Updated 22 June 2016
The annual merit evaluation of faculty is first 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, research and service. An overall evaluation rating is also determined. The evaluation ratings are:
For tenured faculty, an overall rating of “below expectations” or “unsatisfactory” triggers a posttenure performance review and plan according to the University of Colorado requirements (see Procedures for Post Tenure Review).
Of course, the good work performed by faculty members in each area (teaching, research and service) is appreciated and important. Thus, starting with 2011 performance evaluations, 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-line 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% research and 20% service. An exception is that a faculty member on leave, sabbatical or faculty fellowship primarily related to research for one semester in a calendar year is normally assigned weightings of 10% teaching, 80% research and 10% service for that semester, or 25% teaching, 60% research, and 15% service for the entire year when combined with a standard semester. Changes by not more than 15% in teaching or research, 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, research or 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 research activities or evaluations.
The merit evaluations of the faculty are reviewed by the Dean and Associate Deans, and changes may be recommended to ensure fairness for each individual and consistency with college-wide standards. The Dean then meets with each Chair and Program Director to review and finalize the ratings.
Each department and academic program is provided a raise pool by the Dean. The unit raise pool reflects the overall performance of the unit. The overall merit rating, which may be averaged over two or more years, is used by the department or program to determine a general-merit salary increase for each faculty member in the unit, using the constraint that the total raise pool for the unit is fixed.
The College has an annual career-merit equity evaluation and salary adjustment process that compares the salary of each faculty member with others in the College with similar career merit and experience. The process is based on a curve fit of all salaries to career merit (the average of the five most recent annual merit ratings) and professional experience (years since PhD degree, with adjustments for nontraditional careers approved by the Dean). Once the curve fit has been done, any faculty member whose salary is below the predicted salary by more than 5% has a salary equity adjustment calculated that is up to 25% of the difference between 95% of the predicted salary and the actual salary. A discipline-specific factor may also be introduced to adjust the predicted salary for disciplines with national average salaries that differ from the average of other college disciplines. The salary equity adjustment is added to the annual merit raise.
The process is designed to bring the salary close to a 5% bound of the predicted salary over multiple years. A sample of data points on the curve fit to the salary data for the current year is provided in Table 1. No more than 10% of the general merit raise pool is generally used to make the career merit equity adjustments.
Once the total raises have been determined, they are reviewed by the Dean to ensure overall integrity of the results. The raises are then reported to the Provost’s Office.
5-Year Performance Rating Average
|Years Since PhD||2.50||3.00||3.50||4.00||4.50|
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, 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.