The document is a survey results report for a Partnership/LLC Taxation course taught by Professor Roberts in the fall of 2012 semester. It provides overall ratings for the instructor and course, as well as average scores on individual evaluation questions. The instructor received positive ratings overall, with average scores ranging from 3.42 to 4.75 out of 5 for different evaluation categories like knowledge of the subject matter, organization, and availability to students.

1. University of South Carolina
University Technology Services
Columbia SC 29208
Report: Survey Results
Dear Professor ROBERTS,
This email contains results for PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012:
The global indicators are listed first, followed by the individual average values, consisting of the following
scales:
- INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part I)
- INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part II)
- INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part III)
- KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV)
- TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V)
- DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI)
- OVERALL INSTRUCTOR
- OVERALL COURSE
In the second part of the analysis the average values of all individual questions are listed.

2. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 1
TRACEY ROBERTS
PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 (LAWS 637 001 - FALL 2012)
No. of responses = 13
Overall indicatorsOverall indicators
Global Index
+-
av.=4.13
dev.=0.75
1 2 3 4 5
1. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part I) +-
av.=4.42
dev.=0.62
1 2 3 4 5
2. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part II) +-
av.=3.82
dev.=0.4
1 2 3 4
3. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part III) +-
av.=4.17
dev.=0.83
1 2 3 4 5
4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV) +-
av.=4.47
dev.=0.71
1 2 3 4 5
5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V) +-
av.=3.62
dev.=0.86
1 2 3 4 5
6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES
(Part VI)
+-
av.=4.6
dev.=0.61
1 2 3 4 5
7. OVERALL INSTRUCTOR +-
av.=3.58
dev.=0.67
1 2 3 4 5
8. OVERALL COURSE +-
av.=3.42
dev.=1.16
1 2 3 4 5
Survey ResultsSurvey Results
Legend
Question text Right poleLeft pole n=No. of responses
av.=Mean
dev.=Std. Dev.
ab.=Abstention
25%
1
0%
2
50%
3
0%
4
25%
5
Relative Frequencies of answers Std. Dev. Mean
Scale Histogram
1. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part I)1. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part I)
The instructor clearly stated the instructional
objectives of the course.
1.1)
Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree n=12
av.=4.33
dev.=0.49
0%
1
0%
2
0%
3
66.7%
4
33.3%
5
The instructor clearly stated the method by which
your final grade would be determined.
1.2)
Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree n=12
av.=4.33
dev.=0.65
0%
1
0%
2
8.3%
3
50%
4
41.7%
5
The instructor clearly explained any special
requirements of attendance which differ from the
attendance policy of the University.
1.3)
Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree n=12
av.=4.42
dev.=0.67
0%
1
0%
2
8.3%
3
41.7%
4
50%
5

3. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 2
The instructor clearly graded and returned the
student's written work (e.g., examinations and
papers) in a timely manner.
1.4)
Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree n=12
av.=4.08
dev.=0.79
0%
1
0%
2
25%
3
41.7%
4
33.3%
5
The instructor met the class regularly and at the
scheduled times.
1.5)
Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree n=12
av.=4.75
dev.=0.45
0%
1
0%
2
0%
3
25%
4
75%
5
The instructor scheduled a reasonable number of
office hours per week.
1.6)
Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree n=11
av.=4.64
dev.=0.67
0%
1
0%
2
9.1%
3
18.2%
4
72.7%
5
2. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part II)2. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part II)
Please indicate your satisfaction with the availability
of the instructor outside the classroom. (In selecting
your rating, consider the instructor's availability via
established office hours, appointments, and other
opportunities for face-to-face interaction as well as
via telephone, e-mail, fax and other means.)
2.1)
Very
Satisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
n=11
av.=3.82
dev.=0.4
0%
1
0%
2
18.2%
3
81.8%
4
3. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part III)3. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part III)
If web sites, Blackboard, or other Internet resources
were a part of this course, to what extent did they
enhance or detract from your learning experience in
the course.
3.1)
Greatly
Enhanced
Greatly
Detracted
n=12
av.=4.17
dev.=0.83
0%
1
0%
2
25%
3
33.3%
4
41.7%
5
4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV)4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV)
The instructor was familiar with materials assigned
and appeared knowledgeable about the subject
matter of the course.
4.1)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=4.67
dev.=0.49
0%
1
0%
2
0%
3
33.3%
4
66.7%
5
The instructor had both practical and theoretical
grasp of matters covered in the course.
4.2)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=4.5
dev.=0.67
0%
1
0%
2
8.3%
3
33.3%
4
58.3%
5
The instructor demonstrated depth of knowledge of
subject matter beyond the material assigned.
4.3)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=11
av.=4.55
dev.=0.82
0%
1
0%
2
18.2%
3
9.1%
4
72.7%
5
Where applicable, the instructor related topics
covered in the course to the areas of the law.
4.4)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=4.17
dev.=0.83
0%
1
0%
2
25%
3
33.3%
4
41.7%
5
5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V)5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V)
The instructor communicated ideas well, stimulated
your interest in the subject matter, and challenged
you to think critically about the course.
5.1)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=3.08
dev.=0.67
0%
1
16.7%
2
58.3%
3
25%
4
0%
5

4. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 3
The instructor was open to questions, handled them
effectively, and focused discussions on topics
relevant to the course.
5.2)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=4
dev.=0.74
0%
1
0%
2
25%
3
50%
4
25%
5
The instructor was well prepared and approached
the course in an organized manner.
5.3)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=3.83
dev.=0.83
0%
1
0%
2
41.7%
3
33.3%
4
25%
5
The instructor focused on the most important
aspects of the course instead of relatively
insignificant points.
5.4)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=3.67
dev.=0.98
0%
1
8.3%
2
41.7%
3
25%
4
25%
5
The instructor made effective use of his or her
chosen teaching methodology (lecture, Socratic
dialogue, problems, etc.).
5.5)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=3.5
dev.=1.09
0%
1
25%
2
16.7%
3
41.7%
4
16.7%
5
6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI)6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI)
At the beginning of the course the instructor
explained course objectives and informed students
of the basis of grading and attendance policy.
6.1)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=4.5
dev.=0.67
0%
1
0%
2
8.3%
3
33.3%
4
58.3%
5
The instructor adequately covered assigned material
and major topics in the course.
6.2)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=11
av.=4.36
dev.=0.67
0%
1
0%
2
9.1%
3
45.5%
4
45.5%
5
Where applicable during the semester in which the
course was offered, the instructor was reasonably
prompt in posting grades, returning assignments,
and supervision of written work or problems. (If not
applicable, leave blank.)
6.3)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=11
av.=4.45
dev.=0.69
0%
1
0%
2
9.1%
3
36.4%
4
54.5%
5
The instructor rarely missed classes and met
classes as scheduled.
6.4)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=12
av.=4.83
dev.=0.39
0%
1
0%
2
0%
3
16.7%
4
83.3%
5
The instructor was accessible outside the class for
additional discussion or guidance.
6.5)
Almost AlwaysAlmost Never n=11
av.=4.82
dev.=0.6
0%
1
0%
2
9.1%
3
0%
4
90.9%
5
7. OVERALL INSTRUCTOR7. OVERALL INSTRUCTOR
Your overall rating of this Instructor:7.1)
One of the BestOne of the Worst n=12
av.=3.58
dev.=0.67
0%
1
0%
2
50%
3
41.7%
4
8.3%
5
8. OVERALL COURSE8. OVERALL COURSE
Your overall rating of this course:8.1)
ExcellentTerrible n=12
av.=3.42
dev.=1.16
8.3%
1
8.3%
2
33.3%
3
33.3%
4
16.7%
5

5. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 4
Profile
Subunit: School of Law
Name of the instructor: TRACEY ROBERTS
Name of the course:
(Name of the survey)
PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001
Comparative line: Faculty Fall 2012
1. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part I)1. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part I)
1.1) The instructor clearly stated the instructional objectives of the course. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
n=12av.=4.33
av.=4.43 n=1966
1.2) The instructor clearly stated the method by which your final grade
would be determined.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
n=12av.=4.33
av.=4.47 n=1960
1.3) The instructor clearly explained any special requirements of
attendance which differ from the attendance policy of the University.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
n=12av.=4.42
av.=4.46 n=1928
1.4) The instructor clearly graded and returned the student's written work
(e.g., examinations and papers) in a timely manner.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
n=12av.=4.08
av.=3.93 n=1710
1.5) The instructor met the class regularly and at the scheduled times. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
n=12av.=4.75
av.=4.66 n=1963
1.6) The instructor scheduled a reasonable number of office hours per
week.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
n=11av.=4.64
av.=4.47 n=1931
2. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part II)2. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part II)
2.1) Please indicate your satisfaction with the availability of the instructor
outside the classroom. (In selecting your rating, consider the
instructor's availability via established office hours, appointments,
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
n=11av.=3.82
av.=3.64 n=1926
3. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part III)3. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part III)
3.1) If web sites, Blackboard, or other Internet resources were a part of
this course, to what extent did they enhance or detract from your
learning experience in the course.
Greatly
Detracted
Greatly
Enhanced
n=12av.=4.17
av.=3.94 n=1734
4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV)4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV)
4.1) The instructor was familiar with materials assigned and appeared
knowledgeable about the subject matter of the course.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=4.67
av.=4.76 n=1964
4.2) The instructor had both practical and theoretical grasp of matters
covered in the course.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=4.5
av.=4.71 n=1960
4.3) The instructor demonstrated depth of knowledge of subject matter
beyond the material assigned.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=11av.=4.55
av.=4.71 n=1956
4.4) Where applicable, the instructor related topics covered in the course
to the areas of the law.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=4.17
av.=4.58 n=1943
5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V)5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V)
5.1) The instructor communicated ideas well, stimulated your interest in
the subject matter, and challenged you to think critically about the
course.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=3.08
av.=4.25 n=1960

6. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 5
5.2) The instructor was open to questions, handled them effectively, and
focused discussions on topics relevant to the course.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=4
av.=4.42 n=1954
5.3) The instructor was well prepared and approached the course in an
organized manner.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=3.83
av.=4.42 n=1957
5.4) The instructor focused on the most important aspects of the course
instead of relatively insignificant points.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=3.67
av.=4.32 n=1948
5.5) The instructor made effective use of his or her chosen teaching
methodology (lecture, Socratic dialogue, problems, etc.).
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=3.5
av.=4.3 n=1947
6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI)6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI)
6.1) At the beginning of the course the instructor explained course
objectives and informed students of the basis of grading and
attendance policy.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=4.5
av.=4.55 n=1959
6.2) The instructor adequately covered assigned material and major
topics in the course.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=11av.=4.36
av.=4.45 n=1955
6.3) Where applicable during the semester in which the course was
offered, the instructor was reasonably prompt in posting grades,
returning assignments, and supervision of written work or problems.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=11av.=4.45
av.=4.25 n=1441
6.4) The instructor rarely missed classes and met classes as scheduled. Almost Never Almost Always
n=12av.=4.83
av.=4.69 n=1955
6.5) The instructor was accessible outside the class for additional
discussion or guidance.
Almost Never Almost Always
n=11av.=4.82
av.=4.56 n=1925
7. OVERALL INSTRUCTOR7. OVERALL INSTRUCTOR
7.1) Your overall rating of this Instructor: One of the
Worst
One of the Best
n=12av.=3.58
av.=4.29 n=1951
8. OVERALL COURSE8. OVERALL COURSE
8.1) Your overall rating of this course: Terrible Excellent
n=12av.=3.42
av.=4.11 n=1948

7. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 6
Profile
Subunit: School of Law
Name of the instructor: TRACEY ROBERTS
Name of the course:
(Name of the survey)
PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001
Comparative line: Faculty Fall 2012
1. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part I) - +
av.=4.42
av.=4.41
2. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part II) - +
av.=3.82
av.=3.64
3. INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (Part III) - +
av.=4.17
av.=3.94
4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV) - +
av.=4.47
av.=4.69
5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V) - +
av.=3.62
av.=4.34
6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI) - +
av.=4.6
av.=4.52
7. OVERALL INSTRUCTOR - +
av.=3.58
av.=4.29
8. OVERALL COURSE - +
av.=3.42
av.=4.11

8. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 7
Comments ReportComments Report
4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV)4. KNOWLEDGE OF COURSE (Part IV)
Please comment on the Instructors knowledge of the course:4.5)
I think I can say, without a doubt, that Professor Roberts is an expert in the material.
Instructor was very knowledgable but sometimes was not able to articulate exactly the takeaways. I think maybe comfort in the classroom
had more to do with these minor hiccups than lack of subject knowledge.
Professor Roberts is brilliant and her knowledge in the subject matter is vast and comprehensive.
Professor is brilliant no doubt about it.
She knows the material.
5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V)5. TEACHING TECHNIQUE (Part V)
Please comment on the Instructors teaching technique:5.6)
Always very well prepared with visual aids to help convey the material. Sometimes moved a little fast.
Better class engagement could be beneficial to the students
I understand the need to go throught the problems in detail, but more effort on ensuring the class knows the big picture before being asked
to work through problems would help.
Going back to the above comment, while Professor Roberts had a great command of the material, sometimes we struggled finding that
appropriate balance between knowing the material and teaching the material. As the course went on, and as we discussed improvements
we had much more productive classes where I walked away having an understanding of the material. Partnership is incredibly difficult and
we haven't been exposed to the complexity and nuances of this material before -- sure, some of us have studied corporate tax, but it isn't
nearly as complex as partnership. Because of the difficulty, I really came to appreciate the professors worksheets and skeleton outlines
on topics that "dumbed" down the material so I could focus on the big picture outside of class and be readily taught the complex material in
class.
As an aside -- have the homework due after we cover a topic -- I think that would help provide a base so we know what to look for rather
than attempting to ascertain this on our own. Some assignments are easier than others...but some I just blindly flailed at the problems
hoping for a right answer. Sometimes, the material was just so difficult I gave up with hopes of learning it in class rather than attempt the
problems (not ideal...I know...but all the same.)
I'm glad she used problems. It is the only way to understand the material. Also, it was good that Professor Roberts was willing to put
charts and explanations on Blackboard. The material is by far the hardest in law school, and paying attention in class is not enough.
Sometimes professor moves too fast & we don't understand follow. Other times, people ask questions and professor moves a bit off to
other topics when the answers are simple. This material is so difficult however, so I can understand these issues.
This material is very dry, and that naturally causes problems. An overview of the material that would have allowed for the entire body of
material to be understood and given a very high altitude picture would have been very helpful before diving into the individual statutes.
Use of statute numbers without describing what the statute calls for also led to a large amount of confusion on my behalf.
While I understand this is a hard course, I felt like we just blew through stuff. I found it difficult to keep up, especially if i missed one class.
We seemed to sacrifice learning by not having problems answers placed on Twen, just so that people who take the class in the future
would not have the answers given to them. Therefore, I had to spend the majority of time correcting my answers rather than trying to
absorb the knownledge. I would have preferred having the answers posted so I can absorb stuff I didn't know, then I could go back to see
the correct answer.
While Professor Roberts knows the material very well, she needs to better break down the material to the class. Myself and other
classmates often felt lost and confused because we would cover something too quickly or a concept was not broken down enough.
Partnership Tax is the most difficult course I have taken in law school and a slower coverage of the subject is necessary to learn it
especially when going over the code sections. I often felt like she speed reads the code to us and expect us to fluently understand all the
intricacies of it. Additionally, I think she needs to make clearer what we are supposed to learn and be responsible for because I often felt
like we were covering complex tangents that were difficult to understand and then made the learning process frustrating.

