Talk:RateMyProfessors.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 231205. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Additional Criticism

It should probably mentioned somewhere in the article that any student who takes the site seriously is a pure idiot. There's no way of knowing who is doing the ratings and whether they are being honest or even whether they have taken a class from the prof.

I agree that RMP isn't to be taken seriously. Most profs I know rate themselves, rate their colleagues - I know of a case where one job applicant gave another job applicant bad reviews in the hope that it would change the hiring committee's decision. And of course students rate multiple times, etc. But it's not our job in an encyclopedic entry to say that a student who takes the site seriously is an idiot.--Ggbroad 11:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If I read correctly, John Swapceinski is four years old?!?!?! -- Viajero 09:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think 1999 is supposed to be his address (I could be wrong). In any case, this article is not obviously valuable to my eyes. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
I don't know what it is doing here either. VfD? -- Viajero 10:14, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


The year 1999 refers to the year the site was founded. Specifically, it went online in May of 1999.

[edit] deleted the following from article

"Swapceinski also runs RateMD.com and RateMyTeachers.com, which rates high school and middle school teachers. This latter site contains more than 6 million ratings, regarding nearly 900,000 teachers."

*Kat* 11:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I added in some info on RMD and CRZ and deleted this, in order to keep the article from reading like an advertisement.

Although lauched after RateMyProfessors.com, RateMyTeachers, contains more than seven million ratings, for over one million teachers and exists in the United States, Canada, the UK, and Ireland.

*Kat* 01:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proponents section?

Is this section necessary? Right now the entire section contains only a single sentence, which basically states the definition of a proponent of any course evaluation service. NBS525 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week and no one has responded, so I will go ahead and delete the section. NBS525 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to get back to it, but never did. I'll write it eventually. *Kat* 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

the criticism section is longer than the entry and the part about "consumers" is very wordy and awkward.

[edit] Response to critics section

Don't know who wrote this, but THANK YOU. --*Kat* 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section include something about RMP being a valuable, easily accessible resource to help students pick classes? I've avoided several bad professors with RMP. This semester, I didn't bother to check beforehand and wound up with the worst professor on campus. Fishyfred 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming that RMP is an accurate reflection of the quality of a professor. Most profs I know rate themselves, and rate their friends, too.--Ggbroad 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Response section needs sources. It's unclear where any of this information is coming from, and there's no particular reason for thinking that any of it is true.

[edit] Cleanup

Perhaps we could use shorter sentences, and smaller words on the page to make it easier to read. Also, perhaps we could use more images and shorter paragraphs. Just my opinion. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to write a "Simple English" version of the page instead of dumbing it down for a few people? 翔太 「Shouta:talk」 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

Seems to take the side of the critics with this portion: "Yet, an unfortunate number of the ratings for professors border on ridiculousness ... junior high level of instruction." Should be phrased as opinion of critics instead?


Agreed and changed, we'll see how long it lasts, though.

I think the point should be made that there is no way of preventing one individual from making multiple ratings on RMP. I know students who have rated a professor they like or dislike many times. While IP addresses are ostensibly logged, this no more prevents multiple postings on RMP than blocking a given IP can prevent a vandal from attacking a page on Wikipedia. (I should also point out that I know professors who have left multiple ratings for themselves and even for colleagues who they like/dislike). In addition, the point should be made that one major objection to RMP is that almost every college and university makes their own teaching evaluations publically available, based on far more sophisticated survey instruments than RMP, which would seem to make RMP redundant. Finally, RMP's rating is based on criteria: helpfulness and clarity. Surely there is more to what makes a good professor than that and, furthermore, it is entirely possible to have a bad professor who happens to be helpful and clear!
What does the RSS thing I see on ratemyprofessors stand for? How does it work? And should it be referenced here in the article? --164.107.92.120 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RateMyProfs Routinely Allows Numerous Ratings from a Single Computer

This is a response to the request for a "citation" for the claim that RateMyProfessors "frequently allow[s] multiple ratings [of the same professor] from even a single IP address". This can be proven by almost anyone who cares to test the claim by going to the website, randomly choosing a professor, and posting more than one rating of him/her. I have personally done this several times from the same computer, and none of my bogus ratings have yet been removed by the website admins who are supposedly monitoring such things. There's no reason to think that this is an exception to the rule rather than the norm, stemming from poor policing by website admins. So that surely counts as good evidence for the claim in question. I see no need to provide a "citation" for the claim, since it's so easily proven by any random individual who cares to test it. The admins at RateMyProfessors may like us to believe that they have taken effective steps to keep this sort of multi-posting from happening. But the irrefutable fact is that they have not in fact stopped it and perhaps cannot without overhauling the entire nature of their website.

