processed and "validated". Finally, it is used as if it were pure, unadulterated truth. Statisticians understand that a lot of bad data is even worse than no data at all. I wish many administrators and educators would understand as much.
The effect of these evaluations is that professors with high expectations and standards are sanctioned by students and punished by administrators, and as a result standards plummet. Most professors understand that the correlation between grades obtained by students and student evaluations awarded by the students is strong and positive, and many act accordingly in order to survive in the job place, ascend through the ranks and attain tenure. The hysteria has reached such limits, that even full professors with tenure get drawn into this popularity contest: nobody wants to be the ogre.
It is true that students pay for tuition and this entitles them to something. Tuition fees entitle a student to the opportunity to interact with other students that share interests, with faculty who are experts in their field and are willing and able to share their knowledge, all of this happening in a comfortable, accessible, conducive environment. These fees do not automatically entitle the students to his or her degree. The greater responsibility of learning still resides on the student, even after paying for tuition. In the case of public universities this is even more critical: tuition fees do not cover the cost of education, therefore, these fees are a nominal or symbolic contribution to an institution who awards the accepted student the privilege to be part of it. This privilege is paid for by society, whose members pay the taxes that maintain public universities. Therefore, the university must see to the greater good of society in its decisions. Society demands a small number of competent professionals from its public universities, it does not demand an abundance of mediocre wannabes.
Predictably, the students directly pay part of the price of this phenomenon. They are lured into the illusion that they will receive a quality education, eventually that they master the subject matter, and finally that they are ready to become independent, self-reliant professionals in their fields. In many cases this is false and, in my opinion, this should be considered fraud and negligence. Students are left with empty, lifeless courses, clown-like professors who only aim to please, and the weak illusion that they actually learned something. They invest the best years of their lives in a pursuit that is not really worthwhile. I have seen countless bright students waste away their potential simply because universities don't provide the right atmosphere to press these students to achieve. Can we really afford this waste?
The phenomenon of grade inflation and the pervasiveness of student evaluations is coupled with another situation: the urgent need for the US to produce excellent engineers, scientists and mathematicians to maintain competitiveness in a global economy that is driven by innovation and technology and where our competitors are becoming stronger and smarter. If we continue to churn out mediocre graduates, we will certainly lose this race. The demand is more about quality than it is about quantity. By the way, top universities in India, China and other developing countries now offer programs of study which are comparable in quality to those offered in the US, and where ONLY the best survive. Education in these institutions is fiercely competitive, and they are producing top quality scientists and engineers. That is why US companies are going overseas. The economies in these countries and others are growing very quickly, and many opportunities are arising abroad; foreign professionals will stop coming to the US. Locally, immigration policies are tightening, making the immigration of professionals wanting to come here much more difficult. The brain drain will eventually dry up.
Mathematicians finds themselves in a particularly awkward spot. Due to the nature of the subject and its central importance in the totality of human knowledge and understanding, it is practically impossible to fake learning in it. Irresponsible admission practices inevitably contribute to causing frustrated students to vent their anger at the perceived evil-doer: the Mathematics professor. Of course, Mathematics courses have the highest drop and failure rates. Even fellow faculty members from other departments and administrators vent their own personal frustrations with the subject in the process. Most people in the US, even inside the universities, view Mathematics as a necessary evil. Consequently, student evaluations of Mathematics professors are the lowest, which makes them particularly susceptible to harm in this atmosphere. Also, people have been convinced by politicians that everyone should be able to learn Mathematics, at least up to Pre-Calculus. Therefore, since this ability is believed innate in everyone, if learning does not occur it must be the fault of the professor, who cannot magically "unlock" the potential. In my opinion, this is simply not true. Just like artistic and musical ability is absent in some of us, mathematical ability is inherently weak in many.
Personally, I don't enjoy telling a student that he or she failed, but it is frequently my job to do so as a professor. In fact, I consider the certification of knowledge one of the most important parts of my job. By the way, I also dislike dissenting and quarreling with my own children, but sometimes I must, to behave as a responsible parent. There are many parallels between teaching and child rearing. Sometimes we must endure unpleasant moments for the greater good. We must press students to achieve their potential. To do this we must place ourselves in adversarial positions, which will naturally distance professors from students. Learning is sometimes a painful process; facing our ignorance can be unpleasant. This may cause some discomfort and resentment in students. The idea that deep, profound understanding and proficiency can be attained by "playing" only, is wrong in my opinion.
I will add that, unfortunately, many of these harmful ideas and policies have been popularized and instituted by professional educators, whose influence is strongest in K12 education, but whose reach now extends to colleges, universities and the highest spheres of government. This group has been in charge of educational policy in the US for decades now, they have instituted diverse "reforms" in different subjects and the methodologies used to teach them. What are the results of their interventions? It does not look good at all... The US consistently ranks low in K12 compared even to small nations that spend a fraction of the local cost per capita. Something is happening in these other places that does not depend on budgets, policies, curricular reform or textbooks. The local culture, the attitudes towards education and teachers in general, the family unit, the priorities, the individual; all these factors are making the biggest difference.
I've had enough of experts in teaching, who have nothing of substance to teach, but pretend to show us all "the right way" to teach. By the way, many of the strongest advocates for student evaluations are professional educators. By now there is a vested interest in this issue. Many people have built their careers and dedicated their lives to this and it is an industry in itself. Even with mounting evidence against student evaluations there is bound to be strong resistance against their elimination.
Let experts in the subject matter teach in the style that most appeals to them. There is no teaching "silver bullet". There is no magical recipe for transforming weak students into aces. Claims to the contrary are lies: alchemy. Otherwise we would not be in this mess. After decades of free reign, educators have produced no convincing evidence to support the superiority of any particular educational methodology. What we do know is that knowledgeable teachers (in the subject matter, not in methodology) result in good students becoming better students.
