A study using two types of analyses to examine the validity of student ratings of faculty is described. The first analysis examined faculty ratings in terms of how high-achieving sections of courses rate their instructors in contrast with how low-achieving sections rate their instructors to determine if those teachers who advance their students the farthest receive higher ratings than those teachers whose classes do not advance as far. The results on the total scores of the rating scales showed high-achieving sections of courses reporting stronger ratings for their instructors than was true of low-achieving sections. The second analysis identified high achievers as those students who did better than they were predicted to do, and low achievers were those students who did worse than they were predicted to do. This analysis focused on individual student achievement. On individual items and on total scale scores high achievers provided more substantial ratings than did low achievers. It is suggested that if the circumstances in a class lead a student into achieving better than is predicted, that student may rate the instructor higher than the student who achieves below expectation. It is suggested that the validity of the evaluation procedure is demonstrated through these analyses. (BH)