Had I been told to evaluate my professors when I was an undergraduate, I would have thought someone had taken leave of their senses. We were obviously green, relatively ignorant kids under the tutelage of full-scale adults who had accomplished and knew far more than we did. Clearly, it was their job to do the evaluating, not ours.
Perhaps I knew my place better than most because of apprenticing in my Dad’s barbershop. It was in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Then one of the largest railroad centers in the world. Consequently the barbershop was chiefly populated by no-nonsense railroaders who performed dangerous, complicated, highly skilled jobs for the P.R.R. Then the "standard railroad of the world." Many were also veterans of W.W.II and/or Korea.
In this very grown up world I quickly learned to keep my juvenile opinions to myself. Once I did chance an opinion, only to have a case-hardened customer remark my remark was worthy of the barber's cat. When I asked what that meant, he said, "Full of piss and wind." Everyone found that very funny. I was humbled, and thereafter kept my opinions to myself.
Now let's look at these so-called "course" evaluations. In imposing them our Provost claimed they would help the administration better appraise course effectiveness. Previous administrations (dating back well over a century) had largely relied on rumors and word of mouth. Now "the university" could get a much more accurate picture.
Faculty were simultaneously assured that these "course" evaluation would support fairer tenure and promotion decisions. This despite their title suggesting they were meant to evaluate courses, not professors.
Near as I can tell, throughout history higher ed students were not invited to take the measure of their betters. Evidently it was thought that at their stage of development, most students were incapable of fair, mature, accurate appraisals — especially if they'd earned a bad grade.
Frankly, I think these evaluations have more to do with collegiate finance than anything else. When a school suffers a shortage of applicants, which ours did at the time, management naturally focuses on attendance and resultant cash flow. And improving that requires involves keeping the "customer" satisfied. And what keeps too many collegiate "customers" satisfied is a maximized grade for minimal effort. Generous. even irresponsible, grading also can boost a professor's "course" evaluation scores. So it's a corrupt win-win situation. But what is lost is fairness for the students who put in real effort, and the value of both diplomas in general and s quality education.
Anonymous Denunciation
Our "course" evaluations were anonymous. Students were instructed not to sign their name. This shield of anonymity increased the probability students would use the evaluation for paying back tough professors. "Give me a "D'" will you? I'll fix you!" That encouraged students to down-grade professors who required diligence and the discomfort of serious thought.
Of course students had no doubt who was grading them. We professors could only guess which student said what. We might have learned something useful had we been able to identify respondents. But, given anonymity, one never knew if a bad evaluation was retribution from some class-cutting dullard or important information from a student whose opinion matters.
A particularly humiliating finale topped off this process. When distributing evaluations old the last day of class, we professors were instructed to make no comments whatsoever. We were to just the evaluations without comment, then leave the room. Students were to place their completed evaluations on the front desk. These were to be collected by the last student finishing, sealed in the provided envelope, and delivered to the department secretary. Only she had the necessary security clearance. Professors were not to touch them. Clearly, we weren't to be trusted.
Excommunication
The collected evaluations were perused by a succession of administrators; then returned to the examinee. He or she then were to review them, benefit from the feedback, bind them for future reference, and record summative statistics on a spreadsheet. The later would prove critical in any future tenure or promotion hearings.
A "Tenure and Promotion Committee" conducted the inquisition that determined a candidate's fate. Chaired by the Provost, this critical committee was staffed by highly domesticated faculty appointed by a "Committee on Committees." Should a candidate for tenure or promotion have weak statistics, or should the Provost jesuitically hint disapproval, the candidacy was doomed. The professor being examined was not permitted to appear at his or her own inquisition. Representation was provided by his or her Department Chair.
I once asked the Chair of the Committee on Committees why, in spite of my years of satisfactory service, I had never been selected to serve on this critical committee. With a straight face she explained I was considered "insufficiently attentive to administrative intent." This woman, by the way, was exquisitely sensitive to it. Consequently, shortly afte this conversation she was appointed our new Dean of Arts and Sciences.
Note that professors are typically denied any opportunity to evaluate their chair, their dean, their provost, or their president. I once asked our new Dean, the same lady with remarkable sensitivity to administrative intent, if faculty would be afforded the opportunity to grade her and her superiors? I stressed that professors were obviously better qualified to evaluate administrators than immature. inexperienced, often ignorant,youngsters were their professors. Looking surprised and a bit stuffy, she muttered that this would be decided at some future date. That date, of course, turned out to be never.
Administrators know that allowing professors to evaluate them will result in their disempowerment just as "course" evaluations disempower their faculty. Moreover, at least at my college, professors were expressly forbidden from initiating any communications with members of the board of trustees. In this way, administrators they effectively banned any evaluation that would do what "course" evaluations already do to faculty. That is, cut the ground from under their feet.
A Final Word
"Course" evaluations disempower professors. They were introduced during a time of student scarcity to weaken academic standards in order to keep bodies in seats and balance the budget. In the short run, this tactic works. In the long run, it is the road to ruin,
No comments:
Post a Comment