IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v92y2025i2p637-661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sentiment Analysis of Teaching Evaluations: Evidence From Nearly 8 Million Rate My Professor Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Jose M. Fernandez
  • Erin Yetter

Abstract

Student‐driven teaching evaluations are commonly used in faculty assessments but are known to exhibit gender and racial biases. Despite this, some argue that student comments provide meaningful feedback. Using over 8 million reviews from RateMyProfessors.com, we apply sentiment analysis to evaluate bias in student comments. We find that while comments exhibit similar biases as numerical scores, the effects are more muted. On average, numerical ratings are 2% lower for female instructors and 6% lower for minority instructors. Sentiment scores are 2% lower for female instructors and 3.6%–8.6% lower for minority instructors. These penalties increase with course difficulty but do not vary by institution type. In economics departments, numerical ratings are lower for female and minority instructors; these differences remain statistically significant when sentiment scores are considered. Importantly, nearly 30% of the variation in evaluation scores can be explained by student sentiment, highlighting the influence of subjective language.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose M. Fernandez & Erin Yetter, 2025. "Sentiment Analysis of Teaching Evaluations: Evidence From Nearly 8 Million Rate My Professor Reviews," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 92(2), pages 637-661, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:92:y:2025:i:2:p:637-661
    DOI: 10.1002/soej.12787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12787
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/soej.12787?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:92:y:2025:i:2:p:637-661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.