Faculty Merit Evaluation Processes

  • TO: Chairs and Directors
  • FROM: Todd T. Gleeson
  • SUBJECT: Annual Merit Evaluation Processes in the College of Arts and Sciences
  • DATE: March 1, 2004

The process of annual evaluation of faculty for purposes of assigning merit adjustments to salaries is defined by the members of each primary unit. However, the annual merit evaluation process adopted by each unit must adhere to a number of college, campus, and University system policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines define a common set of characteristics shared by all unit processes in the College of Arts and Sciences. These common characteristics are:

  1. Annual Merit Evaluation processes must be described in writing and available to members of the unit. Evaluation processes must be approved by the faculty members of the primary unit, and by the dean. Substantive changes to the evaluation process or criteria for evaluation must occur by April 1 prior to the academic year in which the modified processes will apply (University policy).
  2. The Annual Merit Evaluation process must evaluate the performance of faculty members over multiple years. That is, accomplishments over at least two years must be combined and considered (College policy). Some units average accomplishments over three or more years.
  3. The process of annual merit evaluation must include the deliberations of a faculty committee from within the primary unit. This “salary committee” may be a standing or ad hoc committee (College policy). Many units use their executive committee for this function.
  4. In the annual evaluation of teaching accomplishment, multiple measures of assessment, not just FCQ results, must be considered (System policy).
  5. Components considered in the evaluation of teaching accomplishment must be assigned relative weights that imply relative importance in the evaluation process (System policy). The term “Components” refers to both the types of teaching activities evaluated (e.g., classroom teaching, graduate student mentoring) as well as to the methods of assessing those activities (e.g., FCQs, peer classroom visitations). Relative weighting may be assigned explicitly or implicitly to components by rank ordering components in importance, grouping components into more important and less important categories, assigning merit points to components, by describing typical profiles of faculty earning evaluations of “meeting expectations”, “exceeding expectations”, or by other acceptable methodologies. (College policy).