Lane Dreslin, Alison Johnson, Kyra Magda, Emily Posner, Eliana Shyley Simhai
UCLA’s student review website, BruinWalk, has approximately 18,800 users and 85,000-course reviews (Danesh & Danesh, 2021). Student evaluations are a pivotal research for several students, however, a 2021 study found that “student evaluations of teaching seem to measure conformity with gendered expectations, rather than teaching quality…” (Adams et al., 2021). In American culture, gender expectations for men include strength, assertiveness, & drive, while gender expectations for women include niceness, sociability, & interpersonal sensitivity (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Instructors seem to receive praise for conforming to gender expectations – women as nurturers and men as leaders in the classroom (Adams et al., 2022). Similarly, a 2023 study on gender bias in student evaluations found that the most common praise terms used for female professors revolved around kindness and support, while males were most frequently praised for intelligence and knowledge (Zheng et al., 2023). Therefore, praise words may function as rewards for conforming to gender norms. Our research project focuses on UCLA BruinWalk reviews and the possible presence of gender bias in student word choice.
Introduction
As students navigate through the difficult times of college, having access to reviews on professors may put them at ease when selecting their classes. Students at the University of California, Los Angeles, can utilize a website called BruinWalk to review their professors. On the website, they can compare and contrast each professor that teaches a specific course. Students can give a rating based on five stars and share their opinion on a class they took in an optional text-based response column. Our background research suggests that students may share certain expectations and values on adherence to gender expectations and reflect this bias in their reviews. In our research, our goal was to determine if there is a pattern of gender bias in how professors are praised in reviews on BruinWalk. Additionally, we assessed whether there is a higher frequency of gender bias in praise toward female professors in STEM based classes versus those within the Social Sciences department. We decided to incorporate this question into our research because women are currently underrepresented in STEM fields (Nimmesgern, 2016). Additionally, a study of an American university found that when STEM classes moved from online to in person, female professors received lower student ratings (Babin and Hussey, 2023). The researchers attributed this to students’ increased ability to perceive gender expression in an in-person setting.
Methods
Our research question asks: “Do UCLA students assign different praise words to male and female professors?” We hypothesize that we will find a difference in praise that reflects gender bias in student reviews on BruinWalk. In other words, when it comes to male professors, we expect to see words that describe and allude to intelligence, demonstrating how men are often viewed as more knowledgeable in their field. However, when it comes to women, we anticipate words such as “nice” or “approachable” to be used, suggesting that women are valued more for their personality and embodying stereotypically “feminine” characteristics. We tested our hypothesis by analyzing the reviews of UCLA professors from Bruinwalk. The two areas of focus were STEM related classes and the Social Science department. We selected three courses from each department and identified two male and two female professors from each of those courses. The selection of the courses was simply based on finding a course that had at least two male and female professors with a significant number of reviews, as it was somewhat difficult to find reviews of female professors in the STEM department. Our chosen courses from the social science department were COMM 1, PSYCH 10, and POL SCI 10. For STEM related classes, we selected ASTR 3, COMPTING 10A, and LIFESCI 30B.
Figure 1: Columns of BruinWalk reviews of UCLA professors by gender, with praise words highlighted.
After finding classes with enough reviews, we sorted them by “most recent” and inputted praise terms from the five reviews that were most recent. For the purposes of our research, sentences with negation words were excluded from our data. After finding reviews that adhered to our guidelines, we copied and pasted them into a document and highlighted the specific praise words. We also ensured that our praise words reflected the quality of the professor as opposed to the course as a whole. Following our collection, we compared the praise words used to describe the male and female professors by counting them. Next, we determined students’ most common praise words and their frequency by inserting our data into the databasic.io website, which determined the most commonly used descriptors. Lastly, we inputted the data into the Free Word Cloud Generator website to create a word cloud that served as a visual aid to support our hypothesis.
Results
After conducting our research, we were able to determine the most frequent words used to describe female professors and male professors on BruinWalk. The most common terms used to describe male professors overall were engaging (11.9%), helpful (10.6% ), funny (7.6%), and nice (7.6%). The most common terms used to describe female professors overall were helpful (12.3%), cares (7.5%), nice (6.6%), and sweet (6.6%).
Figure 2: Visual representation of the most common praise words used for UCLA professors on BruinWalk, by gender.
