The Student Evaluation of Teaching Premium for Clinical Faculty in Economics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Prior Literature
2.1. Academic Discipline Effects in SETs
2.2. Gender and Other Demographic Effects in SETs
2.3. Grading Effect in SETs
2.4. Experience Effect in SETs
2.5. Efficacy of RMP Data in Academic Research
2.6. Use of RMP Data in Academic Research
3. Econometric Model
4. Data
5. Econometric Results and Discussion
5.1. Individual Level Results
5.2. Sensitivity Analysis
5.3. Institutional Effects Estimates
5.4. Department Level Results
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
University of Alabama, Huntsville | Georgia Institute of Technology | University of Pittsburgh |
---|---|---|
Arizona State University | Harvard University | Purdue University |
University of Arkansas | Johns Hopkins University | Quinnipiac University |
Ball State University | University of Houston | University of Rhode Island |
Baylor University | University of Illinois | University of Rochester |
Boston College | University of Illinois, Chicago | Rutgers University |
Bowling Green State University | Iowa State University | Oklahoma State University |
University at Buffalo | University of Kansas | Rutgers University, Camden |
University of California, Berkeley | Kansas State University | University of San Diego |
University of California, Davis | University of Kentucky | Seattle University |
University of California, Irvine | Kennesaw State University | University of South Carolina |
University of California, Merced | Lehigh University | University of South Florida |
University of California, Riverside | University of Massachusetts, Lowell | Syracuse University |
University of California, San Diego | University of Memphis | Temple University |
Carnegie Mellon University | University of Miami | University of Texas |
University of Chicago | University of Mississippi | University of Texas, Arlington |
Clemson University | Mississippi State University | University of Texas, El Paso |
University of Colorado | University of Missouri | University of Texas, San Antonio |
University of Colorado, Denver | University of Nebraska | Texas A&M University |
Colorado School of Mines | University of Nevada, Reno | Tufts University |
University of Denver | New York University | Tulane University |
DePaul University | University of North Carolina | Villanova University |
Drexel University | University of North Carolina, Charlotte | Wake Forest University |
Duke University | North Carolina State University | University of Washington |
Emory University | Northeastern University | Washington University, St. Louis |
University of Florida | Northwestern University | Wichita State University |
Florida International University | University of Notre Dame | University of Wisconsin, La Crosse |
Florida State University | University of Oregon | University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh |
Georgetown University | Pennsylvania State University | Worcester Polytechnic Institute |
Georgia State University | Pepperdine University | Xavier University |
References
- Pieters, G.; Roark, C. The job market for non-tenure track academic economists. In FOCUS: A Guide for Non-Tenure Track Faculty; Shreyasee, D., Seth, G., Eds.; CSWEP News, American Economic Association: Nashville, TN, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Mixon, F.G., Jr.; Upadhyaya, K.P. When forgiveness beats permission: Exploring the scholarly ethos of clinical faculty in economics. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 2024, 83, 75–91. [Google Scholar]
- Asali, M. A tale of two tracks. Educ. Econ. 2019, 27, 323–337. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, M.; Sweeney, C. Faculty research productivity under alternative appointment types: Tenure vs non-tenure track. Manag. Financ. 2017, 43, 1348–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ran, F.X.; Xu, D. Does contractual form matter? The impact of different types of non-tenure-track faculty on college students’ academic outcomes. J. Hum. Resour. 2019, 54, 1081–1120. [Google Scholar]
