Hot and easy in Florida: The case of economics professors

Transcription

1 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal Abstract Hot and easy n Florda: The case of economcs professors Olver Schnusenberg The Unversty of North Florda Cheryl Froehlch The Unversty of North Florda We nvestgate whether overall qualty ratngs recorded by students on RateMyProfessors.com are related to the perceved easness and hotness RMP ratngs for a sample of 110 economcs professors n Florda. Results ndcate that students who utlze RMP reward easy and hot economcs professors wth hgher RMP overall qualty ratngs. Second, the correlaton between RMP overall qualty ratngs and overall n-class nstructor ratngs s about 0.53 for a subsample of nstructor ratngs. Thrd, only clarty s sgnfcant when regressng the overall n-class nstructor ratngs on RMP clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness ratngs. Keywords: Student evaluatons, RateMyProfessors, clarty of nstructon, onlne evaluaton Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 1

2 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal I. PURPOSE AND MOTIVATION The concept that students should evaluate ther professors was frst ntroduced n the md- 1920s at the Unversty of Washngton. Snce then, however, years of confuson, dscontent, and concern about the usefulness of student evaluatons have ensued. Furthermore, the pragmatc use of student evaluatons by admnstrators to determne a faculty member s tenure, promoton, and mert pay rases only added fuel to the myrad of faculty concerns wth the concept of student evaluatons (Algozzne, Beatte, et al. [2004]). Wth the advent of the Internet, the ease of securng nformaton has ncreased exponentally and some unversty webstes now post unversty-sanctoned student evaluaton results. Addtonally, there are several prvately-owned stes that allow students to anonymously enter ther evaluaton of an nstructor and/or course at a unversty usng that ste s questonnare, whch s typcally dfferent from the unversty-sanctoned questonnare. RateMyProfessors.com (henceforth RMP) s one of the onlne servces that allow students to anonymously rate ther professors. The servce has been avalable to students snce As of March 2005, the ste boasted an mpressve 3,132,184 ratngs for 4,467 unverstes, wth an average of 4,000 ratngs per day added to the ste. Students vstng RMP can rate ther professors n four major categores: helpfulness, clarty, easness, and hotness. The helpfulness and clarty factors are combned nto an overall qualty ratng, such that the overall RMP qualty ratng s a smple average of the helpfulness and clarty factors. The RMP helpfulness, clarty, and easness ratngs have a 1 to 5 scale. RMP only defnes ratngs of 1 and 5 for the helpfulness and clarty crtera. A ratng of 1 s defned as very unhelpful and very unclear, respectvely for helpfulness and clarty. A ratng of 5 s defned as very helpful and very clear, respectvely. Easness s also rated on a 1 to 5 scale, wth a ratng of 1 beng defned as very hard and a ratng of 5 as very easy. The hotness crteron s ndcatve of a gven professor s appearance. Hotness s a score on RMP that s a functon of hot votes and not hot votes; students have to rate a professor as ether hot or not. For every hot vote, the score ncreases by 1. For every not hot vote, the score decreases by 1. A chl pepper s dsplayed next to the teacher s name f hotness s postve. Negatve hotness scores are not dsplayed, but they do exst. For example, f a professor has ten hot votes and twelve not hot votes, no chl pepper s dsplayed, but the fact that the not hot votes exceed the hot votes s also not mentoned. Furthermore, f the next student rates ths professor as hot, such that there are eleven hot and twelve not hot votes, a chl pepper would stll not be dsplayed. The objectve of ths study s threefold. Frst, we nvestgate whether a professor s RMP overall qualty ratng, whch s the average of the students ratng of the professor s clarty and helpfulness, s postvely related to the easness and hotness crtera on RMP for a sample of 110 economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda. A fndng ndcatng that easness and/or hotness are relevant factors n determnng a professor s overall qualty ratng on RMP would ndcate that the self-selected sample of students usng RMP reward easer and more attractve professors wth hgher RMP overall qualty ratngs. Second, for a subset of 38 economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda, the RMP overall qualty ratngs are examned to determne whether they are postvely correlated to unversty-sanctoned n-class questonnares overall nstructor ratngs. If the RMP overall qualty ratngs for the professors are not hghly correlated to ther unversty-sanctoned student questonnares overall nstructor ratng, then t stands to reason that ether students use dfferent Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 2

3 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal crtera to evaluate professors n the classroom versus on RMP or that only a partcular subset of students from any gven class sees the need to evaluate professors on RMP, whch could be ndcatve of a response bas (Sorensen and Johnson, 2003) Thrd, the overall n-class nstructor ratngs for the subset of economcs professors are examned to determne f they are sgnfcantly related to the RMP clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness ratngs. Snce many unverstes use n-class teachng evaluatons as ther prmary tool to evaluate teachng effectveness and n turn use teachng effectveness as a crteron to award mert pay rases, promoton, and/or tenure, an nvestgaton nto the factors underlyng ratngs recorded on RMP and ther relatonshp to overall n-class ratngs s warranted. Partcularly, RMP provdes a unque opportunty to nvestgate whether the perceved helpfulness, clarty, easness, and hotness of a professor are related to unversty-sanctoned overall n-class nstructor ratngs. All three objectves wll be accomplshed by nvestgatng nstructors n the economcs department at publc unverstes n Florda. In alphabetcal order, these unverstes are: Florda Agrcultural and Mechancal Unversty, Florda Atlantc Unversty, Florda Gulf Coast Unversty, Florda Internatonal Unversty, Florda State Unversty, New College of Florda, The Unversty of Central Florda, The Unversty of Florda, The Unversty of North Florda, The Unversty of South Florda, and The Unversty of West Florda. The remander of ths paper s organzed as follows. Secton II provdes a general descrpton of RMP. Secton III provdes a revew of related lterature. Secton IV presents the data and methodology. Results are presented n Secton V. Secton VI concludes and provdes some mplcatons. II. A DESCRIPTION OF RATEMYPROFESSORS.COM The stated purpose of RMP s to be a free resource for students. To rate a professor on RMP, students select ther state and ther unversty n that state. If the professor that a student s tryng to rate s already lsted on the ste, students smply clck on the name of the professor to rate them. If the professor s not lsted, students can add the professor and rate them. Consequently, students can anonymously rate a gven professor at ther unversty along the crtera of clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness. Students usng the ste can leave ratngs wthout creatng an account, but the ste allows students to create ether a free account or a gold account, whch allows users to contact other regstered users to obtan ther opnon about a professor or course. In addton, students can leave wrtten comments for professors on RMP. In addton to leavng anonymous ratngs for professors, RMP users also have the ablty to suggest changes. For example, f a professor s name s spelled wrong, users have the ablty to clck on a lnk to report the error. Furthermore, f a ratng s napproprate, users have the ablty to flag the ratng to have t revewed. These suggested changes are handled by School Admnstrators. These admnstrators also accept new teachers, and are part of the RMP staff, workng wth the ste owners and operators. To qualfy as an admnstrator, ndvduals must be students at that school and have an RMP account. General gudelnes for ratngs are provded by RMP, and a drect lnk to these gudelnes s presented to RMP users when they enter ther ratngs for a professor. These are reproduced from the webste n Table 1 (Appendx). RMP promses to enforce the do not s wth the help of the admnstrators. Volatons of the gudelnes wll result n the ratng s comment beng removed or the entre ratng beng deleted. Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 3

