This essay on common final examinations as a means of teacher evaluation sounds good...up to a point. The point being when the subject under examination is not in mathematics or many of the science fields. In practice, most humanities courses have considerably more leeway in terms of content than a course in developmental algebra; to use an example from a recent discussion in my own department, a student who has taken intro to lit analysis with me should be able to tell the difference between a Shakespearean and a Petrarchan sonnet, but not every instructor builds basic poetic genres into the course. For that matter, not every instructor requires exams for this course (some prefer to use papers). And because this is the only course which could plausibly use a common exam to evaluate instructional quality--except for composition courses and the capstone seminar, we rarely run multiple sections of anything--we would have to standardize readings and technical content first. Or, I suppose, do essay exams (no objective section or short answers) asking students to close-read texts that they had never seen before. That's perfectly doable--I often ask students to demonstrate that they can transfer skills by giving them something new to work on--but again, if you haven't standardized the technical content, some students will still be more or less disadvantaged. The real pushback in the humanities would likely come from faculty who don't feel like having the contents of their courses dictated from on high (and certainly everything I've heard from instructors in such situations suggests that it's not much fun, to say the least!), not necessarily from faculty objecting to "evaluation."