What about taking into account each student's performance in the class? In other words, partition the evaluations into sets based on the students' performance. Then you'd end up with a spectrum of instructor ratings, from F to A, not an average.
If the institution wants to make a choice of instructors for an introductory course, they might want to select the instructor with the higher low-grade rating. The intuition here is that well-performing students in an introductory course might have prior knowledge, so their ratings add noise.
If the institution wants to compare two instructors overall, they can compare their spectra after subtracting the skew that results from low-performers evaluating poorly and high-performers evaluating highly. What remains is some picture of how the instructor handles students of different strengths and weaknesses, which (I think) is the best measure of a teacher.
Perhaps in an effort to ensure success with their reboot of Candid Camera, it seems like they decided to go with pranks that are more plausible than were historically done. I think this'll end up being more sad than funny.
The Candid Camera episodes I remember watching often involved slapstick humor and ridiculous clown music. What music will they play during the scene where New Yorkers agree to recall imaginary state officials?
If the institution wants to make a choice of instructors for an introductory course, they might want to select the instructor with the higher low-grade rating. The intuition here is that well-performing students in an introductory course might have prior knowledge, so their ratings add noise.
If the institution wants to compare two instructors overall, they can compare their spectra after subtracting the skew that results from low-performers evaluating poorly and high-performers evaluating highly. What remains is some picture of how the instructor handles students of different strengths and weaknesses, which (I think) is the best measure of a teacher.