<p>This article describes “pilot” programs at various schools, including Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kent State, and UT, that reward faculty for good teaching following a more corporate model of awarding bonuses. Good idea or bad?</p>
<p>Dangerous. It sounds as if these programs are based on very iffy data, the student evaluation forms handed out at the end of the semester. Ignoring for the moment the questions of academic freedom and differences in departmental culture, there are very easy ways faculty can “game” student evaluations to make their numbers higher - believe it or not, some teachers have simply handed out chocolate on evaluation day and gotten higher marks from students.</p>
<p>Having said that, I’m all for good teaching, which is why I strongly discourage my own kids from attending R1 universities for undergrad. The institutional culture at a smaller LAC is more likely to support fine teaching throughout the academic process, not just as a PR tactic.</p>
<p>stradmom is correct, student evals are iffy and study after study have shown that they follow grade distributions. So as you might suspect grades have become inflated over the years. See the article below. Harvard 50% A’s e.g.,</p>