Why this platform exists.

Review Your Teacher is a public directory of institutions, departments, teachers and courses, with student feedback attached to it. Feedback is collected through a versioned questionnaire rather than a single rating box, so each published review answers the same questions as every other review of the same version.

A teacher profile shows dimension-level results, how many published reviews they rest on, and the individual reviews themselves. Readers interpret that information; the platform does not draw the conclusion for them.

Students already compare notes on teaching, but that conversation usually lives in group chats and word of mouth: hard to find, impossible to compare, and often unfair to everyone involved. Existing rating sites tend to make the problem worse by collapsing a person into one number.

The alternative we are building is narrower and more careful. Ask consistent questions, keep the answers attached to a course and a term, show how much evidence there is, and let people read it for themselves.

Structure is what makes feedback readable rather than merely loud. In practice:

• Reviews answer a fixed set of questions from a specific questionnaire version, and each review records the version it used.
• Results are shown per dimension, not only as one overall figure.
• Review counts are published alongside averages, so a thin picture looks thin.
• There is no ranking of teachers against each other, and no best-or-worst list.

A demanding course is not a poorly taught course. Merging the two punishes teachers of hard subjects and rewards easy ones, which is precisely the distortion that makes rating sites useless for a student deciding what to expect.

So the two are kept apart: dimensions about teaching describe clarity, organisation, assessment and the learning environment, while course characteristics such as workload and difficulty describe the course. Course characteristics are not folded into a teacher’s aggregate.

The platform is starting with Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology (RUET), where the department, teacher and course data is deep enough for feedback to be meaningful. Everything is modelled per institution rather than around one campus, so additional institutions are added as data and moderation capacity allow.

Coverage grows deliberately. An institution appears on the institutions page only once its departments and teachers are actually in the directory.

No editorial ranking

Listings are ordered by name or by a stated sort the reader chooses — never by an opaque score.

Evidence stated plainly

How many published reviews a figure rests on is always shown next to it.

Same questions for everyone

Nobody is measured against a different questionnaire than their colleagues in the same version.

Moderated, not curated

Moderation exists to remove abuse and rule-breaking content, not to shape a narrative about a teacher.

How it works walks through discovery, reviewing and moderation, and how institutions, departments, teachers, courses and reviews relate. Privacy explains what is public, what is not, and how reviewer identity is handled.