Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are commonly used in performance evaluations of university faculty. However, evidence regarding the association of SETs to student learning has been inconsistent. One way to assess the connection between SETs and actual learning is to compare SETs in the first course in a sequence to student performance in the subsequent course. In this study, we analyzed this relationship in the Chemistry Fundamentals sequence (i.e., Chemistry I and Chemistry II) at a large public institution in the southeastern United States. Accounting for prior achievement and course and instructor characteristics in multilevel regressions, we found no positive relationship between SETs in Chemistry I and performance in Chemistry II. In fact, two analyses showed a significant negative relationship between SETs in Chemistry I and performance in Chemistry II. That is, students who took Chemistry I with an instructor who received high SET ratings earned low grades in Chemistry II. The results of this analysis are consistent with similar analyses in other disciplines. This supports the argument that SETs are more a measure of satisfaction with a course than actual learning and are of limited use as indicators of teaching effectiveness.