����ֱ��

Updated 6/5/2024

Annual Merit Evaluation

The annual merit evaluation of faculty is conducted in the individual departments or programs by the chairs/directors and the appropriate departmental/program committees. Each regular (tenured/tenure-track) and full-time instructional faculty member is evaluated in each of the categories of teaching, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service as applicable to their role. An overall evaluation rating is also determined. The evaluation ratings are:

• Outstanding (5)
• Exceeds Expectations (4)
• Meets Expectations (3)
• Below Expectations (2)
• Unsatisfactory (1)

For tenured faculty, an overall rating of “below expectations” or “unsatisfactory” triggers a post-tenure performance review and plan according to the University of ����ֱ�� requirements (see Procedures for Post Tenure Review).

The work performed by faculty members in each area (teaching, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service) is appreciated and important. Engineering faculty rated “below expectations” or “unsatisfactory” in any category will be asked to develop an improvement plan in that category. If the improvement plan in not successful in the next two annual reviews, then an overall rating of “below expectations” or “unsatisfactory” may result, even if the faculty member’s performance in the other areas meets or exceeds expectations, especially in light of the expectation that tenure-track faculty members should have meritorious or excellent contributions in all areas.

For the purposes of annual merit evaluation, the efforts and accomplishments of tenure-track faculty are normally assessed according to a standard formula of 40% teaching, 40% creative/scholarly work and 20% leadership and service. An exception is that a faculty member on leave, sabbatical, or faculty fellowship primarily related to scholarly/creative work for one semester in a calendar year is normally assigned weightings of 10% teaching, 80% creative/scholarly work, and 10% leadership and service for that semester, or 25% teaching, 60% creative/scholarly work, and 15% leadership and service for the entire year when combined with a standard semester. Changes by not more than 15% in teaching or creative/scholarly work, or 10% in service, may be negotiated with the Department Chair. Larger changes in weightings require a written or email request, with justification and approval by the Chair and the Dean. These larger changes are generally restricted to special administrative appointments such as Department Chair, Faculty Director, or Associate Dean, or to faculty with a short-term emphasis on teaching, creative/scholarly work, or leadership and service to meet a particular need or for career development. In all cases, proportionate adjustments in performance expectations will be made when a faculty member’s weightings for evaluation are different from the standard. Similarly, increased teaching loads may be provided for faculty members who have lower scholarly/creative activities or evaluations.

CEAS Guidelines on Expectations of Faculty for Annual Merit Review

Annual assessment of faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service is to be determined within each CEAS Department or Program (Unit) by an appointed evaluation committee. Each evaluation committee will assess individual faculty performance based on the values of that unit. 

For the calendar year 2019 performance period and beyond, when on sabbatical, faculty will receive a “Meets” rating in the Teaching and Leadership and Service areas, unless exceptional circumstances are specified in the sabbatical plan. While on sabbatical, Research will be evaluated per the Unit and College regular process.

Annual Merit Salary Increases

Career Merit Equity Adjustments

Appeal of Annual Evaluation

The College of Engineering and Applied Science has a formal process to appeal an annual evaluation of “Below Expectations” or “Unsatisfactory”, as described below. If a faculty member receives an evaluation of “Meets Expectations”, or above, and yet feels his/her rating does not reflect the contributions made during the past year, then s/he should discuss it with the Chair/Director, who, in turn, will discuss it with the Dean, to determine if an adjustment may be warranted. Any changes in an annual rating will be made in the college records but will not lead to a change in salary during that year’s raise cycle (unless the adjustment is made prior to the finalization of the college raise data).

Evaluations of “Below Expectations” or “Unsatisfactory” (either for the overall rating or for a single category) may be appealed by sending a request and justification to the Dean and the Department Chair or Program Director. In consultation with the Chair or Director, the Dean will appoint a faculty committee to review the appeal. Appeals must be submitted in writing by the first day of the following fall semester (one week before classes start). A further appeal to the Dean may be submitted with additional justification by the faculty member or by the Department Chair or Program Director within one week of the decision of the faculty review committee. All appeals should be resolved by October 15. A successful appeal, in which the evaluation is changed to “Meets Expectations”, or higher, will not provide for a salary adjustment or remove the requirement for an improvement plan.