I have done the same. Moderators come and go, as well, and it's not clear how they monitor such things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggbroad (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Removed Response from Criticisms Section

I removed the following sentence from the Criticisms Section:"Since the founder's stated purpose was for the site to be a resource for students only, some argue that the validity of this particular criticism is dubious." Since it appears to be a response to the first two sentences under How Relevant are Raters' Comments?, it seems to belong in the Response Section rather than under Criticisms. I cannot, however, find the appropriate place to fit it in; so I leave this task to the original author of the sentence in question or to anyone interested. Incidentally, IMHO it's a silly response anyway. Surely, even if RMP is supposed to be a resource for students only, that doesn't imply that students couldn't be using RMP as a forum for harassing a prof.


[edit] Article seems to have negative POV

This article seems to take the side of the negative critics. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be NPOV. I've used ratemyprofessors.com before, and for the most part, I find the ratings pretty accurate. I think if we change the wording in the criticisms section, and add something about the positive aspects, it would be closer to NPOV.--lifeisharsh20 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, objective presentation of criticism doesn't entail acceptance of the criticism. Feel free to "balance" the article out by presenting the "other" side of things, assuming there's something worthwhile to be said on that score. Sometimes, however, it will be found that certain things are really and truly just plain bad; in such cases, why is it not NPOV to tell it how it is? I assume that an article about shit could say, without bias, that it stinks. By the way, your claim that you have "found" the ratings "pretty accurate" proves nothing; it's purely anecdotal.TruthPolice 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


  I have now nominated the article to be checked for neutrality.--lifeisharsh20 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the entire criticism section. It was really badly written and sourced. Coderx 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the entire criticism section. Its wholesale removal wasn't sufficiently warranted. If you want to remove and/or change individual parts of it, feel free. But you too must give reasons for thinking such things deserve removal. The Criticism Section is certainly relevant, and much of it is sourced. So what in particular do you object to? Maybe you'd like to add a "Response Section", rather than simply deleting the contributions of others. Or perhaps you're just interested in suppressing certain viewpoints that you're uncomfortable with? All, or certainly most, of Wikipedia should be deleted without comment if all it requires is one person's judgment that something is badly written or badly sourced.TruthPolice 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
We should, by the way, be very wary of respecting Coderx's judgment. It may seem as though he respects Wikipedia, but he does not. In his own words, "...Wikipedia...is, in it's core, a MySpace for nerds" [1] (mispelling in original), and he's been admonished for his tactics [2].TruthPolice 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the entire criticism section is NPOV. It also seems entirely like original research, the overwhelming use of qualifiers such as "perhaps" and "might" just make it more suspicious. If we are writing a section on criticism, it should highlight criticisms that have been published in reputable sources, not one editor's opinion. The use of such qualifiers is solely to express an opinion without having to back it up with facts. "The sky is blue" requires factual basis, "Some regard the sky as being blue" does not. Can we change this to the former? Sbrools (talk . contribs) 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If the criticisms are obvious, is it original research? It's obvious that the sky is blue, so would we need to cite something? Best, --24.154.173.243 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, Sbrools, I think I understand your point. But what specifically looks to you like it's original research? Can you name particular points? Because it looks to me like almost the entire Criticism section is (now) very well-sourced.TruthPolice 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to the following statement

Finally, whereas instructors are actually taught how to teach in classes and at seminars before becoming instructors, students are not and therefore are not qualified to rate the quality of instructors. They can generally make only personal and emotional remarks, rather than informed criticisms based on well-rounded knowledge of the teaching profession and what its members have determined to be "good" teaching.

