Evals flawed, but fixable

The scenario is the same every semester. On one of the last days of class, the instructor passes out course evaluation forms, which are met with cheers from some students who are grateful not to have to sit through the rest of the class lecture, and groans from others who are reluctant to put in the effort of filling in the 25 or so bubbles on the questionnaire and inevitably wind up bubbling Mickey Mouse faces in the ovals. \nObviously, the results of these evaluations are somewhat skewed. Students tend to reward instructors for being “hot” and giving out good grades and penalizing them for giving out low grades or for having obnoxious habits that drive their students crazy. Not only do grades play a role in the evaluation process, so does class size. In larger classes, students receive less personal attention and, as a result, may feel compelled to give the professor lower marks. This is not to say that some students are not serious about filling out the evaluations accurately, but as it stands, departments must take the criticism provided to them with a grain of salt. \nStill, the bias of the system does not mean it should be completely scrapped, as researchers told the attendees of a conference by the Association for Psychological Science. Although past studies have shown that 70 percent of the variance in departments’ course evaluation scores can be attributed to differences in students’ grades, these scholars asserted that the system is fixable. \nThe University of Washington, for example, has responded to such studies by introducing a “challenge and engagement index” that asks students to compare the course being evaluated to others. The university also adjusts the results to account for students’ grades, class size and the proportion of students who are taking the class simply to fulfill a distribution requirement. \nUW’s system may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Faculty evaluations are important in selecting professors for tenure and in determining the structure and content of future classes, so it is important that they be as accurate as possible. IU’s evaluation forms are not completely useless, but they leave much to be desired, and since the University spends money on the review process anyway, they might as well make it worth their while. Introducing reforms like those at UW might not make the system flawless, but they certainly can’t hurt. \nAs IU bumps up its admission requirements and kicks off its life science initiatives, the time is ripe for systematic reform. And who knows? Maybe more accurate evaluations will lead to better tenured professors, rather than just hotter ones, easier ones or ones that don’t say “um” every other word. Of course, more pointed evaluations won’t necessarily prevent students from “Christmas tree-ing” their responses, a system that takes the inherent problems of any survey into account is better than one that doesn’t.