4 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal Gven the anonymty students usng RMP enjoy, there are some general potental ptfalls of the ste. For nstance, The Valley Star, the ndependent student newspaper at Los Angeles Valley College, featured an artcle about RMP on February 23, 2005, n whch a student ponted out that some students may use the ste to get back at a teacher for gvng a bad grade, whle at the same tme acknowledgng that students can use the ste to provde each other wth suggestons for good teachers. Smlarly, on September 7, 2004, Professor Kenneth Westhues from the Unversty of Waterloo wrote an artcle n The Record warnng aganst the ptfalls of the ste. Specfcally, he ponts out that a certan number of evaluatons publshed on the ste are nose. Furthermore, whle cookes and flters attempt to prevent multple ratngs by the same user or by users who have never taken the professor beng rated, t s mpossble to prevent such abuses entrely. Another pont of concern s that nsttutons vary n terms of how carefully they montor comments, due to the nature of the school admnstrators. These ponts are also rased n the September 2001 Teachng Matters Newsletter at the Unversty of Waterloo. Although t s possble that some students wll use RMP to post naccurate or napproprate comments, there are several reasons to beleve students wll not do so. Frst, RMP states on ts webste that over 65 percent of the comments left by users are postve n nature. Furthermore, whle RMP acknowledges that the ratngs recorded by users are smply a collecton of opnons and, as such, not statstcally vald, the admnstrators of the ste state that they receve a large amount of emals tellng them that the ratngs are hghly accurate. Second, the authors of the September 2001 Unversty of Waterloo Teachng Matters Newsletter attempt to assess the statstcal valdty of the ste by examnng the ratng of all Dstngushed Teacher Award wnners at the Unversty of Waterloo. Of the 16 award wnners, 15 were rated n the hgh-qualty category. Moreover, the total number of nstructors rated n the hgh-qualty category was 124, followed by 72 professors rated n the mddle category, and 54 n the low category. The authors menton that ths s consstent wth the way nstructors are rated on course evaluatons, snce unversty nstructors are generally rated above average on course-evaluaton nstruments. However, no rgorous statstcal analyss was conducted n the newsletter to verfy ths observaton emprcally. Thrd, Gesey, Chen, and Hoshower (2004) fnd that a sample of engneerng students generally consder the mprovement of teachng to be the most mportant outcome of teachng evaluatons. Therefore, although RMP ratngs of professors are not unversty-sanctoned, f students beleve that professors wll attempt to mprove ther teachng performance based on ratngs left at RMP, they may use the ste to provde constructve crtcsm of professors rather than usng the ste to leave napproprate or naccurate ratngs for professors. If students utlze RMP to provde constructve crtcsm of professors, whle acknowledgng that they are not necessarly representatve of all the students takng classes wth a gven professors, ratngs left on RMP can be useful to professors. Insofar RMP helps professors dentfy ther own weaknesses early n the semester, t can be a useful tool to both support teacher growth and enhance teacher professonalsm, two common themes n research on teachng evaluatons (Bernsten, 2004). For nstance, Andrews (2004) argues that teachers wll support an evaluaton program f there s adequate tme to allow one to remedate defects and defcences. Smlarly, Algozzne, Beatte, et al. (2004) suggest the use of nterm evaluatons to provde formatve nformaton about ways to mprove teachng. Both of these studes ndcate that teachers can use early feedback to mprove ther teachng performance. RMP can be partcularly benefcal, snce students can leave ratngs and comments at any tme durng the semester, and not only when the semester ends. Thus, professors are provded wth feedback Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 4

5 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal throughout the semester, whch may allow them to mprove. The ultmate result could be mproved results on unversty-sanctoned n-class evaluatons. Whle RMP ratngs have the potental to provde professors wth early feedback, they also allow us to nvestgate whether students, at least the self-selected sample of students usng RMP, value the easness and attractveness of a professor. Specfcally, RMP ratngs are used to nvestgate three objectves: (1) how the RMP overall qualty ratng for economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda relates to the perceved easness and hotness of a professor, (2) how the ste s overall qualty ratng for a professor correlates to the professor s overall n-class nstructor ratng, and (3) how the overall n-class nstructor ratng relates to the perceved clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness of the professor on RMP. III. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The lterature on student evaluatons s large and dates back to the 1920s. Ths secton focuses on the lterature nvestgatng the percepton of student evaluatons by varous partes and professor characterstcs nfluencng student evaluatons. There s some evdence that student evaluatons are vewed dfferently by unversty admnstrators and faculty. Calderon and Green (1997), for example, fnd that 95 percent of admnstrator responses to ther survey vew student evaluatons as a vald crteron of teachng effectveness. Smlarly, Morgan, Sneed, and Swnney (2003) fnd that admnstrators beleve student evaluatons measure teachng effectveness more effectvely than faculty. Conversely, faculty members beleve that ther personalty s the prmary determnant of ratngs on student evaluatons, although course work load, the type of course, and the grade dstrbuton also have an mpact on evaluatons. Other papers showng these relatonshps are by Kemp and Kumar (1990); Yunker and Sterner (1988); Smpson (1995); and Marsh and Overall (1981). Snce attractveness s one aspect of a teacher s personalty, an nvestgaton of RMP hotness ratngs and ther mpact on both RMP overall qualty and overall n-class nstructor ratngs affords us an opportunty to nvestgate whether personalty affects student evaluatons. A varety of artcles have nvestgated teacher characterstcs and ther mpact on student evaluatons. For example, gender (Marsh and Roche [1997]) s found not to have a sgnfcant nfluence on evaluatons, whle the experence of the nstructor may bas student ratngs (Cohen [1981, 1982]). Instructor enthusasm and expressveness were also found to sgnfcantly nfluence student evaluatons. See, for example, Shevln, Banyard, Daves, and Grffths (2000) and Abram, Perry, and Leventhal (1982). Certan student characterstcs, such as student nterest n the course and student/teacher atttude smlartes can also nfluence evaluatons. Also see Granzn and Panter (1973); Marsh (1980); and Marsh and Roche (1997). Several artcles n the lterature also nvestgate the evaluaton factors consdered mportant by students. For example, Gesey, Chen, and Hoshower (2004) fnd that students consder the mprovement of teachng, the mprovement of course content and format, makng evaluaton results avalable for students decsons, and tenure and promoton decsons the most mportant outcomes of teachng evaluatons. Landrum and Dllnger (2004) fnd that the three most mportant factors predctng course evaluatons are recommendatons among students to take a course, the expected grade, and the overall nstructor ratng. Wlhelm (2004) provdes addtonal nsght and fnds that students are twce as lkely to choose a course wth an nstructor who receves excellent course evaluatons. Moreover, students are wllng to put up wth poor Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 5

