Creighton University Provides Specific Numerical Guidelines: Lawsuits May Follow

There is much literature warning against relying on a single number for performance evaluations. Instructors have a high incentive to manage SET scores, even more so than managers have to enhance earnings. The easiest ways for instructors to manage SET scores are through grade inflation and course work deflation. SETs are the most widely abused internal controls in the U.S., because at many universities the most dysfunctional instructors are rewarded by this control system.

Most administrators are wise enough to avoid stating specific numerical SET guidelines, because of future legal problems--but not Creighton, a Catholic and Jesuit university, in Omaha, Nebraska. In a memo dated April 21, 1997, Gerry Stockhausen, Acting Dean, provides specific maximum teaching guidelines scores on the SET data collected from anonymous questionnaires:

	For Q1-15	For Q-19
1. Outstanding	Below 1.75	Below 1.5
2. Very Good	Below 2.25	Below 2.0
3. Successful	Below 2.75	Below 2.5
4. Needs Improvement	Below 2.75-3.25	Between 2.5-3.0
5. Unacceptable	Above 3.25	Above 3.0

Question 19 is the typical summative question: “On the whole, the quality of the professor’s teaching was...”, where 1 is best and 5 is worst.

For the sake of Creighton, we hope that there is sufficient research on their SET instrument that proves that students can judge who are the best and worst teachers since Creighton puts its “primary emphasis on teaching” and “65% of the faculty member’s overall teaching performance” is based upon SET data. Faculty members who are punished by this control system should consider the courtroom. Using anonymous student data should be considered hearsay evidence, somewhat like raw FBI data passed through a computer.

Society for a Return to Academic Standards

Students Who Don't Study

Last updated: 4 September 1997