It looks to me like an original argument with a negative point of view. However, because I personally believe the argument is unfounded (I believe a student can be qualified to make an informed criticism without first being trained as a teacher) I will leave it up to someone else to rephrase the criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.79.147 (talk) 05:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you get students who miss large numbers of classes making posts there, which is a joke. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The claims quoted by 24.69.79.147 seem to me for the most part true, though it's true that they are not sourced. Is it against Wikipedia rules to include a true and reasonable statement in an article without sourcing it? I suppose it is. Personally it seems absurd to me that a statement that is false and unreasonable, so long as it is "well-sourced" (i.e., I guess, so long as one can find one person who has published it), will be preferred to a statement that is both true and reasonable but unsourced. It seems equally absurd that, in order to achieve NPOV ("neutral point of view"), true, factual, reasonable claims must be "balanced" by opposing claims, even if the opposing claims have considerably less merit. So, for example, in the Wikiarticle on the earth, in order to be NPOV, it must equally represent the view that the earth is flat; after all, it's not "neutral" to say that the earth is round without acknowledging the opposing view. Strictly speaking, I do think that one part of the claims 24.69.79.147 quotes is unsubstantiated: i.e., I think it's actually not true that all or even most college instructors are "actually taught how to teach in classes and at seminars before becoming instructors", though I do think all or a great majority of them are in far better a position - because of their experience with teaching & learning and because of their knowledge of their fields - to judge what good teaching in their disciplines is than most or all of their students are. That, I assume, is roughly the point of the claims 24.69.79.147 quotes. I even suppose that a student may sometimes make a claim about the quality of her/his teacher that is not merely "personal" or "emotional"; i.e., he/she may intend to make an objective statement about the quality of the teaching. But is it reasonable to think such statements generally or often carry much weight? And if they don't generally or often carry much weight, what good is it to collect a handful of such claims and then present them as representative of the "overall quality" of the teacher? TruthPolice 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I just fixed the problems with the 2 claims that I just discussed above. Maybe there are now those who believe a source is needed for the claim that hired instructors generally have more experience & knowledge than their students? Maybe the dictionary would be a good source to consult first. Does that sound fair? TruthPolice 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am writing to affirm that the article is not neutral. The solution is not to delete anything that has been written. Everything that is written here is valid and well thought out. The solution to neutrality is for someone to write about the positive uses of Rate my profs. It is not impossible for a professor to make a positive change in his teaching methods in response to constructive criticism at ratemyprofs. And though the site does not measure all aspects of teaching, helpfulness and clarity are perhaps the most important attributes of a teacher from a student's point of view, especially a first-year student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.43.66 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're perfectly right that "it is not impossible" for a prof to make changes in light of constructive criticism posted at RMP, were he/she actually to find constructive criticism there. You may also be right that helpfulness and clarity may be important to students (though studies and surveys indicate that students tend to be more concerned with such factors as easiness and the teacher's personality and attractiveness - see this article and also the Felton study). But the main point is that there is little reason to think RMP accurately measures even those two qualities. TruthPolice (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Recent Edit by Jmpl2007

The recent addition by Jmpl2007 to the Ratings and Reviews on RateMyProfessors section - the material immediately following the Michael Hussey quote - is highly opinionated and a perfect example of original research if there ever was one. It sounds like a strained attempt to defend RMP, made by a student who seems naively to take the site seriously and who clearly has ignored the sober warnings raised by the sources cited in the Criticism section of the article. I'd suggest deleting Jmpl2007's sophomoric comments altogether if they didn't so effectively exemplify the kind of narrowminded mentality typical of disgruntled students who post negative "reviews" of profs on RMP; i.e., Jmpl2007's comments actually demonstrate, to the discerning reader, what is so misdirected about RMP. Post on, Jmpl2007! We hear you loud and clear!TruthPolice 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the recent edits are biased opinion and original research and as a college student myself, I've seen stuff written about professors I had/know by people who post after the first day of class (and so cannot really judge someone's entire course long experience) or who make posts that may be well-worded, but also don't adequately reflect the instructor, because the student may have missed nearly half the classes. The whole concept is mind-boggling. Instructors do not go into the profession with the intention of being publicly review like some movie, especially since they have all kinds of internal evaluations from students and colleagues. At OSU, we have SEI forms AND written comments sheets for our professors that from what I can see really are read by other adminstrators and professors. So, having something in which students can blatantly libel professors is somehow just wrong, especially when say you get one student out of fifty who didn't like a course, but happens to be the ONE student to post on that site. Yet, further proof of how despite the internet's many fascinating features, there are darker, almost evil aspects of it as well. Well, keep policing the truth, mon ami! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RMP admits on its FAQ page, it has "no way of knowing" who posts ratings

I restored the full quote from the old (18 May 2006) RMP faq page, which was recently removed and paraphrased by SallyForth123. I think that it is important to keep the original quote, rather than paraphrase it, particularly since the quote is no longer found on RMP, for unknown reasons. I suspect that the maintainers of RMP removed it simply because it is a rather damning admission of the failure of RMP's entire enterprise. Please discuss before editing this part of the article again. Thanks,TruthPolice 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny (but unsurprising) to find a similar warning on various other ratings sites of the same stripe as RMP. See, for example, RateMDs.com, VetRatingz.com, MechanicRatingz.com, RestaurantRatings.com, LawyerRatingz.com. The list goes on and on. I wonder whether all these ratings sites are run (or were started) by the same folks who were responsible for RMP, or whether they are just copycats.... Anyway, if they want to catch up to RMP, they should remove the warning just as RMP has done, so as not to vitiate their own project. TruthPolice 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)