In science programs, it appears that tough, senior professors of introductory courses (who give lower grades and are evaluated more poorly by students) actually do a better job of preparing those very students for the harder upper level courses they will have to take later in their degree programs. Here's a report on the study (in which -- Hallelujah! -- students were randomly assigned to professors): http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/11/evaluation
And here's the abstract of the actual study: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14081 So, punishing younger professors who have lower teaching evaluations and whose students have lower average grades (e.g., by making it harder for them to attain tenure, etc.) may actually damage the quality of the academic program by favoring teachers who prepare students less well (but give better grades and get better evaluations). Of course, there are also people who are just lousy teachers, but the only way to distinguish the two groups is to see how well their students do later, in upper level courses taught by other people, not by looking at their own avg grades and evaluations. No such relationship was found in humanities courses, perhaps (the authors speculate) because upper level humanities courses do not depend so heavily on specific skills learned in introductory courses. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
