Saturday, October 27, 2007

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE

Affirmative action causes less able blacks to pass through the educational system at all levels. So when they finally get to be teachers, it is reasonable to expect that they will be less able as teachers. And that is exactly what students report. They evaluate black faculty less favourably. PREJUDICE! Or so the authors below seem to think. They suggest that the evaluations of black faculty by students be "adjusted" upwards. Inconvenient truths must be suppressed! This is Soviet Russia, you know. Abstract follows:

Leveling the Playing Field: Should Student Evaluation Scores be Adjusted?

By Michael A. McPherson & R. Todd Jewell

Objectives. Colleges and universities routinely use evaluation scores to assess the quality of an instructor's teaching for purposes of promotion and tenure and for merit-raise allocations. This article attempts to identify the determinants of these scores, and to suggest ways that departments' numerical rankings of instructors might be adjusted.

Method. This article applies a feasible generalized least squares model to a panel of data from master's-level classes.

Results. We find that instructors can "buy" better evaluation scores by inflating students' grade expectations. Also, the teaching experience of instructors has an impact on evaluation scores, but this effect is largely seen as an increase after tenure is granted. In addition, we find evidence of a bias against nonwhite faculty.

Conclusion. Our results suggest that an adjustment to the usual departmental rankings may be in order.

Social Science Quarterly. Volume 88 Issue 3 Page 868-881, September 2007





Age differences in grade-school classes

Some reflections by Prof. Brignell below on the latest British panic. In any given class some kids will be younger than others. How awful!

Long ago in the dim dawn of pre-history, your bending author experienced the first day at grammar school. At the end of the day he was taken aside by the form master, who explained the special problems he would experience as the youngest boy in the class, born (like Number Watch) on July 13th. That advice came from the accumulated wisdom that can only accrue from a century of existence as an institute of learning. That school was wantonly destroyed for ideological reasons and, when the demolition ball crashed through the elegant gothic arches, not only the fabric was destroyed but also that priceless store of wisdom. Now instead of wisdom we have what Kingsley Amis called "pseudo-research into non-problems" as illustrated by this heading in The Telegraph:

Pupils born in summer more likely to struggle

How things have changed! Now schools no longer run themselves, but are subject to endless interference and targetry by Government ministers and underemployed bureaucrats. Pupils are repeatedly tested into a state of coma. Expensive research is commissioned to replace what was once common knowledge. Stupid interventions and "urgent action" are thought up at the drop of a hat. "Equity" and "efficiency" are the watchwords, while teachers and parents are deemed too stupid to be able to make the allowances that they once made without instruction from above.

Furthermore, changes are suggested that are self-evidently nonsense. However many children are "held back" there is always going to be one who is the youngest in the class, while those held back now become the eldest, so there is always a difference of one year between them. Even common sense is no longer common.

1 comment:

Nate Andrews said...

I believe the biggest problem for both of these articles is the sense that school should be "fair" to the students. We treat our students as if the world were "fair" when the exact opposite is true. Now, I agree that there should be fairness, but my definition is different than what is used.

To be fair is to use the same criteria to judge students by the same standards. That way students must sink or swim, and the effort to learn is put on student shoulders at least as much as the teacher's. Once they leave school they will have learned to be successful - or simply never get better. At that point those who really need the help should be treated differently.

Currently, "fair" means making sure no one fails. What happens is that those who need to learn discipline and self-motivation instead learn how to work the system. Now learning how to work the system can be a good lesson. However, that is all they end up learning. In the end, everyone needs help and creates a financial burden because so many don't know what it takes to actually work a real job.

Once they leave the confines of the protective scholastic environment they can't cope. The work site becomes a training ground where employers have to take on the role of educators. That creates an equality where few people can actually do the job well. The modern "educated" can't find well paying jobs, and economic production declines.

All this feeds into the idea that we MUST be fairer, rather than more competitive like reality. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that politicians and interest groups are glad to see grow. They keep their jobs and ambitions. The students just keep getting dumber and less qualified.