Time’s Op-Ed Relies on Flawed “Landmark Study”(?), and “Comprehensive Analysis”?

Here is the linke to “A Solution for Bad Teaching” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/opinion/a-solution-for-bad-teaching.html?ref=opinion

Here is what I have already written about the study now being called “landmark”: Northwestern President Publishes Study About Northwestern And the National Bureau of Economic Research Publishes It?  and Is The Atlantic Right to Report on a Report the Way it Did?

Here is my comment on today’s New York Times article:

“I’m a former math professor who taught at an “elite” school similar to Penn and Northwestern, the two places that the author cites for a a “comprehensive analysis of data” and a “recent landmark study”.  I have problems with Prof. Grant’s assumptions that are based on these reports.

Fritst, the “landmark study” from Northwestern was coauthored by the President of Northwestern.  This is from the abstract: “This study makes use of…data from…students at Northwestern University….We find…evidence that students learn relatively more from non-tenure line professors in their introductory courses…”

Is it a “landmark” paper when the university’s president finds that students at HIS university learn well from adjuncts?  Does the university’s president have a horse in this race?  Would we accept such a study about a car manufacturer’s own cars?

The  other report, the “comprehensive analysis” finds no connection between “research productivity” and “teaching ratings”.  The famous sociogist David Rieman noted that student “wants” are not the same as “student” needs.  From my years of experience it is not true that high teaching ratings (without any qualifications about exactly what that means) equals high teaching performance.  It usually just means “happy students”.  Satisfying students “wants” can get high ratings.  In many places, Students evaluations  are just marketing tools.

Once we are careful and honest about what real teaching is, we can talk about who should do it.”