Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.84.1.55-61

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

On the Validity of RateMyProfessors.com
Thomas Timmerman
To cite this article: Thomas Timmerman (2008) On the Validity of RateMyProfessors.com,
Journal of Education for Business, 84:1, 55-61, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.1.55-61
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.1.55-61

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 68

View related articles

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:44

On฀the฀Validity฀of฀RateMyProfessors.com

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:44 11 January 2016

THOMAS฀TIMMERMAN฀
TENNESSEE฀TECHNOLOGICAL฀UNIVERSITY฀
COOKEVILLE,฀TENNESSEE

ABSTRACT.฀The฀purpose฀of฀this฀study฀
was฀to฀address฀some฀of฀the฀most฀common฀
questions฀and฀concerns฀regarding฀RateMy฀
Professors.com฀(RMP).฀Data฀from฀5฀different฀universities฀and฀1,167฀faculty฀members฀
showed฀that฀(a)฀the฀ratings฀are฀not฀dominated฀by฀griping,฀(b)฀the฀summary฀evaluation฀
correlates฀highly฀with฀summary฀evaluations฀
from฀an฀official฀university฀evaluation,฀(c)฀

substantive฀relations฀are฀generally฀the฀same฀
when฀only฀a฀single฀rating฀has฀been฀provided,฀(d)฀the฀relation฀between฀RMP฀Easiness฀
and฀RMP฀Quality฀is฀partially฀explained฀
by฀the฀fact฀that฀learning฀is฀associated฀with฀
perceived฀easiness,฀and฀(e)฀the฀substantive฀
findings฀generalize฀to฀business฀faculty฀in฀
different฀universities.฀The฀author฀discusses฀
the฀possible฀value฀of฀RMP฀without฀endorsing฀its฀unlimited฀use฀for฀administrative฀
purposes.
Keywords:฀RateMyProfessors.com,฀student฀
evaluation฀of฀teaching,฀validity
Copyright฀©฀2008฀Heldref฀Publications

฀

M

uch฀ to฀ the฀ surprise฀ (and฀ chagrin)฀
of฀ some฀ educators,฀ an฀ enterprising฀ college฀ student฀ took฀ a฀ routine฀
administrative฀ university฀ function฀ (i.e.,฀

faculty฀ evaluation)฀ and฀ turned฀ it฀ into฀ a฀
moneymaking฀ venture.฀ John฀ Swapceinski฀ founded฀ RateMyProfessors.com฀
(RMP)฀ in฀ 1999฀ after฀ a฀ particularly฀ bad฀
experience฀ with฀ a฀ faculty฀ member.฀ As฀
of฀ March฀ 2007,฀ more฀ than฀ 1฀ million฀
professors฀from฀more฀than฀6,000฀schools฀
had฀received฀more฀than฀6.75฀million฀ratings.฀ Swapcienski฀ is฀ now฀ turning฀ his฀
sights฀ to฀ other฀ professional฀ fields฀ such฀
as฀ medicine฀ and฀ law฀ through฀ a฀ network฀
of฀similar฀ratings-based฀Web฀sites฀(www.
ratingz.net).฀ Not฀ surprisingly,฀ RMP฀ has฀
generated฀ a฀ great฀ deal฀ of฀ controversy฀
in฀ the฀ academic฀ world฀ and฀ a฀ great฀ deal฀
of฀ publicity฀ in฀ the฀ nonacademic฀ world.฀
With฀the฀growing฀popularity฀of฀RMP฀and฀
similar฀ sites,฀ business฀ faculty฀ members฀
may฀benefit฀from฀empirical฀evidence฀that฀
addresses฀the฀most฀controversial฀aspects฀
of฀such฀ratings.฀
Although฀other฀studies฀have฀addressed฀

