tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post7606399759871666002..comments2023-11-02T09:44:15.693-04:00Comments on The Center for College Affordability and Productivity: In Defense of RateMyProfessor.comCenter for College Affordability and Productivityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18041956958538598371noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-26888161706688041502010-12-09T22:02:58.397-05:002010-12-09T22:02:58.397-05:00"5-easiness"
So if easiness is a 5, the..."5-easiness"<br /><br />So if easiness is a 5, then Rigor is a 0? I though that the results needed to maintain the range of 1 - 5. You should have used:<br /><br />6 - Easiness to maintain that range based on the results.Scott Merryfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13694167430798591829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-47357159112358827112010-08-13T14:50:57.575-04:002010-08-13T14:50:57.575-04:00The rankings state they are to help undergraduate ...The rankings state they are to help undergraduate students.<br /><br />However, RMP allows graduate students to post as well. I looked at the best professor (as voted on by the graduating class) and he had okay (mid 3) rankings. All the undergraduate evaluations were fantastic; he did have a few (1s) evals from a graduate course.<br /><br />So, do you have filter RMP so only undergraduate evaluations are counted? Otherwise, you are allowing graduate students to affect a ranking designed for undergraduates?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-67042956857591257872010-04-23T16:38:00.622-04:002010-04-23T16:38:00.622-04:00In the formal proof (provided in the link) the onl...In the formal proof (provided in the link) the only assumptions that are needed is that the distribution has a mean and a variance, and that the distribution is symmetric about its mean. It is actually explicitly stated that the respondents are not "representative" (we assume a student will only respond if that student really liked or really hated the prof.) If they were "representative" (i.e. if there was no systematic reason why their evaluation of the prof would affect whether or not they rated them on RMP) then there would be no need for a proof. The proof inherently assumes that the raters are biased and thus not representative and does not rely on normality (although the normal distribution is symmetric and thus supported by the proof, as is the uniform distribution among others).<br /><br />These assumptions are clearly iterated in the text of the post as well as in the accompanying formal proof.anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084775237414373558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-42070035436673339132009-12-30T21:39:11.731-05:002009-12-30T21:39:11.731-05:00While you're at it, Google "common source...While you're at it, Google "common source bias" and think about your "rigor" and "quality" correlation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-42038004479436078932009-12-30T21:34:47.361-05:002009-12-30T21:34:47.361-05:00This is ridiculous. In order to make the assumptio...This is ridiculous. In order to make the assumptions that you make in your "proofs," you have to assume that (a) the respondents are *representative* of the students as a whole, and (b) that the data are normally distributed. You cannot assume either of those things. Pick up a basic econometrics textbook for college freshmen, look at the assumptions, and you will see that - Bayesian approaches aside - you cannot credibly make this argument. <br /><br />I am shocked that a shop of economists would put out such drivel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-25135901221584070602009-08-12T12:49:03.327-04:002009-08-12T12:49:03.327-04:00On ratemyprofessor.com, on metric used to rate pro...On ratemyprofessor.com, on metric used to rate professors is the easiness metric. To generate the rigor variable, we took the easiness score and subtracted it from 5; that is, 5-easiness.<br /><br />The methodology i was referring to was the methodology for the Forbes/CCAP college rankings, found <a href="http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Methodology_2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here</a>anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084775237414373558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-13241455666916257452009-08-12T12:39:41.529-04:002009-08-12T12:39:41.529-04:00I don't know where your methodology is -- a li...I don't know where your methodology is -- a link maybe? <br /><br />But you say <br /><br />"we generated a new variable. rigor, as defined as 5-easiness."<br /><br />What does this mean? How did you define rigor? It's impossible to tell from what you just wrote.capemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327687293859434403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-43427224043486713132009-08-12T12:25:25.179-04:002009-08-12T12:25:25.179-04:00Yes, we generated a new variable. rigor, as define...Yes, we generated a new variable. rigor, as defined as 5-easiness. <br /><br />This is clearly described in the methodology.anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084775237414373558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-30113446883434989112009-08-12T12:06:32.082-04:002009-08-12T12:06:32.082-04:00Wait a minute. The graph plots professor rating (...Wait a minute. The graph plots professor rating (y axis) vs. rigor (x axis). But at ratemyprofessor they rate on EASINESS, not RIGOR. i.e. a 5 (out of 5 possible) is the EASIEST. I've checked this out on some of my colleagues; the students definitely get it -- a 1 means the prof is tough as nails.<br /><br />So, I have to wonder -- in making this graph, was EASINESS converted to RIGOR, say by inverting the numbers, i.e. a 1 becomes a 5? <br /><br />Or is easiness CONFUSED with rigor?<br /><br />My impression is that at ratemyprofessor, the profs with highest EASINESS factor get the best rating. <br /><br />The claim in this blog is at best counterintuitive, at worst, just ass-backwards.capemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327687293859434403noreply@blogger.com