Academic entitlement and Ratemyprofessors.com evaluations bias student teaching evaluations: Implications for faculty evaluation and policy-lenient professors’ occupational health

Abstract

This study explored relationships between academic entitlement (AE) and Ratemyprofessors.com (RMP) use. It also investigated, while controlling for AE, if RMP evaluation positivity influences students' intentions to ask for policy exemptions, beliefs professors would provide them, intentions to reward and punish professors contingent upon provision of policy exemptions by improving or lowering their student teaching evaluations, and intentions to evaluate and reenroll with professors. Following exposure to RMP evaluations, participants (n = 320) rated their intentions and beliefs toward a fictional professor. They also completed an AE measure. AE was related to frequency of writing RMP evaluations as well as participants' intentions to ask for exemptions, beliefs they would receive them, and intentions to reward and punish professors. RMP evaluation positivity affected participants' intentions to ask for and beliefs they would receive policy exemptions as well as intention to evaluate and reenroll with professors. Effects did not differ by professor or student gender. Participants reported intention to improve the evaluation of professors who provide any policy exemption. This study's findings suggest that student attitudes related to AE and impacted by RMP evaluations have significant implications for professors' occupational health via requests for policy exemptions and the consequences of professors' responses to them. These findings also contribute to the body of evidence that student teaching evaluations do not exclusively measure teaching effectiveness. Similar to grade leniency, policy leniency may bias student teaching evaluations. These contribute to the ongoing discussion of the use of student teaching evaluations in faculty personnel decisions and underscore the need for robust approaches to professor evaluation.