the฀intercorrelations฀of฀RMP฀dimensions฀
(e.g.,฀Felton,฀Koper,฀Mitchell,฀&฀Stinson,฀
2006;฀Felton,฀Mitchell,฀&฀Stinson,฀2004;฀
Riniolo,฀ Johnson,฀ Sherman,฀ &฀ Misso,฀
2006),฀ this฀ study฀ examined฀ three฀ new฀
questions฀that฀surround฀RMP.฀First,฀some฀
suggest฀ that฀ RMP฀ ratings฀ are฀ biased฀ by฀
a฀ disproportionate฀ number฀ of฀ negative฀
ratings.฀The฀ most฀ prevalent฀ argument฀ is฀
that฀ students฀ are฀ not฀ motivated฀ to฀ visit฀
the฀ Web฀ site฀ and฀ make฀ a฀ rating฀ unless฀
they฀ have฀ had฀ a฀ bad฀ experience฀ with฀ a฀
professor.฀ If฀ this฀ is฀ true,฀ RMP฀ ratings฀
should฀ be฀ positively฀ skewed฀ (i.e.,฀ more฀
negative฀ ratings),฀ and฀ there฀ should฀ be฀ a฀
negative฀ correlation฀ between฀ the฀ num-

ber฀ of฀ ratings฀ received฀ and฀ the฀ reported฀
quality฀of฀a฀professor.฀A฀second฀question฀
concerns฀the฀overall฀validity฀of฀the฀RMP฀

ratings.฀ How฀ well฀ do฀ the฀ RMP฀ ratings฀
correlate฀ with฀ official฀ student฀ evaluations฀ of฀ teaching฀ (SET)฀ conducted฀ by฀
universities?฀A฀ final฀ concern฀ with฀ RMP฀
is฀the฀meaning฀of฀ratings฀derived฀from฀a฀฀
small฀ sample฀ of฀ students.฀ Critics฀ argue฀
(and฀psychometric฀theory฀confirms)฀that฀
smaller฀ samples฀ are฀ less฀ reliable฀ and฀
therefore฀ less฀ valid.฀ Evidence฀ about฀ the฀
validity฀of฀RMP฀may฀help฀business฀faculty฀members฀determine฀how฀to฀interpret฀
their฀ individual฀ ratings.฀ Such฀ evidence฀
may฀also฀help฀business฀professors฀inform฀
the฀ public฀ about฀ the฀ value฀ (if฀ any)฀ of฀฀
such฀sites.
BACKGROUND฀AND฀
HYPOTHESES
Long฀before฀RMP฀came฀along,฀SETs฀
were฀ controversial฀ (Theall฀ &฀ Franklin,฀
2001).฀Are฀students฀qualified฀to฀evaluate฀
college฀faculty?฀Do฀student฀evaluations฀
simply฀reflect฀expected฀grades?฀Are฀student฀ evaluations฀ influenced฀ by฀ faculty฀

personality?฀ With฀ so฀ many฀ sources฀ of฀
contamination,฀ should฀ student฀ ratings฀
be฀ used฀ for฀ any฀ decision-making฀ purposes?฀ These฀ are฀ only฀ a฀ few฀ of฀ the฀
most฀ common฀ questions฀ regarding฀ student฀ ratings.฀ Despite฀ the฀ fact฀ that฀ an฀
abundance฀ of฀ research฀ has฀ addressed฀
these฀ questions฀ (e.g.,฀ Marsh฀ &฀ Roche,฀
2000),฀ supporters฀ and฀ critics฀ are฀ not฀
easily฀swayed฀by฀data฀from฀one฀side฀to฀
the฀other.
The฀ first฀ question฀ addressed฀ in฀ this฀
study฀is฀the฀distribution฀of฀the฀ratings.฀An฀
Associated฀ Press฀ article฀ in฀ 2003฀ quoted฀
September/October฀2008฀

