University: Sun Yat-sen University
April 16, 2020 at 3:05 am
At first glance, the argument seems to be convincing to some degree, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logical mistakes which make it by no means plausible. The statement draws the conclusion that student evaluation of professors should be stopped. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out that teachers give students better grades for the sake of getting higher evaluation in return and it directly causes the lower employment rate of graduates. Merely based on such reasoning and insufficient evidence, the argument is rife with holes, and it is unpersuasive.
The argument attributes the rise of students’ grades to the implement of student evaluation of professors, but it is wrong. There are many factors that can contribute to higher grades. Perhaps the school has increased the amount of scholarship or tightened the standard of conferring degrees so as to encourage students to study harder and get better grades. Another possible case is that the teachers make greater effort in teaching for higher evaluation from students. Therefore, the evaluation system is not necessarily the only reason for raising grades.
Even if it is student evaluation of professors that result in the shift of scores, this is not the cause for lower employment of the students. I must point out that besides grades, there are many other factors that have impacts on employment of students, such as education quality, the behavior of former students and so on. Perhaps Alpha University has ranked better than Omega University for years, or perhaps Alpha pays more attention to students’ job training.
Even assuming that lower employment rate is the result of the grades, canceling the evaluation may not be feasible. As both professors and students of Omega have gotten used to such measure, they may prefer to maintain the status quo and this makes it difficult to forsake it. Moreover, if Omega ranks lower than Alpha, it needs a long time effort to improve in various facets such as the quality of teachers and students, the education system or even the ethos of the university. As both professors and students of Omega have gotten used to such measure, they may prefer to maintain the status quo and this makes it difficult to forsake it.
To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate his conclusion to terminate the evaluation. His analysis does not lend strong support to what the argument maintains. He also fails to consider other reasons for why Omega graduates are less successful in getting jobs, and therefore fails to put forward various measures to solve the problem. If the argument had included the factors discussed above, it would be more convincing and logically acceptable.