- Hilmer, C.; Hilmer, M. On the labor market for full-time non-tenure-track lecturers in economics. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2020, 78, 102023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- August, E.; Power, L.; Youatt, E.; Anderson, O. What does it mean to be a clinical track faculty member in public health? A survey of clinical track faculty across the United States. Public Health Rep. 2022, 137, 1235–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ongeri, J.D. Poor student evaluation of teaching in economics: A critical survey of the literature. Australas. J. Econ. Educ. 2009, 6, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Asarta, C.; Chambers, R.; Harter, C. Teaching methods in undergraduate introductory economics courses: Results from a sixth national quinquennial survey. Am. Econ. 2021, 66, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
- McPherson, M.A. Determinants of how students evaluate teachers. J. Econ. Educ. 2006, 37, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McPherson, M.A.; Jewell, R.T.; Kim, M. What determines student evaluation scores? A random effects analysis of undergraduate economics classes. East. Econ. J. 2009, 35, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liaw, S.-H.; Goh, K.-L. Evidence and control of biases in student evaluations of teaching. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2003, 17, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, N.; Rieger, M.; Voorvelt, K. Gender, ethnicity and teaching evaluations: Evidence from mixed teaching teams. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2016, 54, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boring, A. Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. J. Public Econ. 2017, 145, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mengel, F.; Sauermann, J.; Zölitz, U. Gender bias in teaching evaluations. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2019, 17, 535–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keng, S.-H. Gender bias and statistical discrimination against female instructors in student evaluations of teaching. Labour Econ. 2020, 66, 101889. [Google Scholar]
- Buser, W.; Hayter, J.; Marshall, E.C. Gender bias and temporal effects in standard evaluations of teaching. AER Pap. Proc. 2019, 109, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chisadza, C.; Nicholls, N.; Yitbarek, E. Race and gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Econ. Lett. 2019, 179, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Y.; Shepherd, L.J.; Slavich, D.; Waters, D.; Stone, M.; Abel, R.; Johnston, E.L. Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, 0209749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chávez, K.; Mitchell, K.M.W. Exploring bias in student evaluations: Gender, race, and ethnicity. Political Sci. Politics 2020, 53, 270–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Gonzalez, J.A. Racial/ethnic and national origin bias in SET. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 28, 843–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreitzer, R.J.; Sweet-Cushman, J. Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. J. Acad. Ethics 2022, 20, 73–84. [Google Scholar]
- Basow, S.; Codos, S.; Martin, J. The effects of professors’ race and gender on student evaluations and performance. Coll. Stud. J. 2013, 47, 352–363. [Google Scholar]
- Heffernan, T. Abusive comments in student evaluations of courses and teaching: The attacks women and marginalized academics endure. High. Educ. 2023, 85, 225–239. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, J.; Gaffney-Rhys, R.; Jones, E. Handle with care! An exploration of the potential risks associated with the publication and summative usage of student evaluation of teaching (SET) results. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2014, 38, 37–56. [Google Scholar]
- Tucker, B. Student evaluation surveys: Anonymous comments that offend or are unprofessional. High. Educ. 2014, 68, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uttl, B.; Smibert, D. Student evaluations of teaching: Teaching quantitative courses can be hazardous to one’s career. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiPietro, M.; Faye, A. Online student-ratings-of-instruction (SRI) mechanisms for maximal feedback to instructors. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meetings of the Professional and Organizational Development Network, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hamermesh, D.S.; Parker, A. Beauty in the classroom: Instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2005, 24, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krautmann, A.C.; Sander, W. Grades and student evaluations of teachers. Econ. Educ. Rev. 1999, 18, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matos-Díaz, H.; Ragan, J.F., Jr. Do student evaluations of teaching depend on the distribution of expected grade? Educ. Econ. 2010, 18, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alauddin, M.; Kifle, T. Does the student evaluation of teaching instrument really measure instructors’ teaching effectiveness? An econometric analysis of students’ perceptions in economics courses. Econ. Anal. Policy 2014, 44, 156–168. [Google Scholar]
