> Controlled, randomized experiments find that
> SET ratings are negatively associated with
> direct measures of effectiveness. SET seem
> to be influenced by the gender, ethnicity,
> and attractiveness of the instructor.
> We find that teacher quality matters substantially
> and that our measure of effectiveness is negatively
> correlated with the students’ evaluations of professors.
========
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9445924
[1] http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/evaluations14....
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775714...
I think it would be interesting to know if professors who push and challenge within a non-dgree open online course would face the similar wrath? I'd bet not.
Um, have you been to a university? ;-)
When you think about it, the professors aren't (necessarily) there to teach either. They are there primarily for the opportunity to do research though that may be changing as many professors are part time minimum wage contractors.
It definitely applies. One of the best profs in my department often got poor evaluations in some of the first year courses she taught (which were required for everyone). But, she consistently gets excellent ratings for her 3rd year, 4th year, and grad courses (which were targeted for her specialty). She's known for being tough, but students can learn a lot in her courses and they actually do well. First years seem to think that they can get away with more because she's a short woman. She's had students try and suggest how to change her exams after midterms because they've taught swimming lessons. She once had a comment on RateMyProfessor.ca, "I'd say she worships Satan, but I think Satan worships her." It was eventually dropped after several years, but she wrote it in calligraphy and put it up in her office. We all thought that was very funny.
Students, and probably just people in general, are really bad at knowing what they have learned.
Profs that consistently get poor reviews are getting them for a reason.
And now students are much worse, they're expecting a "value for money", they want to be entertained. They do not like being pushed hard. Just look at all those disgusting stories:
http://sheffield.tab.co.uk/2015/01/29/devastated-economists-... (what kind of cretins can find such an exam "too complicated"?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31814659 (another bunch of morons enjoying a right to have their say)
This crap must be stopped. Once and for all.
But HN is regularly bombarded with articles about colleges and universities being an over-valued investment.
But how can you chain that in the same sentence to a right to be entertained ?
You sound like Socrates (or better yet: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-children...)
Would you go to a doctor who skipped a college? Do you want to drive over a bridge designed by a bunch of hipster dropouts? If not, then the higher education is still relevant, and all the hipsters must just shut up.
> But how can you chain that in the same sentence to a right to be entertained ?
I'm quoting one of the student complaints - that a lecturer is not "entertaining enough", and this is not "what they paid their money for".
EDIT: and yes, it's not the students who changed recently, it's the creeping commercialisation of the education system in general. Students are "consumers" now, and this is a new thing indeed. They should not be blamed for such an attitude, of course.
There is absolutely no context in that article, and it shows a single question from the exam, yet you deduce that everyone that wrote and complained about it is a moron?
This is a two-way street: I've seen ridiculous student complaints, but I've also had terrible instructors. There are "cretins" on both sides of the table.
Simple question. Really convoluted answer. But the end payers are the students. And they want their money's worth.
Of course, the worth is derived from their uneducated selves, and "higher educated" peoples know what's best for them.
A percent of income for X years seems much fairer way of paying for education. But even that has its flaws. We have yet to see the full blowback from our current way of financing higher ed. My estimate is 20 years. And 2008 will be a walk in the park.
Instead, I imagine something different for a school. If someone fails a course, one has to retake it. This is silly if one is trying to learn. Instead, the answer is to stick with the area of problem until it is understood. But, because profit motives take hold, it is simply easier to fail someone.
The better answer for teaching is less material per class, shorter classes (vs 18 weeks), and quick to fail. And aside that should be no punishment to fail. In essence, aside laziness, it is both the teacher and the student who fail when a concept is not learned, but the onus lies purely on the student in our system.
I also believe that payment should be hinged upon future earnings, and not a ballooned sum payable in the hopes of a job. A percentage would be fair for X years... Of course I acknowledge that this could cause the liberal arts to falter. Marx and Engels divined this long ago with their analysis of capitalism and supremacy of what we call STEM degrees.
Education is selective and there is nothing wrong with it. Self-education is a very important part of it, and the only thing teacher really must consistently do is to help the students to identify their flaws as quickly as possible so they can go and address them.
But, yes, everyone must be able to retake any course any number of times, until either passed or pissed off.
Evaluations are at the end of the course and you will know if you have learned a lot.
The problem is profs just reading the textbook or parts of the textbook in a powerpoint, without challenging students.