Sarah Boomer (sarai at u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Hello again,
: A few years ago when I was grad. student president, I was approached by
: one of the students who really wanted to see some sort of mechanism in
: place to evaluate advisors. This individual handed me all sorts of
: documents that were being used by another science dept. on campus,
: apparently with great success. There were all kinds of anonymity clauses
: and rules if, say, there was just one student in the lab (such that the
: boss would know who was writing what), and it seemed like a useful thing.
: Anyone out there using (successfully or otherwise) a more formal
: evaluation system between student and advisor (both ways, or just one)?
At Northwestern University, when advisors were being reviewed for
promotions, the evaluation committee sent letters to some of the
students in a class, and some of the advisor's advisees asking for
evaluation of the professor's performance. I don't know how such information
was actually used, but students did get to send their input directly
to the evaluation committee.
They did tell us our information was anonymous. But, of course, if
negative information was used to make a decision about someone's career,
they would have a right to review it (in some form). I've never
believed in anonymous evaluations, anyway, so I didn't worry too much
about my anonymity.
Here at NIH, in the major, all-encompassing overview that intramural
program is going through, we were asked to send anonymous letters to
the outside review committee about our general evaluation of the
lab and training experience. Most of us chose to identify ourselves
in our letters.
Bharathi Jagadeesh/bjag at ln.nimh.nih.gov
Lab of Neuropsychology
Building 49, Room 1b80
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
(312) 496-5625 x270