Evidence shows that student evaluation scores do not effectively measure teaching quality or learning gains, but instead often reward lower academic standards, easier coursework, and lenient grading.
Multiple studies and meta-analyses consistently show that student evaluations of teaching (SETs) fail to positively correlate with actual student learning, and often show inverse or negative relationships when grade inflation or objective performance measures are controlled. The literature supports the claim that trying to maximize student evaluation scores incentivizes practices contrary to improving rigorous course quality.