[DiggityDug7]

I do webdev for a big hospital and when we brought up the possibility of patients reviewing their doctors, the doctors got really defensive.

Turns out professionals don't want to be held accountable for the quality of their work. Too bad for them public rating systems are inevitable.

[trop]

Some of the defensiveness may come from professional pride... Teaching (and medicine?) is not as easy to rate as, say, a product on Amazon or an Ebay seller. Speaking as a sometime adjunct instructor at a research university, the "course evaluations" represent to me bringing corporate management theory to a theoretically more high-minded institution. As others have commented here, the pressure to publish lowers the priority of teaching for full-time faculty. Bringing in low-paid part-timers to teach is not a healthy response to this, and publicly rating/berating teachers is a band-aid on a situation already lacking in trust and respect.

In a healthy college of Yale's quality, course choices should come from competent individual advising of the students and student-to-student discussion, rather than from ratings and a scheduling algorithm.

[williamsharkey]

Bad algorithms are bad and misused feedback is misused and competent advisers are competent.

[blahedo]

> Turns out professionals don't want to be held accountable for the quality of their work.

This statement is not supported by the rest of your comment. Your comment supports a slightly different statement (which I also believe is true): professionals don't want customer-satisfaction ratings from a selection-biased poll to be considered as a rating of the quality of their work.

Because, why would they? That's a terrible metric.

[Fomite]

"0/5, Recommended my child be put on the standard vaccine schedule."