Student evaluations of teaching are ubiquitous in higher education, widely disliked by faculty, and of uncertain value. The research literature on both their technical validity and their pragmatic utility is unusually polarized, with adamant opponents and defenders.Student evaluations generally consist of two parts: first, a series of questions with Likert-scale type answers (hereafter referred to as the numeric ratings), and second, an unstructured space for comments. Almost all of the existing research has focused on the numeric ratings. Faculty complaints, however, often focus on the comments, perhaps because they can be both vivid and enigmatic (Lindahl & Unger, 2010).In this paper, I will explore a set of comments from student evaluations in a community health nursing class, obtained over the course of four semesters. These comments were strikingly consistent, mostly negative, and initially, deeply puzzling. A preliminary analysis of the comments suggested that the students and the instructor had very different ideas about what the course was for, how learning worked, and what their respective roles should be in that process.Student comments focused on standardized tests as the primary measure of their learning and viewed the faculty role as helping them prepare for those tests. The instructor's efforts to include a critical analysis of social problems, and their links to community health issues, were met with confusion, suspicion, and resistance. In an effort to understand these comments at a deeper level-to take