6 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal course evaluatons or a heavy workload f they beleve that they wll gan a great deal of useful knowledge. Nevertheless, Grmes, Mllea and Woodruff (2004) fnd that those students wth an external locus of control, who are more lkely to blame factors other than themselves for ther falure, tend to provde lower evaluatons and blame the nstructor for ther performance. The authors also pont out that teachng strateges and advce that result n students assumng control for ther own learnng lead to both academc success and hgher teachng evaluatons. Combned, these studes ndcate that students are more lkely to take professors who receve good evaluatons, and that these evaluatons are at least partly based on the expected, especally for students wth an external locus of control. Snce RMP provdes students wth an ablty to rate easness, and snce RMP allows students to post ratngs pror to the end of the semester (.e., based on expected grades), ths study may reveal addtonal nsght nto factors consdered mportant by students. Several artcles n the emprcal lterature nvestgate the effect of looks and/or beauty on salary and/or performance. For nstance, Hamermesh and Bddle (1994) examne the mpact of looks on earnng usng ntervewers ratngs of respondents physcal appearance. They fnd that plan people earn less than average-lookng people, whch they label a planness penalty. Ths penalty s about 5 to 10 percent. They also fnd a slghtly less pronounced beauty premum, whch s the dfference n salares between good-lookng people and average-lookng people. Furthermore, Hamermesh and Bddle fnd no sgnfcant dfferences n looks across genders or occupatonal classes. In a student evaluaton settng, ths ndcates that students may award more attractve professors wth hgher evaluatons. The study by Hamermesh and Parker (2003) s most closely related to the present study. The authors drectly nvestgate whether beauty leads to dfferences n productvty that may generate earnngs dfferences. To accomplsh ther objectve, the authors nvestgate student nstructonal ratngs for a group of unversty professors and acqure sx ndependent measures of ther beauty. Hamermesh and Parker fnd that nstructors who are vewed as better-lookng receve hgher nstructonal ratngs. Moreover, the mpact exsts wthn unversty departments and even wthn partcular courses, and s larger for male than for female nstructors. The authors acknowledge that ther measure of beauty could merely be a proxy for a varety of related unmeasured characterstcs that mght postvely affect nstructonal ratngs. Furthermore, t may be that students pay more attenton to good-lookng professors and learn more, whch would be a productvty effect. Gven the ncreased exposure and publcty of RMP and the documented relatonshp between appearance and salary n both teachng and non-teachng professons, an nvestgaton of both the nature of the overall qualty ratngs posted on RMP and ther relatonshp to overall n-class ratngs of professors s warranted. For example, f the RMP ratngs are sgnfcantly affected by easness and hotness ratngs on RMP, ths would ndcate that students (at least the self-selected sample usng RMP) value a professor s level of easness and a professor s appearance. Furthermore, f the unversty-sanctoned overall n-class ratngs are sgnfcantly related to helpfulness, clarty, easness, or hotness, then we gan some nsght nto the factors used by students to assgn the overall nstructor ratng, even though ths s only true for the subsample of students completng both the n-class questonnares and usng RMP. Snce many unverstes use n-class student evaluatons as ther prmary ndcator of teachng effectveness, ths s an mportant research topc, partcularly snce at least two of the RMP factors (easness and hotness) are not avalable on unversty-sanctoned course evaluatons. Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 6

7 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal The present study contrbutes to the exstng lterature n at least three ways. Frst, we contrbute to the ongong dscusson about whether hotness or easness drectly leads to dfferences n productvty as measured by n-class nstructor evaluatons by regressng overall n-class nstructor ratngs on measures of hotness and easness recorded by students on RMP. Second, by usng student ratngs of hotness and easness, we are able to nvestgate drectly whether t s these ratngs themselves that cause dfferences n the overall ratngs, both those provded by students on RMP and n the classroom. That s, unlke Hamermesh and Parker, we do not have to obtan exogenous measures of attractveness (or beauty), snce t s a measure on RMP. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the RMP hotness ratng could proxy for another unmeasured factor. Thrd, based on Hamermesh and Parker s fndngs, we solate economcs professors. IV. DATA AND METHODOLOGY IV.1. Data To nvestgate our frst objectve, whether RMP overall qualty ratngs are related to the perceved easness and hotness, we obtaned our data from RMP. Specfcally, our sample conssts of all ratngs posted on RMP for the prevously dentfed eleven publc unverstes n the state of Florda. The ratngs were sorted by department and the overall qualty, helpfulness, clarty, easness, and hotness ratngs for each course, the total number of ratngs for each professor, and the total number of economcs professors rated from each unversty were tabulated for each course taught n the economcs department at these unverstes. Addtonally, we determned the gender of each professor usng the professor s frst name. The total number of economcs professors for whch all data tems were avalable was 173. To accomplsh our second and thrd objectves of nvestgatng whether the overall qualty ratngs from RMP are postvely correlated wth the overall n-class nstructor ratngs for a subset of publc Florda unverstes and whether the RMP varables of clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness are related to the professors n-class evaluatons, we obtaned overall nclass nstructor evaluatons for the sample unverstes. Results for the most recent avalable semester n-class nstructor ratngs were obtaned from those unverstes that made these results publcly avalable. Results for n-class evaluatons were avalable for Florda Atlantc Unversty, Florda Internatonal Unversty, the Unversty of Florda, The Unversty of North Florda, and The Unversty of South Florda. The last evaluatons for Florda Internatonal Unversty and The Unversty of South Florda were avalable for the Sprng 2004 semester. Evaluatons for the other three unverstes were avalable for the Fall 2004 semester. Of the fve nsttutons n Florda that publshed ther nstructor ratngs onlne all except for Florda Atlantc Unversty (FAU) used a 1 to 5 scale, wth 1 beng poor and 5 beng excellent. FAU uses a 1 to 5 scale, wth 1 beng excellent and 5 beng poor. Consequently, the FAU scale was converted to be synchronous wth the other unverstes scales. The total number of professors for whch the overall n-class ratngs were avalable on the unversty webste was 60. For each unversty, the sze of the unversty, as measured by student enrollment as reported on the last avalable fact sheet publshed on the unversty webste, was also obtaned. In addton to the varables lsted above, each professor on RMP was requred to have at least three overall qualty ratngs. Ths addtonal control was mposed to prevent lone ratngs left by students who were testng out the ste or student who left ratngs for nonexstent professors Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 7

