Faculty evaluations are a good thing — one of the few ways that students languishing in the… Faculty evaluations are a good thing — one of the few ways that students languishing in the throes of PowerPoint purgatory can offer anonymous feedback to professors without fear of academic retribution.

Years ago, I imagined my carefully rehearsed white-sheet comments raising eyebrows in departments across the campus. Wisdom, I’m afraid, comes suddenly.

As any upperclassman knows, these evaluations are most often the critical equivalent of spitting into the wind.

While it is impossible to know exactly how much credence professors lend to our periodic attempts at constructive criticism, it is indisputable that faculty evaluations are of no practical use to students, and it is time for the University to reform its policies regarding their availability.

Pitt should start by making public the existing records of faculty evaluations and uploading all future assessments to a searchable online database. Twice a semester — perhaps around midterms and finals — students would be asked to log on during a pre-determined week and evaluate their professors in accordance with the already existing criteria.

Apathy would not be an issue if students were allowed to view the results of the evaluative process. To assuage fears of low user turnout, the administration could offer incentives like tickets to athletic events and Book Center gift certificates to randomly selected participants.

This system would allow professors to receive instant feedback and make immediate adjustments to improve the quality of the classroom learning experience while students are still enrolled in the course. A second evaluation would judge the effectiveness of any adjustments the professor makes.

Moreover, students could choose a more convenient time to fill out the surveys, which would provide them with ample opportunity to consider the questions more thoughtfully and answer with a greater degree of honesty.

An online database would also cut down on paperwork while eliminating needless expenditures, since Pitt would no longer require student-employees to proctor the evaluations and part-time faculty members to scan and organize the sheets. And no proctors means more class time for lecture and Q-and-A.

More importantly, opening up the evaluations to online access would mean that students could determine which professors are best suited for their style of learning. This would foster a competitive environment among professors who would then strive to keep their ratings high, as well as among students who would vie for classes taught by the highest rated professors.

Not since the late ’80s when Pitt students independently published faculty guides has there been access to this kind of resource.

While Web sites like ratemyprofessors.com offer similar services, access to the full range of feedback requires users to pay a membership fee, and most professors have no more than five or six terse comments listed under their profiles.

Under a Pitt-sponsored plan, hundreds of comments could be made available, therefore rendering a more accurate portrait of how an instructor is widely received on campus.

Fears that this would lead to professors merely pandering to students to achieve higher ratings are unfounded. Students have proven they have a keen sense of what they look for in an instructor, and it isn’t as simple as keeping us entertained.

The best professors challenge our strongest convictions and strike an even balance between lecture and discussion. They are conscious of the bias with which they approach the material they teach and constantly alert us to alternative viewpoints. They grade fairly and encourage students to approach them outside of class. Above all, they have a deeply rooted passion for what they teach. They don’t just report the facts, but show us why they matter.

Tenure is a privilege that should be extended to only this kind of professor, and should never be abused as a means of foregoing their obligation to provide students with the highest possible standard of education. Reforming our current system of faculty evaluation is one easy step we can take toward reaching that goal.

The ramifications of such a radically different system of evaluation would strike a chord at the heart of academia. But without question, the mandate to put this plan into motion would need to come from above, at the highest level of University administration.

Are you listening, chancellor?

Michael Darling accepts feedback in PowerPoint. Send your evaluations to [email protected].