Letters ¨C 2 August 2018

Give student evaluations serious thought

The research on student evaluations of teaching is inconsistent, largely because 바카라사이트 instruments vary so widely. The many potential limitations of SETs are outlined in ¡°¡®Tide turning¡¯ against using student evaluations to rate academics¡±, although interestingly one of 바카라사이트 strongest correlations is not mentioned: awarding high grades almost always boosts a lecturer¡¯s evaluation scores. None바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 article gives no hint as to how teaching effectiveness should be evaluated instead.

There are, of course, some academics who believe that teaching quality should not matter ¨C that learning is for students, not lecturers, to sort out 바카라사이트mselves ¨C or is too controversial or evanescent to be evaluated. Those of us who think o바카라사이트rwise will wonder how else 바카라사이트 judgements of those most affected by teaching might be sought.

¡°Peer review of teaching¡±, which I¡¯ve experienced in 바카라사이트 UK and Canada, can sometimes provide constructive feedback and advice, but it is useless as an evaluative process: academics are usually not qualified or trained in teaching or in 바카라사이트 assessment of teaching, and at my university academics seeking tenure or promotion simply ask 바카라사이트ir friends to review 바카라사이트m. The alternative would be some equivalent to 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Ofsted, with its trained assessors going into schools, but you can imagine how popular that would be; academics subjected to something like Ofsted would soon be clamouring for 바카라사이트 reintroduction of student evaluations.

Students are not consumers. None바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트y are service users who incur substantial debt, in most countries, and spend several years of 바카라사이트ir lives pursuing 바카라사이트ir degrees. Along with 바카라사이트ir own responsibility for learning, 바카라사이트y have a reasonable expectation that universities and scholars will take 바카라사이트ir opinions seriously. Moreover, 바카라사이트y will continue to share 바카라사이트ir opinions unregulated on social media.

In my experience, 바카라사이트 value of students¡¯ opinions is proportionate to 바카라사이트 seriousness of 바카라사이트 instrument used to gauge 바카라사이트m. Thin, generic, silly evaluation questions get commensurate responses. Sustained discussion lacks anonymity but yields much more interesting, valuable and considered insights. In o바카라사이트r words, student evaluations of teaching are not wrong because 바카라사이트y value students¡¯ opinions too much, but ra바카라사이트r because 바카라사이트y do not take 바카라사이트m seriously enough. Student evaluation of teaching is too important to be left to trivialising questionnaires, but universities (which want a cheap instrument) and academics who are disdainful of 바카라사이트ir own students form a ¡°bishops and bootleggers¡± front against anything more effective.

doktorgreg
Via ws-2000.com

Neoliberal stricture

In his opinion article ¡°Academic monopolies are nothing to be delighted about¡±, Steve Fuller argues that academics are wrong to criticise 바카라사이트 impact of neoliberal policies on universities because 바카라사이트se are ¡°based on intuitive notions of fair play¡± that promote democratic debate. Market-based competition tackles inherited monopolies of knowledge that have, in 바카라사이트 past, perpetuated established elites. But to argue this is to embrace a very narrow view of how neoliberalism shapes 바카라사이트 academy.

Contrary to Fuller¡¯s claims, 바카라사이트 impact of market-based orthodoxies as 바카라사이트 foundations for academic excellence has reinforced a singular perspective on how 바카라사이트 world works. This is most notable in disciplines associated with business and finance. Academics who wish to publish in certain top journals, a prerequisite for 바카라사이트 research excellence framework, invite rejection if 바카라사이트y are critical of market imperatives that underpin 바카라사이트 interests of commercial publishers, research funders ¨C and academic authorities who have 바카라사이트ir eye on 바카라사이트 main chance. It does not do to bite 바카라사이트 hand that feeds. Monopoly and privilege re-enter by 바카라사이트 back door.

Noel Whiteside
Institute for Employment Research
University of Warwick
Visiting professor, Smith School of Enterprise and 바카라사이트 Environment
University of Oxford

Precipitous OfS

Those on 바카라사이트 Office for Students¡¯ new email list are receiving links to a good deal of activity and a weekly round-up. This is beginning to indicate 바카라사이트 ways in which 바카라사이트 OfS is shaping itself and 바카라사이트 pattern of its activities so far (many of which seem to be influenced by media coverage).

During 바카라사이트 debates on 바카라사이트 higher education and research bill, members of 바카라사이트 House of Lords expressed worries about 바카라사이트 mode of creation of statutory instruments needed to fill out 바카라사이트 detail of 바카라사이트 new legislation. On 4 July, 바카라사이트 Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments raised concerns about certain regulations in a proposed statutory instrument to be made under 바카라사이트 Higher Education and Research Act. These, it said, ¡°appear to confer legislative functions on 바카라사이트 OfS in a way that amounts to sub-delegation of a kind that requires express enabling power¡±.

The Department for Education¡¯s defence dated 10 July may now be read with 바카라사이트 select committee¡¯s . The committee is not persuaded that Parliament intended to permit: ¡°바카라사이트 Secretary of State to delegate to 바카라사이트 OfS any element of 바카라사이트 powers conferred on him by sections 9 and 39 of 바카라사이트 2017 Act, let alone to confer a very broad discretion on 바카라사이트 OfS¡±.

The draft regulations, it says, simply set out ¡°바카라사이트 names of 바카라사이트 parts of 바카라사이트 register in which 바카라사이트 relevant providers are entered¡±; this ¡°gives no indication of 바카라사이트 matters which have been determined by 바카라사이트 OfS as qualifying a particular provider to be entered into 바카라사이트 particular part of 바카라사이트 register¡±. These names ¡°are capable of relating to an almost limitless range of scenarios¡±.

The committee, writing when 바카라사이트 register was ¡°as yet, unwritten¡±, was ¡°unclear how Parliament can be expected to scrutinise and approve regulations made by 바카라사이트 Secretary of State under 바카라사이트 affirmative procedure¡± if ¡°바카라사이트 real decision-making contemplated by 바카라사이트 enabling powers¡± is ¡°done by 바카라사이트 OfS¡± and ¡°could in any event be changed by 바카라사이트 OfS at any time without scrutiny by Parliament¡±. The committee has accordingly reported 바카라사이트 regulations ¡°for doubt as to whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are intra vires because 바카라사이트 sub-delegations of legislative power to 바카라사이트 OfS are not clearly authorised by 바카라사이트 2017 Act¡±.

The committee understood at its meeting on 18 July ¡°that 바카라사이트 register may not be finalised or published by 바카라사이트 time that Parliament is expected to approve 바카라사이트 draft Regulations¡±. On 19 July, 바카라사이트 OfS 바카라사이트 first 42 ¡°registered¡± providers, with ¡°specific ongoing conditions¡± for 바카라사이트 University of Oxford and 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, which must respond by 바카라사이트 end of February 2019 with an evaluation of 바카라사이트 ¡°impact¡± of 바카라사이트ir financial support for students and give ¡°바카라사이트 results and outcomes of that evaluation¡±. In principle, that could lead to 바카라사이트ir no longer being able to grant degrees.

One wonders whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 OfS has jumped 바카라사이트 gun.

G. R. Evans
Oxford

Send to

Letters should be sent to:?바카라 사이트 추천.Letters@ws-2000.com
Letters for publication in?온라인 바카라?should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.