55

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:44 11 January 2016

American฀Association฀of฀University฀Professors฀spokesperson฀Jonathon฀Knight฀as฀
claiming,฀“These฀kind฀of฀[RMP]฀postings฀

will฀inevitably฀focus฀on฀student฀gripes฀and฀
have฀ no฀ credibility.”฀ If฀ RMP฀ ratings฀ are฀
dominated฀ by฀ gripes,฀ it฀ could฀ mean฀ that฀
the฀sample฀of฀students฀who฀post฀may฀not฀
be฀representative฀of฀the฀larger฀population฀
of฀students.฀The฀sample฀may฀have฀a฀greater฀proportion฀of฀inferior,฀unmotivated,฀or฀
mean฀ students.฀ Such฀ a฀ sample฀ would฀ be฀
easy฀ to฀ spot฀ because฀ the฀ distribution฀ of฀
ratings฀would฀exhibit฀positive฀skew.฀Traditional฀ SETs฀ typically฀ exhibit฀ negative฀
skew฀(Tagomori฀&฀Bishop,฀1995;฀Wolfer฀
&฀Johnson,฀2003).฀Thus,฀positive฀skew฀in฀
the฀ RMP฀ data฀ may฀ be฀ a฀ good฀ indicator฀
that฀the฀sample฀of฀raters฀at฀RMP฀is฀฀different฀than฀the฀sample฀of฀raters฀who฀complete฀traditional฀SETs.฀Thus฀the฀following฀
hypotheses฀are฀offered:
Hypothesis฀1a฀(H1a):฀Ratings฀of฀overall฀ quality฀ from฀ RateMyProfessor.com฀
are฀positively฀skewed.
H1b:฀ Ratings฀ of฀ overall฀ quality฀ from฀
official฀SETs฀are฀negatively฀skewed.
Aside฀ from฀ these฀ predictions,฀ the฀
possibility฀that฀students฀are฀more฀likely฀

to฀ visit฀ RMP฀ to฀ complain฀ would฀ also฀
be฀ evidenced฀ by฀ a฀ negative฀ relation฀
between฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ ratings฀ and฀ the฀
average฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ ratings.฀ In฀ other฀
words,฀according฀to฀the฀aforementioned฀
logic,฀ faculty฀ members฀ with฀ many฀ ratings฀ should฀ have฀ more฀ gripers฀ and฀
therefore฀ lower฀ average฀ ratings.฀ The฀
second฀hypothesis฀follows:
H2:฀ There฀ is฀ a฀ negative฀ relation฀
between฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ RMP฀ ratings฀
and฀the฀mean฀level฀of฀overall฀quality.
The฀ second฀ hypothesis฀ concerns฀ the฀
concurrent฀ validity฀ of฀ RMP฀ ratings.฀ Do฀
RMP฀ratings฀of฀Overall฀quality฀correlate฀
with฀similar฀types฀of฀summary฀measures฀
from฀ official฀ university฀ SETs?฀ If฀ RMP฀
ratings฀are฀positively฀skewed฀and฀primarily฀ capture฀ complaints,฀ whereas฀ official฀
ratings฀ are฀ negatively฀ skewed฀ and฀ capture฀ something฀ else,฀ there฀ is฀ no฀ reason฀
to฀ expect฀ a฀ positive฀ relation฀ between฀
RMP฀ratings฀and฀official฀SETs.฀The฀third฀

hypothesis฀is฀the฀null฀hypothesis:
H3:฀There฀is฀no฀significant฀correlation฀
between฀RMP฀ratings฀of฀Overall฀quality฀
and฀summary฀measures฀in฀SETs.
56฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

