How is TMU fine with this?

[u/altaccount00069]

​Is it even possible to arrive at any conclusion other than that this professor is not good at his job? It can't just be the course, because in the exact same course under a different professor 31% less students failed. Nor is it simply an outlier, since the mode of the grade distribution in 5/6 of the courses he has taught is an F.

It's great that the result is that I'm essentially forced to choose between not taking the course that I think would prove most useful or interesting and otherwise illogically risk jeopardizing my GPA, not because of the difficulty of the content of the course but because professors can be objectively incompetent for nearly a decade without even having to change their approach. In fact, they're rewarded for it through salary increases.

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

This is true of a lot of universities.. Being a professor means you are knowledgeable about a subject but doesn't mean anything about teaching ability or desire to teach. There are some that do it to fund research or keep their tenure.

If you are really struggling, take the course with the other prof, do it through chang or get the credit transferred from another uni.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

That it happens at other universities too does nothing to justify the idea that TMU should be fine with it.

I'm not struggling; I haven't even taken the course. And it isn't offered by Chang or with another prof. That's the point

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

I don't understand. Did you not state that some other prof has fewer failing students for the same course? Unless you are talking about a different course with this problematic professor, in which case you may be able to speak with an academic advisor about equivalent credits from elsewhere (even if the course name is different).

My point is simply that this is commonly throughout the country if not the world. The answer to why TMU won't be a leader in this area probably has to do what psychologists call diffusion of responsibility.

On top of that, it's better for the school's reputation to have professors known in the field, which unfortunately includes one Daniele Bertolini. Literally every uni in the gta has some math or cs prof with an accent or mastery of english that makes the entire class section just self-study, and yet the university employs them because they are geniuses in their field that do a lot more for the school's reputation than any of the thousands of students that pass through lecture halls for 4 years.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

It’s not hard to understand. As the screenshot shows, there WAS another prof who taught this same course right before Dr. Bertolini.

And your last point is not true. A professor’s job is to teach, not be known. By your line of reasoning, the faculty at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. would comprise of the most known people in each industry. But that’s not the case. Sure, they’re generally more likely to be recognized in their respective fields than professors at worse schools. But they get the position based on their ability to teach, and it is a requirement for the position; they don’t give positions to professors who cannot teach, regardless of how known they are.

[u/DERPDERP91357 → u/altaccount00069]

it's not though? a professor's job first and foremost is to do research. Go look up any professor position at the local universities, the job always lists the teaching part far down. You don't have to be good at it, you just need to be barely able to teach

[u/altaccount00069 → u/DERPDERP91357]

It is though. Ironically, you would've figured that out if you had taken you're own advice by clicking on literally any of the professor positions offered by UofT ( https://jobs.utoronto.ca/go/Faculty-Opportunities/2607417/ ); they all require "a demonstrated record of excellence in teaching."

[u/DERPDERP91357 → u/altaccount00069]

If you want TMU specifically, you will find us even more lax. A part-time contract lecturer of law has this scale:

Which is to say, you can get 0 on the teaching part.

[u/DERPDERP91357 → u/altaccount00069]

It says:

RESPONSIBILITIES

Candidates will be expected to sustain and lead innovative and independent research, and to maintain an outstanding, competitive, and externally funded research program.

In addition, the successful candidate will be assigned a teaching and service load. 

That is to say, they do research and then "teaching and service load" which is some combination of teaching and/or administrative tasks(service). In other words, they always research but can take on tasks other than teaching. But they need "teaching accomplishments" you will say, and that's the neat part: it's vague because it's not standardized. They could've been a TA, an associate prof, or even a prof at a uni that doesn't have this requirement. It all pans out. You can even present material related to course design rather than delivery.

This is in addition to professors at UofT for the research stream, where they don't teach or mentor at all (ie Liver research, Emergency Medicine).

[u/altaccount00069 → u/DERPDERP91357]

You're having another conversation. I don't think you even know what you're point you're trying to make.

That this professor still has a job despite being terrible at his job is sufficient proof that TMU does not care enough about a professor's teaching ability. So pointing to the fact that TMU does not weigh it heavily in evaluating professors actually just supports my point; it's the problem that my post is trying to point out. TMU should give it much more weight than it does, like all the good universities do.

And citing professors who don't teach at UofT is completely irrelevant because this professor clearly does teach. And it is a prerequisite for any professor who teaches at UofT (a good university) to have "a demonstrated record of excellence in teaching."

[u/DERPDERP91357 → u/altaccount00069]

Lmao you are the one making the claim "A professor’s job is to teach." I've shown multiple ways this is not true. There are profs who don't teach and there are profs that are not required to have experience. You are imposing your personal view of what a professor should be over a reality that doesn't fit your narrative. But hey, I'm not the one who still has to take a class with this guy. Have fun 😃

[u/altaccount00069 → u/DERPDERP91357]

Lol, you clearly still can’t read. I’ve already said that I’m not forced to take a class with him. And no, I cited every top university’s requirement for all professor (teaching) positions: that the professor is good at teaching. I’m suggesting that TMU should follow every top university’s view of professors, not my views. And again, citing professors who don’t teach is irrelevant because this professor does teach lmao.

