judgment on the quality of work of fully-trained professionals. Such faculty note a power
imbalance that seems not only weighted against them but also unbalanced in a way that places
the “wrong” party in the role of reviewer.
Faculty are not the only ones who perceive this imbalance. Students often express
concern that course dynamics leave them without any recourse. Their work is evaluated by their
instructors who (barring gross misconduct) cannot or will not ever be removed from the
classroom. If a given instructor has somehow come to be biased against them, they have no
meaningful recourse. Course evaluations might provide some evening of the scales, but students
note that they have one opportunity to respond—while instructors have numerous opportunities
to evaluate students. Furthermore, students contend (whether correctly or not) that any critical
comments that they offer may well be used against them by faculty in future courses, letters of
recommendation, etc. The power imbalance from the students’ perspective is so substantial as to
be unbridgeable, and course evaluations simply highlight this difference.
Toward an Egalitarian Model: The W&J Experience
Perhaps it is possible to construct an egalitarian model of course evaluation and
assessment. As a case study of one possible model, Washington & Jefferson College is in the
process of developing a common, in-house course evaluation instrument and procedures.
Context: Washington & Jefferson College is a small liberal arts college in southwestern
Pennsylvania. Founded in 1781, W&J has a long history of providing education on what once
was the gateway to the West. With a student body of 1450 and a tenurable faculty of 101
(supplemented by both full- and part-time instructors), the College has prided itself on the close
relationship between students and faculty. Historically, the faculty have seen their primary
mission in pedagogical terms. Like many small liberal arts colleges, Washington & Jefferson
7
Convention