A฀ positive฀ correlation฀ between฀ RMP฀
ratings฀ and฀ SETs฀ could฀ imply฀ that฀ both฀
measure฀ the฀ same฀ source฀ of฀ contamination฀ (Pike,฀ 1999).฀ If฀ all฀ ratings฀ reflect฀
the฀perceived฀easiness฀of฀teachers฀or฀the฀
perceived฀attractiveness฀of฀teachers฀(Felton฀et฀al.,฀2006),฀a฀positive฀relation฀may฀
emerge฀ that฀ does฀ not฀ imply฀ any฀ sort฀ of฀
construct฀ validity.฀ In฀ this฀ study,฀ I฀ start฀
with฀the฀assumption฀that฀validated฀SETs฀
are฀ meaningful฀ measures฀ of฀ teaching฀
effectiveness.฀ This฀ assumption฀ is฀ based฀
on฀the฀large฀amount฀of฀evidence฀connecting฀ objectively฀ assessed฀ student฀ learning฀ with฀ student฀ ratings฀ (Cohen,฀ 1981;฀
Marsh,฀1987;฀Theall฀&฀Franklin,฀2001).

The฀ third฀ hypothesis,฀ introduced฀ earlier,฀concerns฀the฀conclusions฀that฀can฀be฀
drawn฀from฀RMP฀ratings฀based฀on฀very฀
few฀ ratings.฀ A฀ central฀ tenet฀ in฀ psychometric฀theory฀is฀that฀reliability฀increases฀
with฀the฀number฀of฀observations.฀Therefore,฀ the฀ relation฀ between฀ RMP฀ ratings฀
and฀SETs฀discussed฀previously฀may฀exist฀
but฀may฀be฀attenuated฀by฀the฀unreliability฀ of฀ the฀ ratings฀ from฀ faculty฀ members฀
with฀only฀a฀few฀RMP฀ratings.฀Thus,฀the฀
final฀hypothesis฀is฀offered:
H4:฀ Relations฀ between฀ RMP฀ ratings฀
and฀ SETs฀ increase฀ as฀ the฀ number฀ of฀
RMP฀ratings฀increase.
Previous฀ research฀ on฀ RMP฀ ratings฀ is฀
limited฀ to฀ a฀ few฀ studies฀ that฀ explore฀ the฀
intercorrelations฀ among฀ RMP฀ dimensions.฀For฀example,฀Felton฀and฀colleagues฀
(Felton฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2004;฀ Felton฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2006)฀
found฀that฀RMP฀ratings฀of฀Overall฀quality฀
(created฀ by฀ combining฀ Helpfulness฀ and฀
Clarity฀ ratings)฀ were฀ strongly฀ correlated฀
with฀RMP฀ratings฀of฀Easiness฀and฀Physical฀attractiveness฀(Hotness).฀The฀authors’฀
interpretation฀of฀these฀findings฀is฀that฀student฀ ratings฀ of฀ quality฀ are฀ contaminated฀

by฀ factors฀ unrelated฀ to฀ the฀ actual฀ effectiveness฀of฀the฀instructor.฀In฀other฀words,฀
quality฀ ratings฀ are฀ caused฀ by฀ perceived฀
easiness฀ and฀ attractiveness.฀ Felton฀ et฀ al.฀
(2006)฀then฀concluded฀“these฀self-selected฀ evaluations฀ from฀ RateMyProfessors.
com฀ cast฀ considerable฀ doubt฀ on฀ the฀ usefulness฀of฀in-class฀student฀opinion฀surveys฀
for฀ purposes฀ of฀ examining฀ quality฀ and฀
effectiveness฀of฀teaching”฀(p.฀13).฀
It฀is฀important฀to฀note฀two฀limitations฀
of฀ those฀ studies.฀ First,฀ the฀ studies฀ by฀
Felton฀ et฀ al.฀ (2004;฀ 2006)฀ only฀ examined฀ faculty฀ with฀ at฀ least฀ 20฀ ratings.฀ If฀