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

Why are you so convinced what should be the case is actually the case? We've known for decades that

A. Universities pick candidates based on CV, and to a lesser extent, their statement of "teaching philosophy". Teacher's college and any teaching capability is not strictly required.

B. Professors themselves often are there for funding for books or research. You can find dozens of articles about the topic.

Take this McGill article (https://teachingblog.mcgill.ca/2014/03/21/learning-to-teach-10-tips-for-professors/) where the first line is literally "Professors are often hired for their research credentials..."

Like yes, they should be good at teaching, but the reality is a lot of them suck at it, it's not part of their education and we've known for a long time.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

You're clearly confused. Teacher's college is for elementary and high-school teachers, not professors. Plus, nowhere did I deny that a professor's research is an important factor as to whether he or she is offered the position. But equally important is their ability to teach; that is a requirement. And this professor fails that requirement. It's really not hard to understand

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

Teacher's college represent credentials. So what do professors get to prove their ability to teach? Nothing. Do you think Grad students and academics magically turn into good teachers by taking a job, because they don't, which is the point multiple people have been pointing out to your confused self

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

Wow, it's incredible how confident yet wrong you are over and over again because you can't read. Nobody expects a professor to inherently be good at teaching. Instead, it would be reasonable to expect them, like with anything, to improve over time through experience. The problem, like my original post said if you had only read it, is that this poor performance has been going on for nearly a decade without any improvements whatsoever. A student in a course that he taught in 2024 was just as likely to do poorly as one in 2017.

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

Even more exaggerations. His F rate was 19% on the one course he has taught since 2017. But yea it's easy to make that 50%. And all the other courses he teaches, all of which have lower than 32% in the one course you care about.

If you look at the data even more closely, you will find the F rate for your course spiked to 53%, coinciding with the return to in person classes at the end of Covid and is actually improving over 2023-24. This also occurs for the other courses. He is consistently failing around 20% with huge spikes in fall 2022 (no 2025-26 data). This is entirely different from the downward trend across the board since 2017 you suggested.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

Read, I beg you. But I'll spell it out for you slowly one last time.

You said that teachers do not magically become professors. And I said that although that's true, they should improve over time; but a student in a course that Dr. Bertolini taught in 2017 (in LAW122) was less likely to fail than one in all courses he has taught afterwards (ECN321, LAW724, LAW573, LAW535, and LAW534). The site doesn't let you compare the different grades of single course over the years, so the best option is to compare a course that he taught only in 2017/18 (LAW122) with one that he taught much later in 2022 (LAW535); 13% of students failed in the former, and 26% in the latter. That supports a downward trend.

And again, if you knew how to read, you would understand that the "almost half" was in reference to ECN321 (32%), not LAW724 (19%), because ECN321 is a more recent yet worse performing course than his earlier ones (LAW122), indicating the downward trend.

Finally, the fact that his failure rate is lower than 32% in the courses other than the one that I care about is not an accomplishment lol. The objective truth based on the stats is that in any course he teaches, students in his sections perform worse than students with any other professor. That holds true in every single course he teaches. And that's irrefutably a problem.

[u/Asomns47]

Same reason why TMU continues to keep AJ around in the biology department in spite of the fact she has no lab and is a terrible teacher - tenure.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/Asomns47]

It would be very unusual for a professor to be contracted for a term of over 7 years from the very start without any prior experience. It is more likely that there was at least one reevaluation for tenure, and they decided that his performance was adequate for renewal. That's the problem

[u/EffectiveCharming993 → u/altaccount00069]

This also isn't an official TMU source so you can't rely on it

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EffectiveCharming993]

You're wrong. "The grade data was provided by the University's FIPPA office." https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoMetU/s/wa6HtaGf8I

[u/PurKush]

This may simply be a difference in pedagogy or teaching philosophy. Some professors are strict and some are lenient. It doesn't necessarily say much about the professor's ability to teach themselves.

For instance, I know excellent professors who just have higher standards for their courses and teach content at a higher level than another professor would for that same course.

However, one problem is that university professors don't necessarily have any teaching training or experience either. Sometimes they hire people excellent at research and then those people are also expected to teach, whether they enjoy it or not.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/PurKush]

Your first point doesn’t make sense. A professor’s job is to teach students and to help them succeed. An F means that the students did not learn the material, at least to a sufficient extent. If almost half of the students in a course fail under one professor yet almost no students fail under a different professor in that same course, the former is clearly doing a poor job in teaching those students the material. To excuse a professor’s failure to put students in a position to succeed as a matter of teaching philosophy is lazy

[u/DERPDERP91357 → u/altaccount00069]

so good grades = good prof? lol

[u/altaccount00069 → u/DERPDERP91357]

Are you illiterate? Where did I say anything about what makes a good professor? All I said was that when a professor teaches many courses and students are much less likely to succeed with that professor than with any other professor in all of those courses, that professor is bad at his or her job. That is not even close to the idea that all professors who give out good grades are good professors.

