[IggleSniggle]

I used to teach in academia. Student reviews are REALLY easy to game. Give everyone As for doing nothing, and most will give you As for just being entertaining. It doesn’t matter if they learn anything, or worse, if they learn the wrong things.

[jrnvs]

But why do you let the students grade the course after they've already gotten a grade? That's insane. In my university, you'd get a paper for the teacher and course review after handing in the final exam. This means you can comment on the quality of the exam, but you don't know your grade yet.

[michaelt]

Theoretically, if you grade students several times throughout the course, you can correct those who are on course for a poor grade (due to misunderstanding the content, or misunderstanding how much studying they need to do) while there's still time for feedback to improve their grade.

(At my school many teachers were slow to mark and return assignments, so this benefit wasn't really achieved - but it might have been had feedback been more timely)

[saint_fiasco]

Then make your exams very easy so the students will be in a good mood when they fill the teacher and course reviews.

[eagsalazar2]

It is 2018, these patterns are _easy_ to detect. Honestly at a fundamental level bailing on optimizing teach performance and student outcomes through feedback loops seems nuts to me. This is how all high functioning dynamic systems work (ok maybe not all).

You just can't throw out the baby with the bathwater here just because there are things to figure out. Most of the reasons people have cited here seem like lame excuses, all easily addressable if you could get sane people to get aligned behind a well designed system. Unfortunately not everyone involved in these conversations is acting sane (or objectively in the best interests of the community) and therefore getting everyone aligned in practically impossible.

This whole conversation, BTW, reminds me a the similar debate around public access to doctor and surgeon outcome data where some doctors are amazing and others have horrendously bad success rates for specific surgeries but if you go to that doctor for that surgery you almost never are given access to that history. A large portion of the medical community is very hostile to the idea of things being otherwise which, IMO, is indefensible from a public health POV and only makes sense if you are a crappy, unscrupulous doctor seeking to avoid accountability.

[Palomides]

the same thing happens with doctors when you make satisfaction/results stats public: surgeons, for example, are more likely to refuse to take on difficult cases, and prefer easy ones which will increase their patient satisfaction; or even the best surgeons get stuck with the hardest cases, which tanks their relative outcomes.