students฀are฀more฀likely฀to฀visit฀the฀site฀
to฀ complain,฀ faculty฀ with฀ 20฀ or฀ more฀
ratings฀may฀not฀be฀representative฀of฀the฀
population฀ of฀ faculty.฀A฀ second฀ limitation฀is฀that฀Felton฀et฀al.฀(2006)฀dismiss฀
the฀ possibility฀ that฀ causality฀ operates฀
in฀ the฀ opposite฀ direction.฀ It฀ is฀ possible฀
that฀high-quality฀instructors฀are฀viewed฀
as฀easier฀and฀more฀attractive฀because฀of฀
their฀ competence.฀ For฀ example,฀ physical฀ attractiveness฀ is฀ correlated฀ with฀
intelligence,฀self-confidence,฀and฀occupational฀ success฀ (Langlois,฀ Kalakanis,฀
Rubenstein,฀Larson,฀Hallam,฀&฀Smoot,฀
2000).฀ Thus,฀ it฀ would฀ not฀ be฀ surprising฀to฀discover฀that฀competent฀teachers฀
are฀(a)฀more฀attractive฀or฀(b)฀perceived฀
as฀ more฀ attractive฀ than฀ less฀ competent฀
teachers.฀ Likewise,฀ competent฀ faculty฀
members฀ may฀ (a)฀ present฀ material฀ in฀
a฀ more฀ accessible฀ manner฀ or฀ (b)฀ be฀
perceived฀ as฀ easier฀ than฀ less฀ competent฀ instructors.฀ The฀ most฀ compelling฀
evidence฀ against฀ Felton฀ et฀ al.’s฀ (2004)฀
and฀Felton฀et฀al.’s฀(2006)฀position฀(i.e.,฀
Marsh฀ &฀ Roche,฀ 2000)฀ was฀ not฀ mentioned฀ in฀ their฀ studies.฀ Specifically,฀
Marsh฀ and฀ Roche฀ found฀ no฀ evidence฀
that฀high฀SET฀ratings฀were฀contaminated฀from฀grading฀leniency.฀Instead,฀they฀
found฀ better฀ evidence฀ that฀ high฀ SET฀
ratings฀were฀caused฀by฀actual฀learning.฀
One฀ way฀ to฀ test฀ this฀ hypothesis฀ is฀ to฀
partial฀out฀the฀effect฀of฀student฀learning฀
from฀the฀relation฀between฀Overall฀quality฀ and฀ perceived฀ Easiness.฀ The฀ data฀
available฀in฀this฀study฀make฀it฀possible฀
to฀test฀the฀following฀hypothesis:
H5:฀The฀relation฀between฀RMP฀Overall฀ quality฀ and฀ RMP฀ Easiness฀ is฀ mediated฀by฀student฀learning.
METHOD
The฀ data฀ required฀ for฀ this฀ study฀
included฀ a฀ group฀ of฀ RMP฀ ratings฀ and฀฀
corresponding฀ SETs.฀ RMP฀ ratings฀ are฀฀
easy฀to฀harvest฀from฀the฀RMP฀Web฀site.฀
A฀ few฀ universities฀ now฀ publicly฀ post฀
their฀ SET฀ results฀ on฀ Web฀ sites.฀ In฀ the฀
first฀analysis,฀I฀collected฀corresponding฀
data฀ from฀ the฀ University฀ of฀ California฀
at฀ San฀ Diego฀ (UCSD;฀ http://www.cape฀
.ucsd.edu).฀ UCSD฀ was฀ chosen฀ for฀ no฀
other฀reason฀than฀the฀convenience฀with฀
which฀ its฀ data฀ are฀ presented.฀ In฀ the฀
second฀ analysis,฀ I฀ collected฀ RMP฀ and฀
official฀ SET฀ data฀ from฀ four฀ additional฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:44 11 January 2016

