Every large-scale student evaluation I have ever seen has been massively uninformative because students on different courses usually have drastically different

Every large-scale student evaluation I have ever seen has been massively uninformative because students on different courses usually have drastically different expectations. At my university, the law school was top-notch (at least, it is the best in the country) and it got the lowest score by far every year. Why? High expectations, huge number of students competing hard. The best school? Theology. Why? Low expectations, not many students in a far less competitive environment (And I studied in both and in probably four or five faculties across the school...Law was the best, Theology the worst...not even close, the former had people from Law firms, you got full feedback on everything...the latter, you usually got no feedback on any work). This is really the point...now, you can do some kind of grouped mean model or you can compare over time...but what is the actual point? The reason they do this (or did this at my uni) was to compare departments/courses...but everyone knew it was bullshit...people lost jobs (I actually met the Dean who masterminded this, he came from the private sector, taught a minor course in the business school, and was utterly clueless).