8 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal that have not yet been removed by the unverstes RMP admnstrators. In addton to three ratngs, the models were also repeated for a mnmum number of four and two ratngs. Although the sample szes were smaller, the results are very smlar to the results reported here and are avalable from the authors upon request. After ncludng the descrptve varables and mposng the addtonal restrcton of at least three overall qualty ratngs per professor, the fnal sample sze was 110 total qualty ratngs from RMP and 38 overall n-class ratngs. Summary statstcs for the 110 RMP ratngs n our sample are provded n Table 2 (Appendx). The average enrollment (ncludng graduate and undergraduate students) of the eleven publc unverstes n Florda was 23,881 students. The smallest publc unversty n Florda s New College of Florda wth an enrollment of 692 students. The largest publc unversty n Florda s the Unversty of Florda wth an enrollment of 48,765 students. Across the eleven publc unverstes n Florda, an average of economcs nstructors were rated on RMP, wth a mnmum of three economcs professor for New College of Florda and a maxmum of 43 economcs professors for the Unversty of Central Florda. We were able to obtan the total department sze for nne of the eleven unverstes. The average department sze for those nne unverstes was 20.6 faculty members. We dd not obtan department szes for Florda Agrcultural & Mechancal Unversty and for Florda Gulf Coast Unversty. As shown n Table 2, the average value for the male dummy varable was 0.79, ndcatng that 79 percent of the 110 economcs professors rated were male. The average hotness ratng for an economcs professor at a publc unversty n Florda s 7.89 percent. Ths means that, on average, 7.89 percent of the ratngs recorded on RMP ndcate that the professor s hot. Moreover, for sx professors all of the ratngs ndcated that the professor was hot. Table 2 also shows that the RMP overall qualty ratng for economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda was 3.36 (medan = 3.35), wth a standard devaton of As dscussed earler, the total qualty ratng s an average of the helpfulness and clarty ratngs students leave on RMP. The respectve averages for these categores are 3.43 and 3.28, wth respectve standard devatons of 0.92 and The average easness ratng on RMP was 3.00 (medan = 3.00), wth a standard devaton of The nature of the RMP data s subject to self-selecton bas on part of the students partcpatng n those ratngs. Ths possble negatve response bas present n onlne evaluatons s mentoned by Sorenson and Johnson (2003), who pont out that response rates may also be lower n an onlne settng, snce students can complete evaluatons on ther own tme or not at all. Addtonally, the partcpaton rates for the overall n-class ratngs are not readly avalable, snce the majorty of the unverstes nvestgated dsplay only summary results for a gven professor nstead of the complete sheet provdng the response rate for each class and professor. Despte the self-selecton bas nherent n usng RMP ratngs and the lack of response rates, we beleve that analyzng the RMP ratngs by themselves provdes some valuable nformaton about how the group of students utlzng the RMP ste, consdered as a populaton, vews the professors. Furthermore, nvestgatng the subsample of overall n-class ratngs may provde some valuable nformaton about the relatonshp between the overall nstructor ratngs and ther relatonshp to crtera avalable on RMP, such as easness and hotness. We acknowledge, however, the nature of the self-selecton bas of the RMP data and the lmted sze of the overall n-class ratngs, whch may sgnfcantly bas our results. In order to get a better sense of how and why students utlze RMP, a bref survey was conducted usng a sample of 238 students at The Unversty of North Florda (UNF). The survey Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 8

9 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal s reproduced n Table 3. As an ncentve to complete the survey, extra credt equal to 2 percentage ponts on the fnal exam n the Fall 2005 semester was offered. The survey had to be completed on the Blackboard System. The survey admnstrator had no way of determnng whch specfc answers a student provded, only whether or not a student completed the survey, assurng anonymty. Ths was clearly communcated to students both n class and n the survey nstructons. A bref descrpton of the ste was also provded at the begnnng of the survey. The survey was refned wth the help of two students to avod ambguty. The survey was conducted n two undergraduate Fnancal Management classes and one graduate Advanced Fnancal Management class at UNF. In the three classes combned, 377 students were elgble to complete the survey. Thus, the response rate was percent. Whle students n the surveyed classes are probably not overlappng wth the students conductng the ratngs n our sample, the survey provdes some ndcaton how and why students use RMP n general, and whether the students usng RMP are dfferent from those not usng RMP. The purpose of conductng ths survey was to determne 1) f students have used RMP to ether rate a professor or obtan nformaton about a professor; 2) f students are more lkely to rate a very good or a very bad professor; 3) how students defne a very good and a very bad professor. The results from the survey are presented n Table 3 (Appendx). Panel A of Table 3 presents answers to some general questons about the students; Panel B presents answers to questons for those students who have used RMP to rate a professor; Panel C presents answers to questons for those students who have not used RMP to rate a professor. In each panel, the answers wth the most frequent responses are presented n bold prnt for easer readablty. As shown n Panel A, the vast majorty of students n the survey (87 percent) have heard about RMP, and 65 percent have used the ste to fnd nformaton about ther professors. However, only about 31 percent of the students (or 73 students) partcpatng n the survey have used the webste to actually rate a professor. Panel B asks questons specfcally drected at those students who have used RMP to rate one or more of ther past or present professors. Students were asked to select Not applcable f they have not used the ste to rate a professor. For each queston, exactly 165 students responded Not applcable. Consequently, the percentages shown n Panel B are for the sample of 73 students that have used RMP to rate a professor. Panel B shows that 1) percent of students who have used RMP to rate a professor have a GPA between 2.00 and 4.00; 2) percent of these students are junors or senors; 3) these students are most commonly management, fnance, or accountng majors. The remanng questons n Panel B attempt to determne the most common reason why students have used RMP to rate a professor. Interestngly, percent of students who have used RMP used t to rate excellent professors as opposed to percent who thought rated professors were extremely bad. Insofar as ths sample reflects the typcal students usng RMP to rate a professor, t does not appear that students smply utlze the ste to complan about ther professors, whch substantates the arguments nherent n Gesey, Chen, and Hoshower (2004) and Landrum and Dllnger (2003) that students may use the ste to communcate wth each other and provde constructve crtcsm. Also nterestng s the fact that percent of students n the sample who have used RMP dd so for ther own personal satsfacton. The next queston n Panel B that students who have used RMP consder an excellent professor as one who s very clear n explanng dffcult concepts (56.16 percent of responses) and s very helpful and approachable (20.55 percent of responses). Notably, not even one student consders a professor Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 9