- Bacon, D.R.; Johnson, C.J.; Stewart, K.A. Nonresponse bias in student evaluations of teaching. Mark. Educ. Rev. 2016, 26, 93–104. [Google Scholar]
- Layne, B.H.; Decristoforo, J.R.; McGinty, D. Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction. Res. High. Educ. 1999, 40, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avery, R.J.; Bryant, W.K.; Mathios, A.; Kang, H.; Bell, D. Electronic course evaluations: Does an online delivery system influence student evaluations? J. Econ. Educ. 2006, 37, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowell, C.; Gale, L.R.; Kerkvliet, J. Non-response bias in student evaluations of teaching. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 2014, 17, 30–38. [Google Scholar]
- Heckman, J.J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1979, 47, 153–161. [Google Scholar]
- Bleske-Rechek, A.; Michels, K. RateMyProfessors.com: Testing assumptions about student use and misuse. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2010, 15, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Coladarci, T.; Kornfield, I. RateMyProfessors.com versus formal in-class student evaluations of teaching. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2019, 12, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Timmerman, T. On the validity of RateMyProfessors.com. J. Educ. Bus. 2008, 84, 55–61. [Google Scholar]
- Albrecht, W.S.; Hoopes, J. An empirical assessment of commercial web-based professor evaluation services. J. Account. Educ. 2009, 27, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, M.J.; Baillie, M.; Fraser, S. Rating Ratemyprofessors.com: A Comparison of Online and Official Student Evaluations of Teaching. Coll. Teach. 2009, 57, 89–92. [Google Scholar]
- Sonntag, M.E.; Bassett, J.F.; Synder, T. An empirical test of the validity of student evaluations of teaching made on RateMyProfessors.com. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2009, 34, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, J.; Sanford, D.A., Jr.; Ross, D.N. Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2008, 33, 355–368. [Google Scholar]
- Hartman, K.B.; Hunt, J.B. What Ratemyprofessors.com reveals about how and why students evaluate their professors: A glimpse into the student mind-set. Mark. Educ. Rev. 2013, 23, 151–162. [Google Scholar]
- Chou, S.Y.; Luo, J.; Ramser, C. High-quality vs low-quality teaching: A text-mining study to understand student sentiments in public online teaching reviews. J. Int. Educ. Bus. 2021, 14, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constand, R.L.; Pace, R.D. Student evaluations of finance faculty: Perceived difficulty means lower faculty evaluations. J. Financ. Educ. 2014, 40, 14–28, 30–44. [Google Scholar]
- Boehmer, D.M.; Wood, W.C. Student vs. faculty perspectives on quality instruction: Gender bias, ‘hotness,’ and ‘easiness’ in evaluating teaching. J. Educ. Bus. 2017, 92, 173–178. [Google Scholar]
- Constand, R.L.; Pace, R.D.; Clarke, N. Accounting faculty teaching ratings: Are they lower because accounting classes are more difficult? J. Account. Financ. 2016, 16, 70–86. [Google Scholar]
- Constand, R.L.; Clarke, N. How class and professor characteristics are related to finance faculty teaching ratings. J. Financ. Educ. 2017, 43, 101–119. [Google Scholar]
- Constand, R.L.; Clarke, N.; Morgan, M. An analysis of the relationships between management faculty teaching ratings and characteristics of the classes they teach. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2018, 16, 166–179. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, R.E. Faculty scholarship has a profound positive association with student evaluations of teaching—Except when it doesn’t. J. Mark. Educ. 2016, 38, 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, K. Getting econometrics students to evaluate student evaluations. In Shaping the Learning Curve: Essays on Economic Education; Mixon, F.G., Jr., Ed.; iUniverse: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 15–25. [Google Scholar]
