The Ethics of Teacher Evaluations

One of my favorite Sunday pleasures is to go through the New York Times.  And early on in my reading of the Times, I go to The Ethicist column written by Randy Cohen.  I start with the ethical dilemma presented and before reading Randy Cohen’s typically very astute answer, I reflect on my position regarding the issue.  This week’s column is entitled “Grading the Ratings” and begins with a faculty member’s lament that his or her “listing on ratemyprofessor.com has a few positive ratings but the majority are from students who gripe about their workload and the density of…[the]lectures.”  The faculty member next asks whether he or she may “suggest” that the “more-satisfied students…post a rating on the Web site.”

I have been working with student evaluations of teaching for all of my professional life.  As a student, I helped start a program at City College. As a faculty member, I was involved in starting the Hofstra program.  And as a Dean and now as Provost, I look at the results of student evaluations very carefully.  In other words, I am an advocate and believer in the importance of student evaluation of faculty as one important source of information regarding teaching performance and teaching excellence.  But I draw the line at ratemyprofessors.com.  For someone to be able to rate his or her professors, they need to participate in the course being rated .  If the student is not registered for the course and bases his or her evaluation on the opinions of a friend, the rating has no validity whatsoever.  Even if the students making use of ratemyprofessor have taken a course with the faculty member being rated, if there isn’t an appropriate sample ( and critical mass ) of students involved, the rating also has no validity. Ratemyprofessor has no mechanism of assuring a legitimate population is the source of the ratings presented.

I certainly agree with Randy Cohen’s conclusion that “more-satisfied” students should not be asked by the faculty member to post ratings.  Students should not be pressured and results should not be skewed by such pressure.  However, what is missing in the response by The Ethicist is a condemnation of this highly inaccurate mechanism of measuring student perceptions.  Randy Cohen concludes by stating that “even if those whiny evaluations affect course-enrollment numbers or even hiring and promotion, surely your colleagues realize that these sites do not provide scientific surveys of student views.”  Cohen’s conclusion needs to be more definitive.  No inaccurate source of data that can impact hiring and promotion should go unchallenged.