10 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal excellent just because the professor s good-lookng. Responses to the last queston n Panel B of Table 3 reveal that students who have used RMP consder a professor extremely bad most commonly f the professor s nconsstent n course expectatons (35.62 percent) or s unable to explan dffcult concepts (32.88 percent). Ths agrees wth the fndngs of Wlhelm (2004) that students wll put up wth poor evaluatons f they gan a great deal of knowledge, whch s undoubtedly not the case f a professor cannot clearly explan dffcult concepts. Interestngly, no students consder a professor extremely bad f the professor s ether unattractve or because the professor gave them a bad grade. Panel C asks questons drected at those students who have not used RMP to rate one or more of ther past or present professors. Questons n ths panel are desgned to reveal any dfferences between those students who have used RMP to rate ther professors and those that have not. In each queston, students were asked to select Not applcable f they have used the ste to rate a professor. For each queston, exactly 73 students responded Not applcable. The general questons n Panel C ndcate that 1) percent of students who have used RMP to rate a professor have a GPA between 2.00 and 4.00; 2) percent of these students are junors or senors; 3) these students are most commonly management, fnance, or accountng majors. In summary, the general characterstcs of the students who have not used RMP to rate a past or present professor do not appear to be dfferent from those who have used RMP. The remanng questons n Panel C attempt to determne the most common reason why students would use RMP n the future to rate a professor, even f they have never used RMP before percent of students who have not used RMP ndcated that they may use t to rate an excellent professor, whle percent ndcate they may use t to rate an extremely bad professor. Ths s an nterestng response pattern, snce the majorty of students who have used RMP used t to rate excellent professors. Nevertheless, the percentage responses agan ndcate that students do not only use RMP to complan about professors, even f they have not yet used the ste. Students who have not used RMP consder an excellent professor as someone who s very clear n explanng dffcult concepts (58.79 percent of responses) or who s very helpful and approachable (29.70 percent of responses). Ths s also very smlar to students who have used RMP. The last queston n Panel C also reveals that students who have not used RMP defne an extremely bad professor very smlarly to students who have used RMP; the most common responses were for professors who are nconsstent n course expectatons (37.58 percent of responses) and who are unable to explan dffcult concepts (33.33 percent of responses). Agan, no students consder a professor extremely bad f the professor s ether unattractve or because the professor gave them a bad grade. Overall, the survey results reported n Table 3 ndcate that: 1) students who have used RMP most commonly used t to rate an excellent professor; 2) students who have not used RMP are equally lkely to use the ste to rate excellent or extremely bad professors; 3) students, whether they have used RMP to rate professors or not, thnk that an excellent professor s one who s very clear n explanng dffcult concepts and who s very helpful and approachable; 4) students, whether they have used RMP to rate professors or not, thnk that an extremely bad professor s one who s ether nconsstent n course expectatons or who s unable to explan dffcult concepts. It should be noted that our sample contans very few economcs majors. However, we conducted ths survey to gan some general nsghts nto the reasons students utlze RMP. Snce the students partcpatng n the survey are from a varety of majors, we feel that the survey results provde a good general sense of the students usng RMP. Overall, the survey results based Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 10

11 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal on our modest sample at UNF do not reveal any sgnfcant dfferences between students who have used RMP versus those that have not. IV.2. Methodology Our frst objectve s to nvestgate whether overall qualty ratngs recorded by students on RMP are postvely related to the easness and hotness RMP ratngs. To accomplsh that objectve, we utlzed the followng regresson model: TOT = α 0 + α1rat + α 2 EAS + α 3NUM + α 4 HOT + α 5MAL + α 6SIZ + ε, (1) where TOT = the total qualty ratng for professor recorded on RMP; RAT = the number of ratngs for professor recorded on RMP; EAS = the easness ratng for professor recorded on RMP; NUM = the number of economcs professors rated on RMP that are at the same unversty as professor ; HOT = the total hotness ratng for professor on RMP, scaled by the total number of ratngs for professor ; MAL = a dummy varable equal to unty f professor s male and zero otherwse; and SIZ = the sze of the unversty of professor accordng to the last publshed fact sheet on the unversty webste. Snce the RMP overall qualty ratng s computed as the average of the clarty and helpfulness ratngs, the latter two varables are not ncluded as regressors n Equaton (1). The varables NUM, SIZ, RAT, and MAL deserve addtonal dscusson. These varables are ncluded as control varables n the regresson. NUM and SIZ, the number of economcs professors at a gven school rated on RMP and the total enrollment of the unversty, respectvely, are used as proxes for sze. Wes (1991) argues that professors at larger unverstes may have less tme to devote to students due to hgher research demands. Moreover, evaluaton crtera used dffer between AACSB-accredted and on-accredted nsttutons, whch tend to be smaller. Len and Merz ( ) fnd that accredted nsttutons place a much hgher emphass on research. Ths could affect the overall performance of professors n the classroom. RAT, the number of ratngs for a gven professor, s also ncluded as a control varable. Due to self-selecton bas and based on our survey results, professors who are perceved as partcularly good or bad by students may receve more RMP ratngs than professors perceved to be of average qualty, resultng n an upward or downward bas. Moreover, whle we requre at least three ratngs per professor to be ncluded n the sample, the number of ratngs as a regressor serves as an addtonal safeguard aganst possble bases resultng from only a few ratngs per professor. MAL, the male dummy varable, s also ncluded as a control varable to control for the gender of the professor beng rated. Hamermesh and Parker (2003) fnd that nstructors who are vewed as better-lookng receve hgher nstructonal ratngs. Ths effect s larger for male than for female nstructors. The gender of each professor was dentfed based on the professor s frst name. In cases where the frst name dd not clearly ndcate the gender of the professor, we vsted the unversty webste and obtaned a pcture of that professor. Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 11

12 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal Our second objectve, nvestgatng the correlaton between RMP s overall qualty ratng and overall nstructor n-class evaluatons, s accomplshed by computng the Pearson correlaton coeffcent between the overall RMP ratng and the overall n-class nstructor evaluaton for the subsample of 38 ratngs. To accomplsh our thrd objectve, nvestgatng whether the RMP factors such as easness and hotness are related to the overall n-class nstructor evaluaton, Equaton (1) was modfed as follows: ICE = α 0 + α1cla + α2hel + α3rat + α4eas + α5num + α6hot + α7mal+ α8siz + ε, (2) where ICE = the overall qualty of nstructor ratng for professor obtaned from n-class evaluatons; CLA = the clarty ratng for professor recorded on RMP; HEL = the helpfulness ratng for professor recorded on RMP; All other varables are as defned prevously. Importantly, Equaton (2) ncludes the clarty and helpfulness ratngs from RMP. The nclass evaluatons obtaned from the unverstes webstes provde a unque opportunty to nvestgate ther relatonshp to the clarty and helpfulness crtera provded by students on RMP. Equaton (1), whch utlzes the RMP overall qualty ratng as the dependent varable, dd not nclude these two ndependent varables, because the overall qualty ratngs on RMP are computed as the average of the helpfulness and clarty scores on RMP. Incluson of these two varables n Equaton (2) wll ndcate whether overall n-class nstructor evaluatons are nfluenced by the perceved clarty and helpfulness of the professor. Two addtonal methodologcal consderatons are noteworthy. Frst, n both Equatons (1) and (2), forward stepwse regresson was utlzed. In these regressons, we requred a varable to have a p-value of at least 0.50 to enter the model. Forward stepwse regresson was utlzed to nvestgate whch specfc factors are most sgnfcantly related to the dependent varable. Although ths p-value s much hgher than tradtonal sgnfcance levels, we requred t to see f the adjusted r-square of the model changes when addtonal varables are ncluded. The sgnfcant varables n each model can stll be observed n the lower-step models. Second, snce we use aggregate student responses (nstead of ndvdual student responses), heteroscedastcty n the model s lkely. We frst tested for heterscedastcty usng Whte s (1980) test. Unable to detect any heteroscedastcty usng ths test, we also employed the Breusch-Pagan (1979) test for heteroscedastcty. The latter test tests for heteroscedastcty attrbutable to specfc regressors. Specfyng the aggregated RMP ratngs for easness, hotness, clarty, and helpfulness as the regressors most lkely causng heteroscedastcty, we were able to detect heteroscedastcty n some models of the stepwse regresson. Ths was corrected for usng the generalzed method of moments (GMM) procedure. V. RESULTS Ths secton dscusses four separate results. Frst, the correlaton coeffcents for the varables presented n Table 2 are dscussed. Second, results from estmatng Equaton (1) are presented. Thrd, the correlaton coeffcents between the RMP overall qualty ratng and overall n-class nstructor evaluatons are dscussed. Next, results from estmatng Equaton (2) are presented. Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 12

