A new argument challenges the way universities use student teaching evaluations, saying the incentive structure is misaligned with learning and erodes academic integrity. The analysis argues that in many institutions, student evaluations can drive 70% to 100% of teaching assessment, despite research finding little correlation between ratings and learning outcomes and evidence that instructors who challenge students can receive lower scores—even when students later perform better. The piece describes a perverse career dynamic: when advancement depends on student satisfaction, faculty may soften rigor to protect evaluations, signaling to students that strict standards carry professional risk rather than institutional value. It calls for a reset centered on incentives embedded in evaluation systems, warning that culture changes flow from what institutions measure—and reward.