Below is a link to my entry on
I'd just like to make a couple of suggestions first: Since I'm a lab instructor, it probably makes sense that my comments are about how to make the data which ratings represent more useful. I think ratings like this can be valuable, especially if people doing them make a little effort to make their input meaningful.
(Oh, and one more point: if your spelling and grammar are good, it makes your comments carry more weight. If you're trying to question someone else's competence, and you can't produce a correct sentence yourself, your credibility isn't great.)

Here's the link to my rating.

Here's another site, but it doesn't get nearly as much traffic. (I'm not even on there as of June 2009).

Here's the link to WLU on
If there are any more you think I should know about, let me know.

Here's a fascinating link (from RateMyProfessors) about looks and ratings.
Here's a link on how profs can chemically improve their ratings.

Here's a bit of research I did; I took the ratings for all instructors listed for Laurier (on December 5, 2005), and did a least squares fit of quality as a function of easiness. I found Thus if you take a person's score for easiness, their predicted quality would be q= 0.58*(easiness) + 1.71.
The graph looks like this:
Anyone whose rated quality is higher than that must be doing something well. (Incidentally, my rated quality is below, for what it's worth.)
You could be a bit more discriminating than that; if you include the standard errors, you can make three categories:
  1. low; where rated quality is below q= 0.53*(easiness) + 1.56, which is the lower bound with the errors
  2. high; where rated quality is above q= 0.63*(easiness) + 1.86, which is the upper bound with the errors
  3. medium; in between the two above
This makes a bit of difference from the categories used by the website, which is
  1. low; where rated quality is below 2.5
  2. high; where rated quality is above 3.5
  3. medium; where rated quality is between 2.5 and 3.5
For instance, if you get rated 1 for easiness, (ie. fire-breathing), if you get a rated quality of 2.49 or above you're doing well. On the other hand, if you get rated 5 for easiness, (ie. give marks away like Santa Claus), then rated quality of 4.5 is really still mediocre.
The philosophical question this raises is whether being easy gets a higher quality rating, or whether being of good quality gets a higher easiness rating. (Can you even distinguish those???)


To view pdf documents, you can download Adobe Acrobat Reader .
get Acrobat Reader
If you need to update a browser, you might try Firefox which is Get Firefox!
Since this page uses cascading style sheets for its layout, it will look best with a browser which supports the specifications as fully as possible.

If you are looking for an office package, with a word processor, spreadsheet, etc., you might try LibreOffice which is Get LibreOffice!

Go to the main page for the Department of Physics and Computer Science.

Valid XHTML 1.1

Valid CSS!

(Level AA)

Wilfrid Laurier University