Student Evaluations of Teaching Fail to Predict Learning: Meta-Analysis of Bias, Grade Inflation, and Incentive Distortion in Higher Education

Background. End-of-course student evaluations of teaching (SETs) remain the dominant gauge of instructional quality, yet their validity and fairness have been repeatedly questioned. Purpose. This study re-examines whether SET scores capture durable learning and explores how high-stakes reliance on those scores reshapes academic behaviour. Methods. We integrated five complementary strands of secondary evidence: (a) a PRISMA-registered meta-analysis of 89 studies covering ≈5.4 million students, (b) re-analysis of two natural-experiment datasets with random instructor assignment, (c) psychometric audits of 14 institutional SET instruments, (d) computational text mining of 2.1 million open-ended comments, and (e) linkage of departmental SET means to alumni and employer outcomes. Results. Across studies, the pooled random-effects correlation between SETs and subsequent performance was r = 0.04 (95 % CI –0.03, 0.10), turning slightly negative after grade controls. Departments that tied contract renewal to minimum-SET thresholds exhibited a 0.27 GPA-point rise relative to matched controls, signalling grade inflation. Differential item functioning against female and racially minoritised faculty appeared in 9 of 23 common items, undermining measurement invariance. Programmes with high SET averages showed no advantage in alumni career readiness or employer satisfaction. Conclusions. Convergent evidence demonstrates that SETs fail to reflect long-term learning and introduce equity harms; their high-stakes use incentivises leniency that erodes academic standards. Universities seeking genuine teaching excellence should treat SETs as formative feedback, decouple them from punitive decisions, and adopt stakeholder-anchored, multi-measure frameworks that align evaluation with demonstrable learning.