universities.฀The฀purpose฀of฀the฀second฀
analysis฀ was฀ to฀ determine฀ if฀ the฀ relations฀ in฀ the฀ first฀ analysis฀ were฀ generalizable฀ to฀ business฀ faculty฀ at฀ various฀
universities.฀ The฀ trade-off฀ in฀ the฀ second฀ analysis฀ was฀ that฀ different฀ settings฀
were฀explored฀but฀the฀different฀settings฀
involved฀ smaller฀ sample฀ sizes฀ and฀ different฀questions฀in฀their฀SETs.฀The฀four฀
additional฀universities฀were฀the฀University฀ of฀ Tennessee,฀ University฀ of฀ Colorado฀at฀Denver,฀University฀of฀Colorado฀
at฀Boulder,฀and฀University฀of฀Colorado฀
at฀Colorado฀Springs.฀
The฀level฀of฀analysis฀in฀this฀study฀was฀
the฀individual฀faculty฀member.฀There฀was฀
no฀attempt฀to฀examine฀faculty-by-course฀
level฀ data฀ or฀ changes฀ in฀ ratings฀ during฀
the฀ period฀ of฀ available฀ data.฀ The฀ focus฀
here฀is฀on฀the฀summary฀data฀provided฀by฀
RMP฀and฀the฀official฀SETs.฀At฀RMP,฀students฀rate฀faculty฀on฀three฀5-point฀scales:฀
Easiness,฀ Helpfulness,฀ and฀ Clarity.฀ The฀
summary฀ provided฀ by฀ RMP฀ combines฀
the฀Helpfulness฀and฀Clarity฀scales฀into฀an฀
Overall฀quality฀dimension.
Analysis฀One
The฀ student฀ evaluation฀ system฀ at฀
UCSD฀is฀a฀paper-and-pencil฀assessment฀
used฀ in฀ most฀ classes฀ with฀ 15฀ or฀ more฀

enrolled฀ students.฀ At฀ the฀ time฀ of฀ this฀
study,฀summary฀data฀were฀available฀for฀
8,523฀ course฀ sections฀ offered฀ from฀ the฀
fall฀of฀2002฀to฀the฀winter฀of฀2006.฀These฀
sections฀ were฀ offered฀ by฀ 1,684฀ identifiable฀ professors.฀ RMP฀ ratings฀ were฀
available฀for฀1,229฀UCSD฀faculty฀members.฀Merging฀these฀two฀sources฀of฀data฀
produced฀ 1,002฀ professors฀ with฀ both฀
RMP฀ratings฀and฀UCSD฀ratings.
The฀UCSD฀evaluation฀summary฀contains฀the฀class฀average฀of฀four฀items.฀Students฀ indicate฀ their฀ agreement฀ with฀ the฀
statement฀ “I฀ learned฀ a฀ great฀ deal฀ from฀
this฀ course”฀ on฀ a฀ 5-point฀ scale฀ ranging฀
from฀1฀(strongly฀disagree)฀to฀5฀(strongly฀
agree).฀ Students฀ also฀ indicate฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ hours฀ they฀ spend฀ studying฀ for฀
the฀ course฀ per฀ week.฀ Last,฀ students฀ are฀
asked฀ whether฀ they฀ would฀ recommend฀
this฀course฀and฀whether฀they฀would฀recommend฀this฀instructor฀to฀others.

