"I want to have her babies," wrote one student of a professor in a recent course evaluation. Amusing? Yes. Flattering? Most would say so. But helpful in improving teaching? Probably not. "I don't how that would work, anyway," said the professor.But for the professors being evaluated-and the administrators who evaluate them-course evaluations are not taken lightly. "Mostly I use the evaluations to get myself really scared," said Prof. Don Katz (BIO), who is beginning his fourth year teaching here. "The pressure to get good evaluations is strong."

And understandably so. These Scantron glories can make or break a professor's career. Evaluations play a role in determining professors' salary raises, reappointments and promotions. Of course, the evaluations are only one factor in these decisions. Students' ratings are accompanied by research achievements, colleague recommendations and more. But "people do pay attention and there are consequences" to student feedback, according to Elaine Wong, assistant dean of arts and sciences.

Even tenured professors must heed the evaluations, since their salary raises are partially based on the forms. It seems, though, that senior faculty members are a bit more relaxed. "You'd be amazed at how much stress [evaluations] cause new professors, and how little they cause older professors," Katz said.

But Katz, a new professor, probably doesn't need to worry: His Introduction to Behavioral Neuroscience course, with enrollment usually over 100, is the top-ranked course in the School of Science, according to the online Course Evaluation Guide, which compiles information from the past two years.



'Distill the data from the noise'

As Katz adjusted the volume of the classical music wafting from his speakers, his sandals resting next to his bare feet, he outlined his approach to the evaluations.

"If five students say one thing, and five say the opposite, the answer is that you do nothing," he said. "But five versus 15 is enough data." So Katz looks for trends, and then adjusts the course to fit student advice.

Most professors agree that the largest challenge of evaluations is that not all students agree. Some loved a book; others hated it. Some want more lecturing; others want more class participation. "It's always a juggling of how to balance out the requests," said Prof. Susan Dibble (THA), who is in her 18th year at Brandeis.

Other professors mentioned that the comments are often too vague. "When someone writes, 'This class was awful,' I would like more detail, given that this supposedly sums up several months of my work," said Prof. Sabine von Mering (GRALL), who teaches German. It might be constructive, she said, to hold an online discussion with students after grades are submitted at the end of the semester.

Von Mering, who has taught at Brandeis for seven years, uses extra evaluations halfway through the semester to address concerns right away. She said students don't care as much when the end of the semester rolls around. Prof. Dan Perlman (BIO) and Prof. Can Erbil (ECON) also said that feedback during the semester can have the most direct effect on teaching.

Prof. Jane Kamensky (HIST), who is in her 13th year at Brandeis, said she teaches graduate teaching assistants to "purge themselves of ego" when reading their own teaching evaluations: not to be too thrilled with glowing evaluations, or too hurt by more harsh ones. The most useful evaluations, she said, respond more to the course content-readings, tests, speed of instruction-and less to the professor.

"With any data set, the challenge is to distill the data from the noise," Kamensky added. "The evaluations in the middle are the ones that help most with that."

But some things are just hard to fix. Prof. Janet McIntosh (ANTH), winner of this year's Michael L. Walzer teaching award, said changes are "probably most difficult ... when something isn't working with the classroom chemistry."

Certain classes inherently lack this chemistry. Von Mering said that her USEM evaluations are usually much lower than the other evaluations, mainly because the atmosphere is tenser. She said that first-year students are more nervous, more competitive and less sure of their own abilities.

Prof. Marc Brettler, who chairs the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies department, said he has encountered professors who are resistant to change, often because they "have ingrained styles" that cannot be easily erased. "There is more than one right way to teach," Brettler added. "The only time I am hard on my faculty, insisting on changes, is when evaluations indicate that a professor did not properly fulfill his or her obligations, or maltreated students."

A department chairs get a double dose of evaluations: their own, but also all the evaluations from professors in their department. Chairs are supposed to contact colleagues to discuss the evaluations, though Wong said not all do. She added, however, that it's rare for a chair to ignore bad teaching evaluations, especially if they're received consistently.

Department chairs also observe classes to directly observe the professors at work.

"When the department chair showed up in class, that was some scary stuff," Katz recalled. He originally used a less PG word for 'stuff,' but later revised his statement when reminded that his words would be printed. Incidentally, another recurring request from his students: less swearing in class.



Born in the Eighties

Big hair was a fad of the '80s that (thankfully) faded away. Course evaluations, too, had their official Brandeis debut in the mid-1980s. However, unlike that unfortunate frizz-fest, evaluations have lasted. In 1987, the University published the first evaluation guide based on universal, staff-organized distribution of evaluations, according to Wong. The student senate has published its own less official guide since at least the 1960s.

Now, course evaluations are managed by the Committee for the Support of Teaching (CST), though plans are in place to form a new committee that deals only with evaluations. Both Wong and Brettler serve on the CST, along with other professors, staff and three students.

This year, the CST piloted a new, more detailed evaluation form in the NEJS, History and Theater departments. Judith Jaffe, research analyst of the provost's office, serves on the CST (no relation to Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe, also on the CST and also a statistics maven). Ms. Jaffe explained that with 44 questions instead of 16, the new forms are able to be more specific.

Former Student Union President Mark Schlangel '05 has worked with the CST, and said the new forms are a step in the right direction. He added that the comment section also should be modified. Currently, the questions are so broad that they result in "almost cookie-cutter evaluations." The flipside, though, is that students may begrudge the extra questions and answer too hastily.

Schlangel, Ms. Jaffe and professors all stressed one point: students should continue to take the evaluations seriously-the rest of the school certainly does.



And the little people

who make it all possible

Each summer, one diligent student compiles all the data from all the evaluations that year and creates the Course Evaluation Guide (CEG). Amanda Zane '08, editor of this year's guide, said the process has made her more aware of the University's efforts to evaluate itself and improve teaching. And she is impressed.

Each year, students and the CST have worked to make the CEG more user-friendly. Now it groups courses by department or by professor, and also lists the 50 best and worst courses. Additionally, it lists the highest scoring courses within each school of the University for students looking to fill a requirement in the most enjoyable way possible.

Many of the top courses are theater and art, or small, upper-level seminars. Dan Dobies '07, editor of the 2003-2004 CEG, thinks this is only natural.

"Who's not gonna love upper-level neuroscience?" he said. "If you get there, then you already like it."

Dobies said it was no easy task to piece together all the disparate evaluations. Because of this, the CEG is not a perfect tool. Zane, too, cautions that no one should be "too heavily reliant" on the CEG, because the course could differ each year.

Some, like Weldon Kennedy '06, say they prefer to ask their peers for advice, rather than read anonymous evaluations. This way he can trust his sources. "I'm not gonna read what Joe Physics Major thought of the English class he took second semester senior year just for fun," he said.

Be warned, however: Jared Goetz '07, who also said he prefers consulting his friends about courses, relates a sad tale. "The one time I read [the evaluation] and ignored it. I had my worst professor. Ever.