FEW countries of Scotland’s size have such a global reputation for providing quality higher education and the high standard of the teaching is undoubtedly one of things that elevates our institutions.

With this in mind, university performance managers are right to seek a range of strategies and methodologies to measure quality. Students have an important role to play in this, of course, and should be able to participate in the evaluation of their courses.

Whether they should be able to rate their lecturers, however, is another matter.

The University of Edinburgh recently rolled out course questionnaires that include evaluation of individual members of staff, arguing that they not only help students feel engaged but enhance learning, teaching and assessment by allowing for “constructive” comments that encourage “best practice”.

Unsurprisingly, teaching unions view the matter differently. They fear questionnaires could be used against lecturers by students and institutions alike, pointing out, quite rightly, that staff should to be able to mark work on academic merit alone and not with an eye on how they might later be rated in a survey.

Certainly, rating teachers individually is a rather blunt instrument that risks a dangerous over-reliance on personality and popularity rather providing a genuine and rigorous measurement of an individual’s teaching ability. For proof of this we must look no further than the controversial “rate my teacher” sites that have sometimes been used to unfairly humiliate and troll school staff.

Also at risk is the status of students as active participants in their education rather than simply “customers” or “consumers”. Of course, value for money is a relevant issue for most students these days, especially those from England and outside European Union who are often paying many thousands of pounds in fees.

Measuring quality and value, then, isn’t easy. But universities must find ways to do it that are fair to students and staff alike.