Texas A&M to Revise Controversial Faculty Rewards Based on Student Evaluations, Article Review Example

This article relates to a controversial program being developed at Texas A&M University.  Historically the cash bonuses awarded to the University professors have been determined by student evaluations.  This has resulted in bonus awards up to $10,000 being awarded to individual professors.  There is now a proposal to change this system so that it is not purely subjective and student opinionated.  The proposed changes include much smaller awards  and the name of the program being changed to that of ‘ Student Nominated Appreciation Program’ away from the old title of ‘ Student Led Awards for Teaching Excellence Program’.  The proposed changes are only being scheduled to take place at the main campus in College Station.

Those responsible for initiation of the changes hope that it will ease concerns that have been raised by the University Professors.  The main objection was that the determination of the awards was based purely  on the popularity of the professor as opposed to excellence in teaching. All professors have different styles of teaching and despite the fact that some professors might not exude the personal charisma desired by students it does not mean that they are not obtaining a standard of excellence in teaching.  As such the Professors should not be penalised financially for this in a scheme considered to be iniquitous.

The Chief Communications Officer at the University (Jason D Cook) stated that the revisions had not yet been implemented  as the final proposals were still being reviewed by the student representatives and the final student proposal had not yet been received by the University administration ( October 12, 2010).  Robert Strawser the speaker for the Faculty Senate had indicated “ the changes appeared to be pretty much as done deal” (June, 2010).

Under the proposed changes the students will now only answer two questions: (1) Who was the best instructor for the semester and (2) Who was the best instructor you have ever had at Texas A&M University?  The author indicates that this is a shift away from the previous 16 question and answer form. Strawser a Professor in Accounting stated “593 faculty members have received $2 million in award money since the program started in 2008” (June, 2010).

The author leads us to the conclusion that a large amount of money ($2 million) is being expended on awards to professors based more upon student popularity than that of teaching excellence.  Such bonuses are considered to be high and as such need to be modified more towards a more modest equitable distribution and evaluation system.  If the system is not perceived to be equitable by the teaching staff it will lead to widespread dissatisfaction and may result in high quality teaching staff leaving the University for more lucrative positions elsewhere.  Cash bonus systems are always to a certain extent controversial and by way of comparison the more extreme scale of this is the cash bonus awards to City Traders in the Financial Institutions where these can amount to in excess of a $100,000 per annum.  The argument from the Banks is that they have to pay these bonuses in order to retain the best traders that maximise profitability for the banks.  By comparison Professors may equally be lured away by more cash incentives.  The educational sector is however a little different as the Professors will be equally concerned about research facilities, ability and recognition to develop their academic career, prestige of the teaching establishment and overall quality of the students. It is less mercenary than other private sector businesses.

The author retains a relatively neutral stance and presents the facts from two standpoints i.e. The Professors and the Students.  An average of $3,372 per individual since the commencement of the program in 2008 does not seem excessive.

References

June, A. W. (2010, 10 12). Texas A&M to Revise Controversial Faculty Rewards Based on Student Evaluations. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 2.