🚀 go-pugleaf

  Ah, Mitch, the trouble with generalizations is that everyone makes them ...
reader/listeners as well as writer/speakers!  First of all, I had/have no
intention of 'advertising Kent State'  (we've had a sufficiency of that over
the years!); it happens to be where I am, and USERIDs so list.  Plus, I was
trying to be sensitive to some on the QUALRS net who do no receive full message
headers from their mainframes and have requested that messagers add a tag line
with name, affiliation, etc.
  Issue 2:  I thought I had made clear (but obviously didn't) that I was talk-
ing about a small number who, occassionally, strike back _via_ the evals.  We
have good and industrious students who work hard, do well, and appreciate what
we do for them; and we have courses that are not very demanding, and those
which 'exercise' students, to the end that they acquire a active knowledge of
their discipline and are better prepared to be competent professionals.  And we
also have the 'indolent' (your word) ones who don't expect to have to work very
hard to get a good grade.  I suspect that 'speech' departments get more of
these than, say, English, psychology, or philosophy departments, but I have
no hard evidence for that generalization.
  What I was trying to say was that student evaluations are good and useful to
instructors, whatever students say on them (I prefer and learn more from the
text/anecdotal remarks -- and encourage same -- than from any set of numbers),
BUT I have serious reservations about the willy-nilly use of these data (ESP.
the numbers, on scales which may not be relevant to every course), by admins
which seem all too often these days to be looking for 'excuses' not to reward
faculty for good, competent and responsible teaching.  And, before I get myself
in more hot water (!), the basis of THIS generalization is not just KSU, but
other Ohio 4-yrs institutions as well (for years I was on a state level fac.
advisory comm. to the Chancellor of the Oh. Bd of Regents) with similar exps.
  Question -- if faculty have not over recent years felt the pressure to
produce (engineer?) good student evaluation data, then what is causing grade
inflation?   Incompetence?   Soft-headed professors?  There does seem to be,
in my experience, some degree of relationship between instructors who always
grade 'high on the curve' and more favorable student evals.
  A final comment -- several commentators in this thread have suggested that
what is needed is a full range of 'feedback' data (QC/QA responses from our
'consumers', during the process and after, skilled 'inspectors' (peers), and
so forth.  I think it was Vic Harnack who suggested 'exit interviews' w/seniors
and that is a good idea (we are considering mechanisms for doing that at KSU --
I tried it w/ a class of grad srs: works great! amazing candor, when one takes
the trouble to ask (but note: a live, group dialogue [_a la_ focus group], NOT
just one-way paper (will we EVER learn from Socrates?!). I would like to see
a better system to 'tap' grads (alumni) who have been 'out' for 5 yrs or more
and may have a better sense of discrimination and judgment by then (to the
question, "What has worked (helped) for you, and what hasn't?")
Hugh P. Munro [...speaking only for myself!]
Communication Studies, Kent State University
HMUNRO@KENTVM.BITNET