9. TRACEY ROBERTS, PARTNERSHIP/LLC TAXATION §001 - FALL 2012
12/04/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 8
6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI)6. DISCHARGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES (Part VI)
Please comment on the Instructors discharge of instructional duties:6.6)
Very professional.
9. COMMENTS9. COMMENTS
Please provide any comments that you would like to share with us below:9.1)
I think Professor Roberts will be a great professor. It is obvious she is an expert in the field and very knowledgeable, and with time she'll
learn how to best transfer that knowledge to the students -- especially in a class as difficult as Partnership tax.
I am incredibly appreciative of her willingness to work hard to put together worksheets and outlines for the topics. She genuinely cares
about the students and wants us to do well in the topic. I was discussing this class with another student, and we both remarked about how
impressed we were with her willingness to not only promptly reply to email queries, but to reply with long thought out responses. I have
had professors here who didn't bother to give us updated email information much less reply to our messages when we finally did find their
correct email address.
So -- thank you for a good semester and for being so patient. Best wishes with wherever you land in the coming years.
I took this class because it was a pre-requisite for the Small Business Capstone.
Professor Roberts was very kind, approachable, and friendly. She made it very easy to visit her office, and has a very interesting tax
background.
I loved how she put her detailed solutions up after class. It made paying attention to very complicated problems much much easier. I found
her classes to be very beneficial and helpful---and I don't say that about most professors.
I appreciated her knowledge of the topic, and her willingness answer questions as well as look up answers outside of class.
The only thing I'd suggest is to try to try and put the Code in more student-friendly language when describing it in class. Sometimes the
Code is very confusing, but I always appreciate when a professor can get on my low level and put the Code in "normal people" language.
She's so smart (and so were all of my classmates, for that matter), that she sometimes seemed to breeze through the Code without
rewording it. And while I'm sure my classmates were fine, I sometimes had trouble understanding the minutia. Let me say, though, her
solutions to the homework were fantastic in this manner. The solutions were very detailed, and she put the Code in an understandable
context on paper.
I think she should DEFINITELY be considered if the law school is thinking of hiring a full time faculty. I would recommend her to a friend.
The class material brought the instructor grade down, but the minutia level at which the material is taught also led to confusion and a
disinterest in the subject matter.
The frequent homework assignments were very helpful and the midterm was a saving grace. Without these and the resultant feedback, I
would have been hopelessly lost.
This course is very important for anyone who wants to go into the tax field as more business entities are forming as LLCs , which are
governed by subchapter K. Professor Roberts has the knowledge to be a phenomenal teacher but I think that she just needs to relay the
information more slowly and in a more basic manner. While it may be harder to cover as much material, I think it is more important to make
sure the students understand and master the information. Additionally, I think more practice problems were needed. She was receptive of
our request for this but I think even more problems can help. Additionally, if a new problem was given she would often just go over it with
us rather than giving us a chance to try to figure it out. I think by allowing the class time to try the problem ourselves then explaining it; we
would be much better suited to ask questions about areas in which we were struggling. I know that Professor Roberts will be receptive to
feedback and will only continue to become a better teacher