13 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal The correlaton coeffcents for the varables n Table 2 are dsplayed n Table 4. Most of the varables exhbt the correlaton coeffcents that would be expected. For example, snce the RMP overall qualty ratng s a smple average of the helpfulness and clarty ratngs, we would expect perfect correlaton between each of these varables and the overall qualty ratng. Table 4 (Appendx) ndcates that helpfulness and clarty are very hghly postvely correlated wth the overall qualty ratng, wth correlaton coeffcents of 0.96 and 0.96, respectvely. The reason these correlaton coeffcents are not exactly 1.0 s due to roundng errors. Some of the relatonshps n Table 4 deserve further dscusson. Frst, t seems that the number of RMP ratngs per professor s postvely related to the total number of economcs professors rated from a gven school (r = 0.36). Also, school sze s postvely correlated wth both the number of economcs professors at a gven school and the ratngs per professor on RMP, wth correlaton coeffcents of 0.73 and 0.26, respectvely. It appears that students from larger schools rate more professors and record more ratngs for each professor. Interestngly, hotness s negatvely correlated to the number of economcs professors rated, the ratngs per professor on RMP, to male professors, and to the sze of the school, although the correlaton coeffcents are relatvely small n absolute value. From Table 4, t seems that easness, helpfulness, and clarty are all postvely correlated wth hotness, wth correlaton coeffcents of 0.30, 0.44, and 0.47, respectvely. As Hamermesh and Parker (2003) pont out, however, t s possble that hgher nstructonal ratngs for betterlookng professors are smply due to a thrd factor that s unmeasurable. Fnally, more helpful economcs professors are also perceved as clearer (r = 0.86), clearer professors are perceved as easer (r = 0.50), and more helpful professors are perceved as easer (r = 0.59). Furthermore, the correlaton coeffcents between overall qualty and both hotness (r = 0.47) and easness (r = 0.56) are relatvely hgh. These correlatons are nterestng n lght of the survey results reported n Table 3. Recall that the survey ndcated that students perceve excellent professors as those that are very helpful and that are very clear n explanng dffcult concepts. Consequently, t s not surprsng that the overall qualty ratng s sgnfcantly related to easness, when easness s also hghly correlated wth clarty and helpfulness ndcates an To nvestgate whether the overall qualty ratngs recorded on RMP are related to easness and hotness, Equaton (1) was appled to the 110 overall n-class ratngs of economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda. The results from estmatng equaton (1) are dsplayed n Table 5 (Appendx). Before applyng the forward stepwse regresson, the full model was estmated. In the full model, the number of ratngs per professor (RAT), the perceved easness of the professor (EAS), the hotness of the professor (HOT), and the male dummy varable (MAL) are all postve and sgnfcant at tradtonal levels. Although we requre a mnmum of three ratngs per professor to be ncluded n the sample, t does appear that professors that receve more RMP ratngs have a hgher overall qualty RMP ratng, on average, as ndcated by the sgnfcant coeffcent for the varable RAT. The coeffcent for EAS, 0.50, ndcates that the overall qualty ratng ncreases by about 0.50 ponts for every addtonal pont of perceved easness. The coeffcent for HOT, 1.77, ndcates that, for every addtonal ten percent of total ratngs that ndcate a professor s hot, the overall qualty ratng ncreases by about 0.18 ponts. The coeffcent for MAL ndcates that male professors receve a total qualty ratng that s about 0.32 ponts hgher than the overall qualty ratng female professors receve, whch agrees wth the fndngs reported by Hamermesh and Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 13

14 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal Parker (2003). The adjusted r-square for the full model ndcates that percent of the varaton n the overall qualty ratng s explaned by the regressors ncluded n the model. The addtonal models n Table 5 report the results from mplementng the forward stepwse regresson. The frst varable enterng the model n the stepwse regresson s EAS (Model 2), followed by HOT (Model 3). Interestngly, Model 3 has an adjusted r-square of percent, very close to the r-square reported for the full model; t appears that most of the varaton n the overall qualty ratng s explaned by EAS and HOT. The thrd varable enterng the model s the male dummy varable, MAL (Model 4). Recall that Hamermesh and Parker (2003) fnd that nstructors, partcularly male nstructors, who are vewed as better-lookng receve hgher nstructonal ratngs. The results reported here smlarly ndcate that male professors receve hgher overall qualty ratngs than female nstructors on RMP. We dd nvestgate whether male professors are more lkely to be perceved as easy or hot by utlzng an nteracton terms between the male dummy varable and EAS and HOT. Nether of the nteracton terms was statstcally sgnfcant at conventonal levels when ncluded n the regresson together wth EAS and HOT. Ths s consstent wth the fndngs of Hamermesh and Bddle (1994), who fnd no sgnfcant gender dfferences across occupatons, but s nconsstent wth the fndngs of Hamermesh and Parker (2003), who fnd a more pronounced beauty effect for male nstructors. The next two varables enterng the model are the number of ratngs per professor, RAT (Model 5), and the sze of the unversty, SIZ (Model 6). Although the coeffcent for SIZ s only margnally negatve and sgnfcant, t ndcates that professors from larger unverstes, n terms of total enrollment, receve, on average, lower overall qualty ratngs on RMP. If larger unverstes proxy for a hgher degree of research emphass, then ths fndng agrees wth Wes (1991) that research emphass leads to less tme for students. It s noteworthy to menton that Model 6, whch ncludes all sgnfcant varables n the model wth a p-value less than 0.50, has the hghest adjusted r-squared of percent among the models reported. Overall, the results presented n Table 5 ndcate that students ratng economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda on RMP heavly utlze both the perceved easness and hotness of the professors n assgnng ther ratngs. Both the coeffcents and the explanatory power of these two varables s farly consstent across the dfferent models, although the number of ratngs per professor, the gender of the professor beng rated, and the sze of the unversty are also sgnfcant. To accomplsh the second objectve, the correlaton coeffcent between RMP overall qualty ratngs and overall n-class nstructor ratngs for the subsample of 38 economcs professors was computed. The correlaton coeffcent was Whle ths coeffcent defntely ndcates a postve relatonshp between the two types of ratngs, t also ndcates that students use dfferent crtera when evaluatng ther professors n class versus on RMP. For example, even though the survey results dd not reveal ths, t could be that students usng RMP have an external locus of control, as argued by Grmes, Mllea, and Woodruff (2004). Moreover, the correlaton coeffcent may be low because some factors consdered mportant by students, such as tenure and promoton decsons (Gesey, Chen, and Hoshower [2004]) are not applcable to RMP ratngs or because of the small sample sze. The thrd objectve of the present study s to examne the overall n-class ratngs for the subset of 38 economcs professors n order to determne f they are sgnfcantly related to the clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness ratngs recorded on RMP. To accomplsh the thrd objectve, Equaton (2) was estmated. Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 14

