Marked Men

The University of Michigan felt quite sure that it had an impressive faculty, studded liberally with scholars, and practically every man & woman a Ph.D. or on the way to being one. But like many another university, Michigan was worried. Had it placed too much emphasis on scholarship and not enough on teaching? Just how many of its teachers were really good teachers?

Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts decided to find out about its own faculty. Last December it asked its 7,500 students to fill out a questionnaire, marking their professors and instructors on such points as 1) clarity, 2) intellectual honesty, 3) fairness in grading, and 4) general effectiveness. Last week, with 410 faculty members graded, the university began to add up the score.

On the whole, the faculty scored about B-plus. The average grade was 3.1 (out of a possible 4.0). Only five professors had flubbed badly (with 2.5 or below), while 43 got a rousing 3.6 or more from their students. At the end of the year, the teachers will be allowed to see their report cards. Some will be pleased ("This is the only class I really hate to cut"). Others will be embarrassed ("I have come to dread going to his class").

So far, the professors had no reason to worry: the questionnaires were still experimental. But by next year, they would be a major factor in deciding faculty promotions. A bad grade year after year might well lead to dismissal. Did that mean even Michigan's most cherished scholars? Said Dean Lloyd S. Woodburne: "If a man is a brilliant scholar, he must be a passable teacher. If a brilliant teacher, he must be a passable scholar." If he is all of one and none of the other, Michigan will want him no longer.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.