Both male and female professors were frequently praised for being helpful and nice, indicating a universal appreciation for these traits regardless of gender. However, female professors were far more likely to be described as “sweet” and valued for their “nurturing” qualities. On the other hand, male professors were more likely to be described as “funny” and valued for being engaging as an instructor. While the overall results indicated patterns of gender bias, No significant differences were observed between student evaluations in STEM classes and the Social Sciences. For female STEM professors, the most common terms used were clear (9.6%), cares (9.6%), and nice (7.7%). For female Social Science professors, the most common terms used were helpful (18.5%), clear (9.3%), and sweet (9.3%).
Figure 3: Frequency of praise words female professors received at higher counts than male professors 
Figure 4: Female Professor Word Cloud
Figure 5: Male Professor Word Cloud
Analysis
The results of our data reveal identifiable patterns in how female and male professors are perceived by their students. There were notable differences in the descriptive terms used that reflect broader social stereotypes and gender expectations. The frequency of the terms “cares” and “sweet’ ‘ highlights the importance of emotional investment by female professors and the broader “nurturing” role. Furthermore, it aligns with traditional gender roles that expect women to exhibit nurturing and empathetic behaviors.
Conversely, male professors were more likely to be described as “funny” and “engaging.” In the male professors evaluations, 11.9 % used the word “engaging,” and 7.6% of evaluations used the word “funny.” These terms suggest that male professors are often perceived as bringing humor and more dynamic interaction into the classroom, highlighting societal expectations that men should be entertaining and charismatic.
Overall, it appears that the more male professors exhibit engaging and humorous behaviors, the more they are praised, and the more female professors exhibit nurturing characteristics, the more they are praised. Therefore, we could ask, “do violations of gender expectations earn less praise, and, therefore, lower instructor ratings?” For example, our results indicate that women are praised more than men for being sweet and supportive. No female professor was praised for being assertive, engaging, or humorous. Therefore, further research into what response these more masculine stereotypes receive when they are performed by women would be an intriguing study.
Interestingly, no significant differences were observed between student evaluations in STEM and social sciences, suggesting that the gendered perceptions of professors remain consistent across disciplines. However, a closer look at the data does reveal subtle distinctions. Results from female professor evaluations in STEM show that the descriptive term “clear” (9.6%) is the most common, suggesting that clarity is particularly valued. This is likely because STEM fields contain complex material that requires clear communication and instruction. On the other hand, female professor evaluations in social sciences most commonly use the term “helpful” (18.6%). The higher frequency of “helpful” in Social Sciences might reflect the field’s emphasis on student support and guidance. Therefore, complying with gender expectations of clarity or supportiveness may earn professors more praise and possibly higher ratings in each field. Conversely, the difference could also indicate that performing both attributes in both STEM and non STEM fields could result in higher praise. Future research into how female professors are rated in STEM and non STEM areas of study could provide informative results.
Conclusion and discussion
The findings of our research show that gender expectations can influence the words students use when evaluating their professors. The larger phenomenon within the boundaries of gender communication shows how student perceptions of their professors can differ. A student reviewing a male professor may assess the quality of his instruction from the perspective of how he adhered to traditionally masculine stereotypes. On the other hand, a student reviewing a female professor may assess the quality of her teaching based on how she adhered to traditionally feminine expectations. Our results suggest a clear pattern in how students communicate about their professors of different genders. Conclusively, we have collected data that supports these claims concerning our original research question.
References
Adams, S., Bekker, S., Fan, Y., Gordon, T., Shepherd, L. J., Slavich, E., & Waters, D. (2021,
March 16). Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching: “punish[ing] those who fail to do their gender right” – higher education. SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-021-00704-9
Babin, J. J., & Hussey, A. (2023). Gender penalties and solidarity — Teaching evaluation differentials in and out of STEM. Economics Letters, 226, 111083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111083
Danesh, N., & Danesh, E. (2021, April 12). Behind the bruin: Taking an inside look at UCLA
review website Bruinwalk. Daily Bruin.
https://dailybruin.com/2021/04/12/behind-the-bruin-taking-an-inside-look-at-ucla-review-website-bruinwalk
Nimmesgern, H. (2016). Why are women underrepresented in STEM fields? Chemistry, 22(11), 3529–3530. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201600035
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What Women and Men Should Be, Shouldn’t be, are Allowed to be, and don’t Have to Be: The Contents of Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
Zheng, X., Vastrad, S., He, J., & Ni, C. (2023). Contextualizing gender disparities in online
teaching evaluations for professors. PloS One, 18(3), e0282704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282704