- Mixon, F.G., Jr.; Smith, K.W. Instructor attractiveness and academic rigour: Examination of student evaluation data. Australas. J. Econ. Educ. 2013, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Green, T.G.; Mixon, F.G., Jr.; Treviño, L.G. Have you seen the new econ prof? Beauty, teaching, and occupational choice in higher education. In Shaping the Learning Curve: Essays on Economic Education; Mixon, F.G., Jr., Ed.; iUniverse: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 57–67. [Google Scholar]
- Green, T.G.; Mixon, F.G., Jr.; Treviño, L.J. Instructor attractiveness and institutional choice in economics: A decomposition approach. In New Developments in Economic Education; Mixon, F.G., Jr., Cebula, R.J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 209–217. [Google Scholar]
- Osoian, C.; Nistor, R.; Zaharie, M.; Flueras, H. Improving higher education through student satisfaction surveys. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education Technology and Computer, Shanghai, China, 22–24 June 2010; Volume 2, pp. 436–440. [Google Scholar]
- Benton, S.L.; Cashin, W.E. Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of Research and Literature; IDEA Paper Series; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sabatier, M. Do female researchers face a glass ceiling in France? A hazard model of promotions. Appl. Econ. 2010, 42, 2053–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooray, A.; Verma, R.; Wright, L. Does a gender disparity exist in academic rank? Evidence from an Australian university. Appl. Econ. 2014, 46, 2441–2451. [Google Scholar]
- Bukstein, D.; Gandelman, N. Glass ceilings in research: Evidence from a national program in Uruguay. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1550–1563. [Google Scholar]
- Thorndyke, L.E.; Milner, R.J.; Jaffe, L.A. Endowed chairs and professorships: A new frontier in gender equity. Acad. Med. 2022, 97, 1643–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 1980, 48, 817–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70, 41–55. [Google Scholar]
- Narita, K.; Tena, J.D.; Detotto, C. Causal inference with observational data: A tutorial on propensity score analysis. Leadersh. Q. 2023, 34, 101678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imbens, G.W. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 2000, 87, 706–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Variable Description | Mean | Std. Dev. | N |
---|---|---|---|---|
TeachQuali | Mean of teaching quality ratings (1 to 5) for each faculty, i. | 3.419 | 0.831 | 947 |
Femalei | Dummy variable equal to 1 if faculty i is female, and 0 otherwise. | 0.265 | 0.442 | 947 |
FullProfi | Dummy variable equal to 1 if faculty i is a full professor, and 0 otherwise. | 0.511 | 0.500 | 947 |
AssocProfi | Dummy variable equal to 1 if faculty i is an associate professor, and 0 otherwise. | 0.301 | 0.459 | 947 |
ClinicalProfi | Dummy variable equal to 1 if faculty i is classified as a clinical professor, and 0 otherwise. | 0.246 | 0.431 | 947 |
NamedProfi | Dummy variable equal to 1 if faculty i holds a named professorship, and 0 otherwise. | 0.137 | 0.344 | 947 |
Privatei | Dummy variable equal to 1 if faculty i is employed by a private university, and 0 otherwise. | 0.280 | 0.449 | 947 |
Facilitiesi | Mean of facilities quality ratings (1 to 5) of university employing each faculty, i. | 4.154 | 0.354 | 947 |
Interneti | Mean of internet quality ratings (1 to 5) of university employing each faculty, i. | 3.713 | 0.306 | 947 |
MedSATi | Median SAT score for incoming freshman of university employing each faculty, i. | 1299.8 | 120.7 | 936 |
SFRatioi | Student-to-faculty ratio of university employing each faculty, i. | 16.23 | 4.761 | 939 |
PctFew20i | Percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students offered by university employing each faculty, i. | 44.50 | 13.18 | 939 |
DiffCoursei | Mean of course difficulty ratings (1 to 5) for each faculty, i. | 3.374 | 0.596 | 947 |
TeachQual | Female | FullProf | AssocProf | ClinicalProf | NamedProf | Private | Facilities | Internet | MedSAT | SFRatio | PctFew20 | |
Female | −0.011 | |||||||||||
FullProf | −0.033 | −0.222 | ||||||||||
AssocProf | +0.032 | +0.107 | −0.671 | |||||||||
ClinicalProf | +0.125 | +0.212 | −0.197 | +0.037 | ||||||||
NamedProf | −0.016 | −0.128 | +0.341 | −0.208 | −0.178 | |||||||
