> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > All merit systems, whether based on peer review, administrative > review, student review, or some combination have one ultimate > effect: they increase the power of management. Can you imagine > what student reviews of a progressive professor would have looked > like in the early 1950s? What the heck is wrong with ratings, at least compared to the normal alternative, namely blind ignorance and dependence on the judgement of other faculty in hiring and tenure reviews? Are you seriously arguing that hiring and tenure decisions are a fairer marker of teaching skill and interest? My undergrad college Amherst had a hard core numerical rating system for profs published each semester with student comments summarized as well. On top of that students wrote tons of recommendations that played a large role in tenure decisions. And the existence of such ratings allowed many teachers to rally students in their support and demonstrate a long history of excellence in teaching, when other faculty members might be opposed to their retention based on non-teaching criterion. The result was a culture where teaching was taken seriously and "the management" actually had less arbitrary power because there were non-subjective evidence of teaching ability to enter as evidence. And the result was no doubt a bit of grade inflation, but also much more provocative and indepth teaching. Students are not idiots- as a long as a teacher is not vindictive in their grading, they would rather be intellectually stimulated by an interesting viewpoint and sharp intelligence, than numbed with conformist boring crap. --Nathan Newman
