Do Students Provide Accurate Reviews on Rate My Professor?
When it comes to evaluating professors, students who use the Rate My Professor (RMP) platform can be both truthful and biased in their reviews. Here are some factors to consider:
Subjectivity
Reviews are often influenced by personal experiences, which can widely vary among students. A strict professor might receive negative reviews from some students, while others might appreciate the rigor. This subjectivity makes it essential to consider multiple perspectives when evaluating a professor's teaching quality.
Emotional Responses
Students who have strong positive or negative emotions about a class or a professor are more likely to leave a review. This can skew the overall perception, making it difficult to obtain an objective view of the professor's teaching abilities.
Anonymity
The anonymous nature of RMP encourages honesty, but it can also lead to exaggeration or unconstructive criticism. Since students feel anonymous, they might be more inclined to share their personal experiences, regardless of their accuracy.
Trends and Sample Size
Some professors might receive consistent feedback over time, which can provide a more reliable picture of their teaching effectiveness. However, a small sample size of reviews may not accurately represent a professor's capabilities. A larger number of reviews can offer a more balanced view.
Self-Selecting Reviews
Firstly, it's important to note that RMP students are often self-selecting. There’s no effort to include an accurate cross-section of students. Usually, students who write to RMP are either very positive or very negative about the professor. For example, at my college, RMP gave the highest ratings to teachers who brought junk food to class. Those professors who didn't bring Twinkies and HoHos received lower ratings. This indicates that reviews can be influenced by factors unrelated to the professor’s teaching quality.
The Emotional Charge of Reviews
Is the review truthful? The term "truth" can be subjective here. Many students perceive "truth" based on their own perceptions of fairness, tact, or expected behavior. For instance, a student who feels a professor was mean to them might believe their review is truthful, but it may not meet reasonable standards. The less evidence presented and the more emotion displayed in a review, the more a reader should withhold judgment.
Fact-Based Reviews
Crucially, reviews on RMP are often not factual. They usually skip over any evidence or point-by-point recital of facts, instead leaping into an angry opinionated blast. Pay attention to reviews that provide specific examples and, where possible, dates to show a chain of evidence. Reviews that are factual and cite evidence are more likely to be trustworthy. Contrast these evaluations with typical examples of bilious venting, where emotions run high and facts are often overlooked.
A Communication Tool Among Students
RMP is best viewed as a communication tool among students seeking information about faculty. It has no effect on faculty teaching and is often discounted by evaluation committees. It is a student-to-student vehicle, created to share experiences and insights. Therefore, university students should use a critical and discerning eye when reading these reviews to separate out the legitimate ones from passionate, often less reliable, "angry birds."
Reading multiple reviews can help you get a balanced view. Pay close attention to emotional language and the presence of specific examples. This will help you evaluate a professor more objectively and make informed decisions about their teaching quality.