Private | +0.047 | −0.039 | +0.087 | −0.014 | +0.004 | +0.032 | ||||||
Facilities | −0.057 | −0.033 | +0.082 | −0.076 | −0.030 | +0.063 | +0.143 | |||||
Internet | −0.048 | −0.057 | +0.063 | −0.039 | +0.025 | +0.067 | +0.189 | +0.560 | ||||
MedSAT | −0.007 | −0.015 | +0.174 | −0.109 | −0.013 | +0.112 | +0.566 | +0.270 | +0.415 | |||
SFRatio | −0.029 | +0.041 | −0.118 | +0.051 | −0.008 | −0.027 | −0.765 | −0.222 | −0.153 | −0.645 | ||
PctFew20 | +0.021 | −0.056 | +0.123 | −0.057 | −0.020 | +0.129 | +0.653 | +0.207 | +0.207 | +0.612 | −0.674 | |
DiffCourse | −0.446 | −0.040 | −0.011 | −0.009 | −0.131 | +0.002 | −0.006 | +0.083 | −0.002 | +0.018 | −0.030 | −0.017 |
Regressors | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
constant | 2.875 * (3.33) | 2.532 * (3.40) | 1.802 * (18.66) | 1.776 * (19.87) |
Female | −0.028 (−1.45) | −0.029 (−1.48) | −0.035 † (−1.90) | −0.039 ‡ (−2.06) |
FullProf | 0.004 (0.15) | 0.004 (0.15) | −0.009 (−0.36) | −0.011 (−0.46) |
AssocProf | 0.020 (0.76) | 0.020 (0.76) | 0.008 (0.31) | 0.006 (0.25) |
ClinicalProf | 0.043 ‡ (2.11) | 0.043 ‡ (2.14) | 0.047 ‡ (2.25) | 0.038 † (1.81) |
NamedProf | −0.004 (−0.16) | −0.004 (−0.14) | −0.003 (−0.13) | −0.015 (−0.53) |
NamedProf × ClinicalProf | 0.201 * (2.74) | |||
Private | 0.033 (1.17) | 0.048 ‡ (2.16) | ||
lnFacilities | 0.034 (0.33) | 0.049 (0.48) | ||
lnInternet | −0.204 † (−1.67) | −0.222 † (−1.84) | ||
lnMedSAT | −0.096 (−0.82) | −0.047 (−0.41) | ||
lnSFRatio | −0.022 (−0.51) | |||
lnPctFew20 | −0.018 (−0.51) | |||
lnCourseDiff | −0.611 * (−11.42) | −0.611 * (−11.43) | −0.627 * (−11.67) | −0.627 * (−11.71) |
Institution Effects | no | no | yes | yes |
n | 936 | 936 | 947 | 947 |
F-statistic | 19.65 * | 19.65 * | 3.78 * | 3.79 * |
R2 | 0.190 | 0.190 | 0.294 | 0.297 |
ATE | (1) | (2) |
---|---|---|
ClinicalProf (1 vs. 0) | 0.056 ‡ (2.54) | 0.059 ‡ (2.54) |
Rank | Institution | DeptTQual | Rank | Institution | DeptTQual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | University of California, Merced | 4.267 | 16 | Florida State University | 3.671 |
2 | Boston College | 4.050 | 17 | Northwestern University | 3.650 |
3 | University of Florida | 4.025 | 18 | University of Rhode Island | 3.644 |
4 | University of Illinois, Chicago | 3.944 | 19 | Tulane University | 3.640 |
5 | University of Texas, Arlington | 3.920 | 20 | University of Houston | 3.621 |
6 | University of Massachusetts, Lowell | 3.914 | 21 | University of Nebraska | 3.613 |
7 | Rutgers University, Camden | 3.900 | 22 | University of Memphis | 3.600 |
Seattle University | 3.900 | University of North Carolina, Charlotte | 3.600 | ||
9 | University of Wisconsin, La Crosse | 3.850 | 24 | DePaul University | 3.594 |
10 | University of Miami | 3.810 | 25 | Villanova University | 3.591 |
University of San Diego | 3.810 | 26 | University of Texas, San Antonio | 3.588 | |
12 | Purdue University | 3.792 | 27 | Ball State University | 3.582 |
13 | Lehigh University | 3.713 | 28 | University of Chicago | 3.567 |
14 | University of Texas | 3.693 | 29 | Rutgers University | 3.550 |
15 | Washington University, St. Louis | 3.673 | 30 | Wake Forest University | 3.533 |
Regressors | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
constant | 1.812 * (21.4) | 1.798 * (21.9) | 1.801 * (19.0) | 1.798 * (19.4) |
lnFacultyRank | −0.079 (−1.31) | −0.068 (−1.34) | ||
lnClinicalProfRatio | 0.032 * (2.91) | 0.035 * (2.94) | 0.033 * (2.98) | 0.035 * (2.94) |
Private | 0.007 (0.53) | 0.000 (0.00) | ||
lnDCourseDiff | −0.327 * (−4.36) | −0.364 * (−6.06) | −0.321 * (−4.00) | |
n | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
F-statistic | 6.62 * | 8.11 * | 9.02 * | 12.63 * |
R2 | 0.514 | 0.483 | 0.510 | 0.483 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bordere, J.; Carter, F.; Caudill, S.; Mixon, F., Jr. The Student Evaluation of Teaching Premium for Clinical Faculty in Economics. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010107
Bordere J, Carter F, Caudill S, Mixon F Jr. The Student Evaluation of Teaching Premium for Clinical Faculty in Economics. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(1):107. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010107
Chicago/Turabian StyleBordere, Jasmine, Fonda Carter, Steven Caudill, and Franklin Mixon, Jr. 2024. "The Student Evaluation of Teaching Premium for Clinical Faculty in Economics" Education Sciences 14, no. 1: 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010107