The฀ University฀ of฀ Colorado฀ system฀
uses฀ standardized฀ questions฀ across฀ its฀
campuses.฀The฀ most฀ relevant฀ items฀ are฀
presented฀ in฀ Table฀ 2.฀ In฀ all,฀ 22฀ faculty฀
members฀from฀the฀Boulder฀campus,฀38฀
from฀the฀Colorado฀Springs฀campus,฀and฀
44฀from฀the฀Denver฀campus฀were฀present฀in฀both฀RMP฀and฀the฀official฀SET.฀
RESULTS
Analysis฀One
Descriptive฀ statistics฀ and฀ intercorrelations฀ for฀ the฀ UCSD฀ data฀ are฀ presented฀ in฀ Table฀ 3.฀ A฀ few฀ descriptive฀
statistics฀ are฀ worth฀ pointing฀ out.฀ As฀
the฀ unit฀ of฀ analysis฀ is฀ the฀ individual฀
faculty฀ member฀ (with฀ data฀ aggregated฀
across฀ classes),฀ the฀ average฀ number฀ of฀
UCSD฀ ratings฀ is฀ 365.70฀ per฀ professor.฀
The฀ average฀ number฀ of฀ RMP฀ ratings฀
is฀ 11.15.฀ The฀ skewness฀ of฀ each฀ rating฀
is฀ provided฀ to฀ address฀ the฀ question฀ of฀
whether฀ students฀ are฀ more฀ likely฀ to฀
provide฀ positive฀ or฀ negative฀ ratings.฀
Consistent฀ with฀ previous฀ research,฀ the฀
percentage฀of฀students฀who฀would฀recommend฀ the฀ instructor฀ is฀ negatively฀
skewed.฀ Contrary฀ to฀ critics’฀ concerns,฀
however,฀ the฀ RMP฀ ratings฀ of฀ Overall฀ quality฀ are฀ also฀ negatively฀ skewed.฀฀

Analysis฀Two
At฀ the฀ University฀ of฀ Tennessee,฀ students฀ are฀ asked฀ to฀ rate฀ the฀ course฀ and฀
instructor฀on฀a฀variety฀of฀6-point฀scales.฀
The฀specific฀items฀are฀presented฀in฀Table฀
1.฀ In฀ all,฀ 61฀ business฀ faculty฀ members฀
from฀ the฀ University฀ of฀Tennessee฀ were฀
rated฀in฀both฀RMP฀and฀the฀official฀SET.฀

TABLE฀1.฀Intercorrelations฀for฀the฀University฀of฀Tennessee฀(n฀=฀61)
฀
฀
฀
Variable฀
RMP
฀ Number฀of฀ratings฀
฀ Overall฀quality฀
฀ Easiness฀
SET฀
฀ Number฀of฀ratings฀
฀ Course฀as฀a฀whole฀
฀ Course฀content฀
฀ Instructor’s฀contribution฀to฀the฀course฀
฀ Instructor’s฀effectiveness฀in฀teaching฀
฀ Use฀of฀class฀time฀
฀ Interest฀in฀whether฀students฀learned฀
฀ Amount฀you฀learned฀in฀the฀course฀
฀ Relevance฀of฀course฀content฀
฀ Evaluative฀and฀grading฀techniques฀
฀ Reasonableness฀of฀assigned฀work฀
฀ Clarity฀of฀students’฀responsibilities฀

฀

฀

฀

Correlations

฀
฀
M฀

฀
฀
SD฀

RMP฀
Number฀of฀
ratings฀

RMP฀
Overall฀
quality฀

4.92฀
3.56฀
2.78฀

9.37฀
1.21฀
1.12฀

฀
–.09฀
.04฀

฀
฀
.42**฀

583.89฀
3.45฀
3.47฀
3.72฀
3.53฀
3.48฀
3.60฀
3.38฀
3.53฀
3.31฀
3.51฀
3.52฀

633.20฀
0.57฀
0.49฀
0.63฀
0.70฀
0.64฀
0.56฀
0.57฀
0.52฀
0.65฀
0.54฀
0.62฀

.31*฀
–.06฀
–.06฀
–.04฀
–.02฀
–.03฀
–.07฀
–.05฀
–.03฀
.00฀
.06฀
.04฀

–.15฀
.61**฀
.60**฀
.65**฀
.67**฀
.49**฀
.59**฀
.63**฀
.60**฀
.43**฀
.52**฀
.41**฀

RMP
Easiness

–.02
.31*
.27*
.29*
.35**
.34**
.33*
.30*
.31*
.44**
.47**
.44**

Note.฀RMP฀=฀RateMyProfessors.com;฀SET฀=฀student฀evaluations฀of฀teaching.
*
p฀