15 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal Results from estmatng equaton (2) are dsplayed n Table 6 (Appendx). As n Table 5, the full model was estmated frst, then forward stepwse regresson was utlzed. In the full model n Table 5, the only sgnfcant varable s the RMP clarty ratng for the professor, wth a coeffcent of Ths ndcates that the n-class overall nstructor ratngs are, on average, 0.27 ponts hgher for every addtonal pont of perceved clarty as ndcated on RMP. Interestngly, nether the perceved RMP easness and hotness (EAS and HOT) are sgnfcant n the full model. In fact, when the forward stepwse regresson procedure s utlzed, both HOT and EAS enter the model n Models 3 and 4, respectvely, but nether varable s sgnfcant at tradtonal levels. However, Model 3, whch ncludes both clarty and hotness, has the hghest adjusted r- square of percent, ndcatng that percent of the varablty n n-class overall nstructor ratngs s explaned by the perceved clarty and hotness of the professor. The fndngs reported here contradct the fndngs by Hamermesh and Parker (2003) that there s a performance beauty premum. We note agan, however, that the sample utlzed here s small and that the subsample of students usng RMP may dffer from the total sample of students n the class. The results reported here are nevertheless nterestng because n-class nstructor evaluatons do not ask students to assess the easness and hotness of a professor. Consequently, ths s the frst study to nvestgate whether there s a drect relatonshp between the perceved easness and hotness of a professor and the n-class overall nstructor ratngs. Whle only 38 economcs professors at publc Florda unverstes are nvestgated here, the results reported here for ths small sample ndcate that students do not seem to reward easer or more attractve professors wth hgher n-class evaluatons. Thus, whle t appears that the ratngs students leave on RMP are drven prmarly by the perceved easness and hotness of the professor n queston, overall n-class ratngs are related only to the perceved clarty of the professor as ndcated by students on RMP. Easness and hotness of the professor, as ndcated by students on the webste, do not seem to drve the overall ratng of nstructor category for economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda. It should also be mentoned here that the RMP easness of a professor s very hghly correlated wth helpfulness and clarty. Thus, f students thnk a professor s easer because the professor s more clear n hs or her explanatons and/or because the professor s helpful, then we should expect the postve relatonshp between the RMP overall qualty ratng and easness. Ths conjecture s further soldfed by the survey results reported n Table 3, snce students perceve excellent professors to be those that are very clear and helpful and not those that are easy graders. From a productvty perspectve, these results ndcate that students, when they fll out the paper n-class evaluatons, actually assgn hgher ratngs to those professors that are the most clear n ther explanatons. Arguably, ths s a trat that s ndcatve of a productve teacher, as beng clear and concse n the classroom presumably ncreases student learnng. Ths s suggested both by Gesey, Chen, and Hoshower (2004) n that students consder the mprovement of teachng and course content mportant, and by Shevln, Bynard, Daves, and Grffths (2000) and Abram, Perry, and Leventhal (1982), who fnd that nstructor expressveness nfluences student evaluatons. It s stll possble, however, that factors found to nfluence teachng evaluatons n prevous research, such as professor experence (Cohen [1981, 1982]) or student/teacher atttude smlartes (Abram and Mzener [1983]), drve the results reported here. Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 15

16 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal VI. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of ths study s to nvestgate student ratngs recorded on RateMyProfessors.com (RMP), a publc webste that allows students to evaluate ther professors along varous crtera. The objectve of ths study s threefold. Frst, we seek to nvestgate whether RMP overall qualty ratngs are postvely related to the perceved easness and hotness crtera of economcs professors at publc unverstes n Florda. Second, we nvestgate whether the overall qualty ratngs on RMP are postvely correlated wth the overall n-class nstructor ratngs for a subset of publc Florda unverstes. Thrd, we seek to determne whether the overall n-class nstructor ratngs at publc Florda unverstes are sgnfcantly related to the clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness ratngs recorded on RMP. In an attempt to dentfy the reasons why students use RMP, a bref survey was conducted for a sample of 238 busness students at The Unversty of North Florda. The results from ths survey ndcate that: 1) students who have used RMP most commonly used t to rate an excellent professor; 2) students who have not used RMP are equally lkely to use the ste to rate excellent or extremely bad professors; 3) students, whether they have used RMP to rate professors or not, thnk that an excellent professor s one who s very clear n explanng dffcult concepts and who s very helpful and approachable; 4) students, whether they have used RMP to rate professors or not, thnk that an extremely bad professor s one who s ether nconsstent n course expectatons or who s unable to explan dffcult concepts. For a sample of 110 ratngs on RMP, our results ndcate that students who utlze RMP reward easy and hot professors wth a hgher ratng. On average, for every addtonal 10 percent of total ratngs that ndcate a professor s hot, that professor s total qualty ratng ncreases by approxmately 0.18 ponts on a 1 to 5 scale. For every addtonal pont of perceved easness on a 1 to 5 scale, the total qualty ratng ncreases by about 0.50 ponts. Our results also ndcate that the correlaton coeffcent between total qualty ratngs on RMP and the overall n-class ratngs for a subsample of 38 economcs professors at fve publc unverstes n Florda s Furthermore, when regressng overall n-class nstructor ratngs on clarty, helpfulness, easness, and hotness ratngs from RMP, only the professor s clarty enters the model n a forward stepwse regresson procedure nether easness, hotness, nor helpfulness appear mportant consderatons for students when they evaluate ther nstructor usng paper and pencl. These fndngs contradct the fndng by Hamermesh and Parker (2003), who fnd that nstructors who are vewed as better-lookng receve hgher nstructonal ratngs. However, our results are nterestng from an nstructonal standpont; Wlhelm (2004) argues that students are wllng to put up wth nstructors who receve poor course evaluatons f they beleve they wll gan a great deal of knowledge. Ths ndcates that students may assgn low course evaluatons for other reasons, but that they reward professors from whom they learn a lot. Arguably, clearer professors are better able to mpart knowledge on ther students, so agan the mportance of clarty s not surprsng. The fndngs reported here support the vew that students reward professors based on a crteron that arguable ncreases teachng productvty clarty. Consequently, t does not appear that economcs professors at publc Florda unverstes are hot and easy; at a mnmum, ther hotness and easness does not seem to be rewarded by students when they conduct ther n-class evaluatons. Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 16