Let's concentrate a good part of our resources in identifying potentially good students and making them excellent. We have a responsibility to find talent, a limited and precious resource, and to nourish it. Let's stop pouring millions upon millions, most of our resources, to try to better the worst students. It is useless, and it is an irresponsible and wasteful use of limited resources. Let's place the responsibility where it lies. In our society most of it lies in the family unit and the individual. Let's stop promising the impossible, even if it sounds good, even if it gets votes or sympathies. Our moral obligation is to award all students reasonable opportunities, the rest is the responsibility of the fundamental units that make up our society: the family and the individual.
One of the main objectives of education is to make an individual independent and self-reliant. Even if we found a magical way to passively spoon feed students in a way that would, for example, increase standardized test scores, I would oppose it from an ethical point of view: education and learning should be voluntary, proactive, committed. Otherwise, the effort is sterile and useless, and the effect stops as soon as the spoon feeding ends.
As a society, we understand competitiveness in sports, we've all heard the phrase "no pain, no gain". We even sympathize with ruthless coaches, as long as they get results. We understand it in business, we believe in survival of the fittest, free market competitiveness. We even understand it in the arts, think about competitions like American Idol. However, we cease to understand this same principle when academics come into play. In a culture that prides itself for its tradition and regard for personal achievement, rewarding talent, perseverance and individuality in an environment of free competition, the current situation in education is baffling, to say the least.
Many of these problems would "disappear" if we would just come to terms with the fact that excellence in education, in particular in higher education, will not be achieved by all. This was the accepted point of view just a few decades ago. It may sound elitist, but it seems to be an unavoidable truth.
Unfortunately, I have seen valuable colleagues be denied tenure because of student evaluations, and I have seen others become entertainers and crowd pleasers because of student evaluations. I have also seen standards fall for the same reason. After years of studying, of cherishing teaching and learning, it is painful and humiliating to witness these events. I believe that a silent majority of professors share many of these views; these are not new ideas. If we want to revert these trends we should not remain silent. Now, it is also becoming fashionable to question the idea of tenure, which even with its defects and problems, is the only barrier stopping many universities from becoming completely circus-like. Where will this end?
Student evaluations should return to the place they once occupied: discretionary and supplementary input instruments for the use of professors. They should never be used as evaluation instruments by administrators, or considered for promotions or tenure. They are opinion surveys at best. They determine the results of a popularity contest, and we must remember that what is popular is not necessarily right or good, and what is right or good is frequently not popular. In this popularity contest, 50% of the participants will always receive the lowest scores. Does this mean that they are inadequate instructors? Absolutely not, it means they are the least popular, nothing else. Achieving popularity is the objective of a politician or of an entertainer. I've never considered it the objective of a professor.
To make matters even worse, these opinions are expressed anonymously. In some universities, the instructions on the student evaluation forms explicitly advise students that this information will be instrumental in promotion and tenure decisions regarding their professor. We are essentially giving students a "license to kill" with absolutely no accountability.
Some studies even provide strong evidence that student evaluations are inherently biased against women and foreigners. I have also read studies proving no correlation between student evaluations and effective learning by following students in time through a sequence of courses. These are serious, well-designed, statistically rigorous studies involving thousands of students. I have however, ceased to search for the ultimate study, because I now realize this is an issue driven by sentiments and manipulation, not rationality.
In some universities, in spite of these and other objections, the results of student evaluations are taken, averaged, and a single number is used as a strict and absolute cut-off criteria; no confidence intervals, no margin of error. For example: if the average is above 80% all is well. If it is 79.9%, you're out! This extreme and arbitrary reduction of a faculty member to a one-dimensional entity is a prime example of how bad things have become.
An anecdotal note: in our student evaluations there is an item that asks students if the professor provided a syllabus during the first week of class. This seems like the kind of question that students can actually answer. In fact, between 25% and 35% of the students answer NO in my evaluations, even though for years now those documents have been posted on the department's web site on the first day of classes, and I advise them of this fact several times during the first week of classes, making the answer a clear YES. What does this mean? It means that between 25% and 35% of the students are lying in the survey, or that they are incapable or unwilling to truthfully answer even such a superficial question.
What can we expect in other, more controversial and difficult items in student evaluations? How can we expect an active participant in a process to judge the process itself, while it is happening? Is there a more biased observer? It's natural for a failing student to feel frustration and to lash out. But it is not reasonable, rational or fair to have the professor be the scapegoat. This is exactly what is happening: the professor is in the receiving end of a cannon of frustration loaded by a system that is not well designed.
How then, can a professor's teaching be evaluated? Personally, the only acceptable alternative is to have it done by peers; by the members of personnel committees, for example. If their opinion was acceptable for hiring, I don't see how it can be unacceptable for all other personnel affairs. A professor's direct supervisor, the department chairman, is also a good candidate to act as an evaluator.
This situation reminds me of a tale by Hans Christian Andersen: The Emperor's New Clothes. The plot (from Wikipedia) is as follows: An emperor who cares too much about clothes hires two swidlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position. The Emperor is nervous about being able to see the cloth himself so he sends his ministers to view it. They see nothing yet praise the cloth. When the swindlers report a suit of clothes has been fashioned, the Emperor allows himself to be dressed in their creation for a procession through town. During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "But he has nothing on!" The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth and begins laughing. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession.
I hope we too can start laughing soon. Hopefully, after the embarrassment, our Emperor will decide to fire the swindlers and that clothes are not so important.