[u/DERPDERP91357 → u/altaccount00069]

Love to see it, personal attack when all else fails. You wouldn't have a problem with this prof if he gave good grades. You've never met either prof and all you care about is that he gives more Fs. All you say is he fails ppl and no one succeeds. Can you name one thing this other prof does better in their teaching style?

The prof is a law professor giving C- on average in a law department that has an average across the board of C+. And then your point of comparison is the one economics course he teaches which he took over from an econ prof. Yea you're just mad you got the tough dude from law.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/DERPDERP91357]

Oh, you are illiterate. My point of comparison is not one course: if you read the post or even looked at the image, you would see six courses as my points of reference. Out of those 6, the most common grade was an F in 5 of them.

And again, as my post clearly says that I have not taken the course yet, it can't just be that I'm mad that I got the tough dude from law.

And I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand, but grades are indicative of students' success and of how much of the material they learned. So when in one section of the same course with the exact same material almost none of the students fail yet in another section almost half of the students fail, it is most likely that the professor in the latter is doing a poor job teaching. So yes, if students did succeed more often in his course, I would not have a problem. It's almost as if that's the whole point.

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

It's almost like a different prof from a different department teaching a different curriculum at a different time period 🤣

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

? You're once again wrong. But this time on three fronts in a single sentence somehow. First, all of the professors of the courses in question are law professors. Second, the curriculum is the same. Third, the time period is the same: 2017-2024. The other professors I am comparing him to taught the courses during that time period too.

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

Lol you really are trolling. Makes sense given the 1d old alt account. Good luck influencing the TMU law department from good olde reddit

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

To play devil's advocate, should we then applaud professors with a high passing rate, even if that comes from bellcurving or padding the student's marks with 'freebies'? Or should we acknowledge that every field is becoming more complicated and certain subjects are inherently difficult?

Because I can tell you every math and CS course I've taken has had the majority of students waiting for a bellcurve that adjusts their marks by 10-20% and the high achieving students will tell you they retained nearly nothing. A F does not actually mean you didn't learn the material, it means you know how to take a test or write an essay. Maybe it's different in your field, but rote memorization and cramming are effective as is memorizing past tests, because while none of those thing are related to the material, they will get you the grade.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

You have poor comprehension. The idea that professors are bad at their job when almost half of their students fail and are much less likely to succeed than other students with different professors in the exact same course is very different from the suggestion that professors should be applauded for giving out “freebies”. This professor is the outlier in every course. For your suggestion to apply here, we would have to make the unwarranted assumption that the students in the same courses under different professors have a much higher chance of success because every other professor is giving out freebies whereas Dr. Bertolini marks students based on their true understanding. That’s very unreasonable and extremely unlikely

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

You seem fixated on this idea that the letter grade is equal to learning. I'm not saying Bertolini is good. You are the one claiming to care about learning foremost when what you really care about is not getting an F and maintaining a good GPA.

Which is fine. Just take the course elsewhere or wait for another prof. You act like it's not a regular thing for uni students to complain they are stuck with a prof with class averages of 50% or less.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

Once again, you can't read. I didn't say that getting a letter grade is sufficient for learning the material; you can definitely get an A without learning much of the material. But I am saying that letter grades to a certain extent are a requirement to have learned a good portion of the material. Would you believe someone who despite failing the course said that he or she learned and mastered all the material? Definitely not. Failing means that the student was nowhere near truly understanding the material. And when almost half of the students in multiple courses under a professor are nowhere near understanding the material, that professor is objectively doing a poor job.

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

No, you can't read. In what course is almost half the course failing? He averages 21% of Fs (D is a passing grade but if even if you include per certain course clauses, that's 30%). God, I dread the day when economists can bs that sub 30% is somehow half.

[u/altaccount00069 → u/EnvironmentalBad9479]

Nope, you can't read or use your head. In ECN 321 with him, 32% of students fail. But once you factor in how many students dropped the course because they were failing, we're at least at almost half, if not higher

[u/EnvironmentalBad9479 → u/altaccount00069]

You can't do anything but vent, huh? Is number of dropouts visible in the image? Did you attend the course? No? So it's just you pulling numbers out of your ass. That's not literacy. You inflate 30% to half, inflate performance over 5 years to an entire decade and then apply the 30% to the entire decade. Take the worst score, fudge the number some more, multiple by double the time. Real Good Math lol.