My name is Beginner Betsy. While I was never a regular correspondent at RYS, I was a devoted reader and I did post twice. Neither post was glorious enough to remain the archives. But, if anyone is interested, in one post I was responding to “the Ivies” and in another, I posed a “Big Thirsty” and……..was raked over the coals. Well Bitchy Bear was nice to me. And she was my favorite anyway. Oh and, apropos of nothing, Midcareer Mike was another of my fav’s. I bet he wore (and still wears) tweed jackets with patches at the elbows and smelled like pipe tobacco.
At any rate, I know myself well enough to know that I can’t possibly be a regular correspondent here. BUT I do have a thirsty. (Big? Small? Medium? ) But without any further ado, here it goes:As my name might suggests, I am relatively junior in my career and have not yet gotten tenure--right now I am tenure track faculty at a SLAC—(extremely light on the “LA”.) So my question is tenure-related.
Q: Has anyone, at any type of institution, heard of anyone NOT getting tenure SOLELY on the basis of student evaluations? So, in other words, let’s say a candidate’s scholarship and service range from acceptable to excellent but the student evaluations are low (but not the type of low that indicates illegal activity—just low). Would this candidate get tenure? As far as I can tell, I have never heard of anyone not getting tenure based on student evals alone. But I might be wrong. What is your sense of this?
Oh and to head off any criticisms or speculation…this really is more of a curiosity question than anything. My student evals are actually pretty strong. Sure I have some stinkers. But overall, mine are fine. I am more curious around the hysteria surrounding them. Maybe I am naive but I don’t think that they ACTUALLY matter that much. I read them, get furious and/or pleased and then forget about them. I know that we all pay lip service to student evals mattering. But in terms of retention, I am convinced that student evals don’t matter too much—at any institution. Am I naive? Dead wrong? Correct? I want to know your thoughts, experiences and rumors!
A: Post your replies below.
I'm at a big research institution (the equivalent of an American R1) in Canada, and here teaching evaluations absolutely matter as a part of the package. We get reviewed every year, so a case like the one you outline would be flagged early, and the faculty member would be told well before tenure that it was a problem. They would be told to take measures to improve their teaching, and be expected to show movement in the right direction before tenure could be granted.
ReplyDeleteIf that movement didn't occur, or if it got worse, I can conceive of tenure not being granted, but honestly, who can't improve their teaching evaluations under threat of losing their job? I can imagine an extension of probation, though. Easily.
I taught at a big R1 in the northeast for a number of years. Student evaluations officially counted for 5% of the T&P process, but I'd guess they meant even less.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm at a place where they are officially 30%, but it feels like more. Hysteria is the right word. Low evaluations might get you a couple of meetings with a Dean, chair, or mentor, but in most cases it will just be to help you sort out what you might try to improve them.
I came disturbingly close to being denied tenure because of low student evaluations. My disdain for the senior/senile faculty who tried to do this to me, who still clearly don't understand statistics, and who have drunk the Kool-Aid that if something is wrong in a classroom, it's always the teachers fault, was all too apparent, though.
ReplyDeleteSo, it may not have been only student evaluations, and besides, I did get tenure anyway, largely because of bringing in external grants, and involving students in research. I suspect, however, that people who were denied tenure, for any reason, are likely to be under-represented in the sample of replies to your Big Thirsty. Stats again, you see.
P.S. I am at a mid-size, middlin' state U, ostensibly a teaching university, but with aspirations to becoming an R2. We take anonymous evaluations of all kinds way too seriously here: we actually do have anonymous evaluation of administators by faculty, whenever they feel like it.
ReplyDeleteI taught at a SLAC where no amount of research or service would get you tenure if you had low student evaluations. At the reappointment time in the middle of the tenure track, you were made to answer for negative evaluations, one by one.
ReplyDeleteThe unfortunate fact is that if your superiors don't like you, they can twist any sort of advantage into a disadvantage, and vice versa. It's all about whether or not they want to keep you. You can have good evaluations, have published great scholarship, and still be pushed out. It happens.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that if they want you, they will bend over backwards to keep you, no matter your accomplishments or lack thereof. If they don't want you, no amount of achievment will ever be enough.
One of my professors mentioned that he was denied tenure the first time around because not enough of his students turned in evaluations. He refrained from discussing it further, probably because of the vein throbbing in the side of his head from just saying that much.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this question, I wondered much the same myself. I also wonder how much a committee might take into account the use of the phrase "Prof D. is crazy, but in a good way!" which appears regularly in my course evals.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of simply repeating what's already been said, it all depends. My institution cares so little about teaching evals that they aren't even included in the t&p docket. At institutions where teaching is the most important factor in promotion decisions, they are obviously critical--along with observation reports and other forms of assessment.
ReplyDeleteAs Stella points out, a hostile department or p&t committee can weigh almost anything on a sliding scale depending on the desired outcome of the process. However, in my admittedly limited experience with evals as a serious factor, I'd say that if we aren't talking a standard deviation or worse below the departmental/college norm on the statistical scores, they're setting themselves up for something close to a slam-dunk lawsuit if they deny on that basis alone--especially if some kind of remedial counseling/opportunity to improve was not offered.
Stella is right on - if we want to keep you, we will find ways to do so. If we want you out, we will find a way, no matter what.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't take evaluations at face value. We give the candidate a chance to comment the evaluations - you should see mine! Introduction to Basketweaving: I'm an ogress because I make them write in complete sentences and submit something every week. Master's course on Intricate Basketweaving: I taught one of the most important classes of their lives and taught them to think.
Whatever. Just don't tell the students what to write on the evaluations and stand over them, watching them write. Especially don't insist that they write that you were always on time when you weren't. It might have helped not to clue them in that you are an adjunct on a short list for tenure track.
I had a delegation in my office this afternoon telling me of your antics. Your file will be on my desk in the morning. I think we just shortened the short list.
Dean Suzy
I taught at a SLAC for 12 years. If a junior faculty member did not have good teaching evaluations, she/he did not get tenure. One of my colleagues did not get reappointed after his 3rd year because of poor teaching evaluations, despite his success in obtaining extramural funding for his research.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I once heard a senior faculty member refer to using "gestalt" when asked about hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions...
If they want you in the club, they'll find a way to get you in the club.
@Dean Suzy and Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteAt my university, we have probationary plans for tenure-track faculty, to prevent the "clubbiness" you mention. I might add that this is California, where lawsuits fall like gentle rain: these probationary plans are also supposed to prevent lawsuits from people who are denied tenure.
These probationary plans are to be negotiated between the tenure-track faculty and list specifically what needs to be done for the candidate to be granted tenure. Fairly standard line items are to publish three first-author papers in the first six years of being on the faculty, apply for external funding at least once a year until you get it, teach a 12-hour load and get teaching evaluations above a 3.5/5, serve on one college committee and on one university-level committee. So far, I have never known anyone who did everything on their probationary plan to be denied tenure.
My advice to junior faculty is not to volunteer anything, since you'll be expected to deliver it. Three first-author papers in six years may not sound like much to someone who has just spent the past several years doing only research as a postdoc, but there’s invariably a clause that this has to be based on work done at our university and not elsewhere, and one needs to do that while at the same time teaching a 12-hour load. There’s also an ongoing argument about how much papers in which one is not first author count: this is important particularly since we have two high-energy physicists on our faculty.
@Frog and Toad:
In my previous job as an Accursed Visiting Assistant Professor, I was made to answer for every individual negative evaluation too. It still makes me angry to think of it: the old fool who put me through the misery had very clearly never had children, since he obviously never even thought of the possibility that they might LIE.