The recent mid-term removal of a chemistry instructor at the University of Montana [1995] because he was "too tough" illustrates the widespread grade inflation in the U.S. Grade inflation will not diminish until the root cause of grade inflation and course work deflation is eliminated: widespread use of anonymous student evaluations of teaching (SET). If an instructor calls a student stupid by giving low marks, it is unlikely the student will evaluate the instructor highly on an anonymous questionnaire.
As more and more research questions the validity of summative SET as an indicator of instrutor effectively,ironically there has been a greater use of summative SET. A summative SET has at least one question which acts as a surrogate for teaching effectiveness. In 1984, two-thirds of liberal arts colleges were using SET for personnel decisions, and 86% in 1993. Most business schools now use SET for decision making, and 95% of the deans at 220 accredited undergraduate schools "always use them as a source of information," but only 67% of the department heads relied upon them. Use of SET in higher education appears frozen in time. Even though they measured the wrong thing, they linger like snow in a shaded corner of the back yard, refusing to thaw.
If a teacher can choose teaching styles, grade difficulty, and course content, he or she will prefer the choices that are expected to result in higher SET scores. If instructors know the criteria upon which decisions affecting their careers are based, they will meet the criteria if at all possible, causing dysfunctional behavior. As an instructor inflates grades, he or she is much more likely to receive positive evaluations. Education is the only service industry where the less you give, the happier are your constituents. Many enhancement choices are anti-learning, resulting in grade inflation, coursework deflation, and pander pollution (PP) behavior. Pander pollution may be defined as purposeful intervention by an instructor inside and outside the classroom with the intention of increasing SET scores which is counterproductive to the learning process. Widespread use of SET has bred a vast army of professors engaged in pander pollution semester after semester. This pander pollution or impression management increases each year because instructors try to enhance their SET scores.
There are adverse consequences of SET management, and universities should attempt to eliminate these adverse consequences. Many instructors devote much of their teaching time and effort massaging SET results for administrator and student consumption. Costs to a teacher for SET enhancement by inflating grades or decreasing course work are minor because few instructors, if any, are penalized for giving high grades or deflating coverage. Lenient graders tend to receive more positive evaluation ratings than stringent graders. The concept is simple: Summative SET + PPs = US, where US is undereducated students. The costs of summative SET far outweigh any perceived benefits. They are antiquated for control purposes.
Presently there is no written definition of an effective teacher for control and reward purposes at most universities. An effective teacher adds value (e.g., learning) to his or her students. Measure the students beforehand, measure the students afterward, and the difference is value created. The more value created, the better the teacher. Of course, administrators do not wish to spend the time to measure students, so instead they merely ask the students if they are happy with their instructor. Basically, SET measures the wrong thing--somewhat like the classic Platters' hit, "The Great Pretender."
At Texas A&M University (and other universities) SET are required every semester (except summer). These SET scores for liberal arts, engineering, and business are placed in the library for the convenience of students(as well as placed online). Furthermore, the grade distribution of all faculty members are made public in the Office of Student Affairs each semester. As is usually the case, the staff and faculty are not allowed to evaluate the administrators on a semester or yearly basis. What is good for the goose, is not good for the gander.
One way to make summative SET more reliable is to require students to sign their names (or social security number). Under the present anonymous system, instructors have no due process for false and libelous statements made by students. If students are allowed to sue instructors for almost anything, students' false and libelous statements that affect an instructor's merit pay, promotion, and tenure should be subject to action in the courtroom. At a minimum, instructors should be allowed to know their accusers. With the steady student moral decline, little faith can be placed upon their evaluations. One recent research paper indicated that college students are untruthful approximately 50% of the time, even to their mother.
Academic freedom is involved also where a department or college places heavy reliance on summative SET scores. Regrettably until faculty members and faculty unions take this denial of due process into the courtrooms, administrators will not give up SET voluntarily. Unless universities and colleges put education of students as their top priority, some other type of organization will be developed to educate our population.
Society for A Return to Academic Standards
Last Updated: 14 November 1996
