Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall stu

The author's argument that to enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors, which has resulted in the dramatic rise of the students' grade seems to be logical at the first glance. The argument could be correct if its premises were to be true. However the author has made use of assumption for which there is no supporting evidence and terms that lack definition.

First of all, the author has claimed that potential employers are skeptical of the dramtic increase in the students grades and think that the grades do not reflect the students' true potential. As a result the employment rates in Omega University are lower than the nearby Alpha University. The author has not provided any supporting evidence to link the deficit of jobs in Omega University to the dramatic increase of grades. There is no actual proof to show that the employers are really skeptical about the students' grades in Omega University. If the author were to quote the figues of some survey which would prove that the performance of Omega University students in job examinations is sigificantly below the performance of their counterparts from Alpha University who have the same grades, it would have provided significant credibility to his argument. If the author had quoted some member of an emplyement provider's recruitment team expressing skepticism towards the inflated grade points of the students in Alpha University,this would have provided strength to his argument.

Additionally,the author is of the opinion that the dramtic rise of grade points after the start of student evaluation of teaching effectiveness is a result of the teachers' fear of getting a bad evaluation if they do not give good grades. However, the author has not provided the time interval after which the thirty percent rise in grades was observed after the evaluation scheme was put in place. If the author were to state that the increase in grade was reflected immedately after the adoption of the evaluation scheme and even the weakest students' grades were increased, this may lend some strength to his opinion. However, if the rise in grades came after some considerable time after the evaluation echeme was adopted, the increase in grades could be a result of better teaching practises employed in class. The teachers after evaluation may have improved their ways of teaching which could have helped students perform beter in class. There is no evidence to state whether the rise has been observed categorically for all students or only for the above average and good students.

Summing up,the author may be correct in his argument that the increased grades of the students are a result of the evaluation scheme and the teachers are under pressure to please the students by increasing the grades so as to get a good evaluation in return, as a result, the potential employers are skeptical of the students grade, may be correct. However he has not provided enough supporting evidence in the above passage which can link the lower employment rates in Omega University to inflated grades and consequently to the teacher's evaluation scheme. Thus, in its present state the author's recommendation cannot be accepted.