Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) remain the dominant method for assessing instructor performance at universities, despite mounting evidence that they measure student satisfaction rather than teaching quality. These ratings heavily influence tenure decisions, promotions, contract renewals, and pay increases across higher education institutions.
Research increasingly shows that SETs conflate student emotional responses and course experience with actual instructional effectiveness. Students rate courses based on factors like instructor likability, perceived difficulty, and classroom atmosphere, which do not reliably correlate with learning outcomes. Studies document that students often assign higher ratings to charismatic instructors regardless of course rigor, and rate easier courses more favorably than challenging ones that produce stronger learning gains.
The problem carries real consequences. When universities rely primarily on SETs for high-stakes employment decisions, they incentivize teaching approaches designed to maximize student comfort and approval rather than optimize learning. Instructors may lower academic standards, avoid difficult but essential content, or prioritize entertainment value over depth.
The article proposes peer evaluation as a complementary assessment tool. Colleagues reviewing teaching can evaluate course design, alignment between learning objectives and assessments, pedagogical methods, and evidence of student learning. Peers possess disciplinary expertise to judge whether course content meets field standards and whether instructional strategies match learning goals. Unlike students completing surveys at semester's end, faculty evaluators can examine syllabi, assignments, and student work samples.
A balanced evaluation system would combine peer review with student feedback while recognizing each tool's proper role. Student surveys gather valuable input about course organization, pacing, and communication, but should not serve as the primary measure of teaching effectiveness. Peer evaluation addresses what SETs cannot assess: whether instruction aligns with disciplinary standards and produces measurable learning.
Universities adopting this framework would strengthen evaluation rigor and signal that teaching quality means more than student satisfaction. Such changes require developing robust peer review protocols and training faculty evaluators. The