17 Research n Hgher Educaton Journal Appendx Table 1. Suggested Ratng Gudelnes Posted on RMP. Do's o o o o Be honest. Poor spellng WILL NOT cause your ratng to be removed; however, poor spellng may result n your ratng beng dscredted by those who read t. Lmt your comments to the professor s professonal abltes. Try not to get personal. Try to be objectve n your assessment of the professor. Do Not's o Threaten to kll or harm your professor. Not only wll the ratng be deleted, but we wll notfy the authortes of your IP address and the tme you rated. Ths s enough nformaton to dentfy you. o Talk about your professor s sex lfe. Ths ncludes: Clamng that the professor sleeps wth students, even f he or she has slept wth you. Clamng that he or she s homosexual. o Drect racst, sexst or homophobc remarks at your professor. o Post ratngs for people who do not teach classes at your school. o Crtcze the way a professor looks or dresses. Appearances have lttle to do wth a professor s ablty to teach the materal. o Use the comment area to talk about rrelevant subjects lke the football team; comments should be pertnent to the class and/or the professor who teaches the class. o Include sexual nnuendo n your comment. o Sgn your comment wth your name, ntals, pseudo name, or any sort of dentfyng mark. o Put an e-mal address nto your comment. o Include a URL to a webpage or webste, unless t s relevant to the class. o Clam that the professor has been or wll be fred. o Rate a professor more than once for the same class. o Wrte your comments n any language other than Englsh (unless you attend a French-Canadan school). Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 17

18 Table 2. Summary Statstcs for A Sample of 110 RMP Ratngs for Economcs Professors at Publc Unverstes n Florda. Econ Profs Ratngs Male = 1 Total Enrollment b Rated a Per Prof Average , Medan , StDev , Mn Max , Hotness Easness d Helpfulness d Clarty d Overall Qualty d,e % c Average Medan StDev Mn Max Notes to Table 2: a Represents statstcs for the number of economcs professors at the eleven publc unverstes n Florda. b Total student enrollment (undergraduate and graduate) at the eleven publc unverstes n Florda durng the Fall Semester of 2004 as obtaned from the unversty webstes. The most recent enrollment data avalable for The Unversty of West Florda was for the 2002/2003 academc year. c Computed by dvdng the hotness ratng from RMP by the total number of ratngs per professor. d Helpfulness, clarty, and total qualty ratngs are on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). Professors wth a total qualty ratng of 5 receve a smley face on the RMP webste. Easness s on a scale from 1 (hardest) to 5 (easest). e The average of the helpfulness and clarty ratngs as posted by RMP

19 Table 3. Survey Results for 238 Students at The Unversty of North Florda. a,b Panel A General Questons (n = 238) I have heard about the webste called Yes: 208 (87.40%) No: 30 (12.60%) I have used the webste to fnd out how professors at a unversty are vewed by students. Yes: 154 (64.71%) No: 84 (35.29%) I have used the webste to rate one or more of my professors. Yes: 73 (30.67%) No: 165 (69.33%) How dd you frst learn about the ste Found t on the Internet: 8 (3.36%) Heard about t from a frend: 173 (72.69%) Read about t n a magazne or student publcaton: 5 (2.10%) My professor mentoned t n class: 31 (13.03%) Through ths survey: 21 (8.82%) Panel B Questons for Students Who Have Used RMP (n = 73) If you HAVE USED to rate one or more of your past or present professors, what s your current cumulatve GPA? (Remember that ths survey s anonymous, and honesty s of the utmost mportance to the valdty of the results). If you HAVE NOT USED select Not applcable as your answer : 0 (0.00%) : 2 (2.74%) : 31 (42.47%) : 40 (54.80%) If you HAVE USED to rate one or more of your past or present professors, whch of the followng best descrbes your status? If you HAVE NOT USED select Not applcable as your answer. Freshmen: 0 (0.00%) Sophomore: 1 (1.37%) Junor: 41 (56.16%) Senor: 22 (30.14%) Graduate: 9 (12.33%) Hot and Easy n Florda

20 If you HAVE USED to rate one or more of your past or present professors, whch of the followng best descrbes your major? If you HAVE NOT USED select Not applcable as your answer. Economcs: 1 (1.37%) Management: 16 (21.92%) Accountng: 10 (13.70%) Fnance: 17 (23.29%) Fnancal Servces: 1 (1.37%) Transportaton and Logstcs: 0 (0.00%) Internatonal Busness: 6 (8.22%) Marketng: 8 (10.96%) MBA: 9 (12.33%) MACC: 0 (0.00%) Other: 5 (6.85%) If you HAVE USED to rate one or more of your past or present professors, whch of the followng best descrbes the reason you rated the professor? If you have used the ste for more than one reason, select the answer that reflects your most sgnfcant reason. If you HAVE NOT USED to rate a professor, please select Not applcable as your answer to ths queston. I thought a professor was an excellent professor, and I wanted to provde other students who may take ths professor wth nformaton about hm or her: 29 (39.73%) I thought a professor was extremely bad, and I wanted to provde other students who may take ths professor wth nformaton about hm or her: 20 (27.40%) I thought a professor was of average qualty, and I wanted to provde other students who may take ths professor wth nformaton about hm or her: 5 (6.85%) I wanted to leave a favorable or unfavorable ratng for my own personal satsfacton, whether or not anyone else reads t: 16 (21.92%) None of the above: 3 (4.11%) If you HAVE USED to rate one or more of your past or present professors, what makes a professor excellent n your opnon? Answer ths queston even f you dd not rate your professor(s) as excellent. Even f you agree wth more than one statement, select only the answer that best descrbes your defnton of excellent. If you HAVE NOT USED select Not applcable as your answer. The professor s very clear n explanng dffcult concepts: 41 (56.16%) The professor s an easy grader: 5 (6.85%) The professor s very helpful n- and outsde of the classroom and s very approachable: 15 (20.55%) The professor s very good-lookng: 0 (0.00%) The professor s very far n gradng: 10 (13.70%) The professor s very respectful towards students: 0 (0.00%) Other: 2 (2.74%) Hot and Easy n Florda, Page 31