1. A BSTRACT Student evaluations of teachers are an important part of the university decision-making process. Therefore, factors beyond objective teaching capabilities that affect such evaluations must be examined. Undergraduate students may be influenced by online information about potential instructors, including the subjective ratings at sites such as ratemyprofessor.com. Instructor gender has long been hypothesized to affect undergraduate ratings of instructors, but analytical results about their impacts have been inconsistent. However, certain patterns of gender and student evaluations have emerged: female teachers are rated lower by male students 1, female teachers in traditionally male fields are rated especially low 2, and aspects such as professionalism and authority are rated lower in females than in males 3. Using an online teacher evaluation site, we explore hypotheses about the effects of gender on teaching evaluations at two universities. Field of research and judgments about instructor appearance were analyzed to gain insight into this vital but unresolved dynamic in student perceptions. These results are essential in understanding and addressing the impact of gender biases on the content of digital information. 1 Basow, Susan A.,2000 2 Centra, John A. and Noreen B. Gaubatz, 2000 3 Basow et al., 2006 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics NOverall RatingHelpfulnessClarityEasiness U-Chicago Chemistry Males Hot Not Females Hot Not English Males Hot Not Females Hot Not 7 46 5 12 11 24 12 27 4.22 (.442) 2.92 (.996) 4.74 (.270) 2.66 (1.12) 4.13 (.467) 3.80 (.601) 4.16 (.605) 3.57 (1.19) 4.18 (.620) 2.96 (1.04) 4.74 (.219) 2.51 (1.25) 4.29 (.467) 3.82 (.721) 4.21 (.678) 3.58 (1.34) 4.24 (.359) 2.87 (1.03) 4.72 (.342) 2.81 (1.11) 4.00 (.786) 3.75 (.561) 4.10 (.564) 3.58 (1.13) 3.45 (1.49) 2.54 (.986) 4.08 (.998) 2.20 (1.05) 3.30 (.684) 3.40 (.763) 3.01 (.795) 3.22 (.977) Urbana-Champaign Chemistry Males Hot Not Females Hot Not English Males Hot Not Females Hot Not 13 40 5 18 10 25 15 22 4.46 (.672) 3.34 (1.18) 3.88 (.609) 2.66 (1.09) 4.63 (.386) 3.48 (1.00) 4.52 (.499) 3.59 (.907) 4.46 (.734) 3.33 (1.24) 3.82 (.637) 2.65 (1.24) 4.57 (.442) 3.38 (1.04) 4.58 (.414) 3.76 (.968) 4.48 (.654) 3.37 (1.15) 3.96 (.665) 2.68 (.973) 4.66 (.368) 3.58 (1.09) 4.47 (.608) 3.42 (.980) 2.67 (1.05) 2.56 (.809) 2.56 (.550) 2.29 (.664) 3.41 (.486) 3.04 (.793) 3.44 (.479) 3.09 (.963) The mean is reported with standard deviation in parentheses Figure 1: Interaction of Sex/Department on Overall Rating at UIUC “Something is hot in this class, and I'm not talking about the Bunsen burner.” An Analysis of Gender by Department on ratemyprofessor.com Rachel Williams (University of Wisconsin) and Michelle Dillon (University of Washington) R ESULTS AND C ONCLUSION Student ratings in this sample appear to be more dependent upon department than upon sex, with males and females in the English department being rated more highly than males and females in the Chemistry department on all measures. Individuals rated as “Hot” were also rated more highly on all measures, but non-“Hot” females were not rated significantly lower than non-“Hot” males. Descriptive words for females centered on maternal capacities, although females were not rated as easier or more helpful overall. Male instructors were often described in terms of chumminess. Unexpectedly, results showed a three-way interaction between the university, the department, and the sex of the instructor. Female instructors in Chemistry who taught at UIUC were rated much more negatively than their counterparts at UIC. This indicates that previously inconsistent data concerning sex and student evaluations may be attributable to differences in the sample populations, a finding that merits further investigation. Figure 2: Interaction of Sex/Department on Helpfulness at UIUC Sex Dept School Hot School*Sex Dept*School Sex*Dept School*Sex*Dept Hot*Sex Constant 1 -.12 (.11).60 (.12) *** 3.5 (.06) 2.58 (.10) ***.16 (.12) 3.5 (.06) 3.45 (.12) *** 1.0 (.10) *** 3.5 (.05) 4 -.05 (.13) 1.0 (.08) ***.04 (.19) 3.5 (.05) 5 -.12 (.15).60 (.13) ***.10 (.11) -.28 (.31) -.15 (.28).26 (.27) 1.1 (.52) ** 3.5 (.06) 6 UIUC -.31 (.16) *.42 (.18) ** 1.0 (.14) ***.69 (.25) *** 3.3 (.11) R-Squared Adj. R-Squared N.07.06 292.07 292.24.23 292.19.18 292.10.08 292.28.26 148 The coefficient is reported with standard error in parentheses *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 90%, 95%, and 99% level, respectively Table 1: Linear Regression Results for Overall Ratings (Bootstrap replications=50) M ETHODOLOGY Data were collected from ratemyprofessor.com, a publically accessible student evaluation website. Two universities (University of Illinois Chicago and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) were chosen for their close proximity and extended presence on the site. Ratings from the Chemistry department and English department from each university were examined: easiness, helpfulness, clarity, overall rating (an average of the previous three; all ranged from 1 to 5) and hotness (indicated by a chili pepper; this rating was dichotomous) were recorded. Every instructor from each Chemistry department and every third instructor from each English department were included, due to the inclusion of 3 times the English department instructors on the site. Linear regressions with bootstrapping were used to analyze the data, due to slightly non-parametric data. Comments left by students were also examined for sex-biased patterns. S TUDENT C OMMENTS Common positive adjectives for males: “cool,” “funny,” “smart” Common positive adjectives for females: “nice,” “helpful,” “caring” Common negative adjectives for males: “arrogant,” “unfair,” “boring” Common negative adjectives for females: “condescending,” “harsh,” “boring”