Universities rely heavily on student evaluations of teaching (SETs) when deciding faculty promotions, tenure, contract renewals, and pay raises. Yet research increasingly shows these evaluations measure student satisfaction and emotional responses, not actual teaching quality or instructional effectiveness.
The problem runs deep. SETs conflate the student experience with pedagogical skill. A professor who entertains students or gives high grades may earn strong evaluations regardless of whether students actually learn the material. Conversely, rigorous instructors who demand critical thinking sometimes receive lower ratings despite superior learning outcomes.
This disconnect matters because institutions treat SET scores as objective data. Hiring committees, promotion panels, and administrators use them as primary evidence of teaching competence. When SET results drive high-stakes decisions, the incentive structure pushes faculty toward popularity rather than pedagogical rigor.
The research is clear on what influences SET responses. Student biases affect ratings, including instructor gender, perceived attractiveness, and grade expectations. Class size, course subject matter, and even the time of day classes meet influence scores independent of teaching quality. A difficult course in mathematics receives lower evaluations than an easy humanities elective, though difficulty does not equal poor instruction.
Alternative evaluation methods exist. Peer observation, where experienced colleagues assess classroom teaching and course design, provides expert judgment on instructional quality. Peer reviewers can evaluate alignment between learning objectives and assessments, depth of content coverage, and teaching strategies. They notice what students cannot: whether lectures build conceptual understanding, if assignments scaffold skills appropriately, whether course design fosters active learning.
Some institutions now use hybrid approaches. They combine peer evaluation with limited student feedback focused on specific questions about course organization and communication rather than overall satisfaction. Others employ portfolio assessment, where faculty compile evidence of teaching through syllabi, student work samples, and reflection on pedagogy.
The transition away from SET dependence requires institutional will. Academic departments must agree that peer expertise