Editorial: SET me up

02/05/09 - At the end of each semester, per course instructors, adjuncts and full-time professors break out the No. 2 pencils and say something to the effect of, "I'd really appreciate it if you guys answered these questions honestly."But those honest answers from Student Evaluations of Teaching, compiled on microfilm in the University Library, are almost nothing without statistics to show for them. When students have to search through thousands of names to find the best and the worst, no one's going to take the time to sift through all of the data for hours on microfilm.

The point of the SET is to enhance teaching styles at the university and to find out what works and what doesn't. Professors can fine-tune their own skills to better adapt to new learning environments.

While critics of the evaluation forms argue that the questions and rating system is too vague to capture a professor's real shortcomings in the classroom, what is the point of filing them for students at all if they're not easily accessible?

Students want to know what their peers think of certain courses and professors. Instead, they are forced to turn to Web sites like ratemyprofessor.com, which are unregulated and many times inaccurate.

There will always be students who don't take the evaluation seriously, but the important factor here is that every student in the class takes the survey. On ratemyprofessor.com, anyone can just post his or her comments under a professor's name without proof that he or she even enrolled in that class. You're also not getting a fair variety of answers on the Web sites, which tend to attract angry students who are dissatisfied rather than students who are eager to make a winning case for a certain professor.

The surveys at least guarantee a variety answers. When a majority of students say that an instructor does not use class time effectively, that depicts a lot more about teaching style than an open forum where students can freely rant about professors' personalities and techniques.

But the rating Web sites lure students with easily accessible professor rankings and statistics, while the official SET data sits collecting dust. The sites, because they are more specific, can have their advantages. But the SET should be setting a standard, not falling behind one.

The SET planning committee needs to make electronic SET records a top priority, and devise a way to make statistics more easily accessible for the URI population. "Not meeting regularly" should not serve as an excuse when we live in the age of technology and the Internet.