A Crisis in Higher Education: Student Evaluations and Falling Standards 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 complacency 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. I think the following analogy applies: 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. 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. 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 a 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 competent
professionals from its public universities. Predictably, 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. The demand is more about quality than it is about quantity: we cannot continue to churn out mediocre graduates. 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. This is one of the reasons 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.
Irresponsible admission practices inevitably contribute to causing
frustrated students to vent their anger. Of course, Mathematics courses have some of the highest
drop and failure rates. Consequently,
student evaluations of Mathematics professors are some of the lowest. 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. 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 experts in education, 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, good study habits and discipline, the attitudes towards education and teachers in general, the family unit, the priorities, the individual; all these factors are making the biggest difference. Many of the strongest advocates for student evaluations are experts in education. 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". After decades of free reign, experts in education 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) result in good students
becoming better students. Let's dedicate a large part of our resources to 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. 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. This extreme and arbitrary reduction of a faculty member to a one-dimensional entity is a prime example of how bad things have become. 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, I think that an 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.
|