UWC
Department of History
Merit
Criteria, Policies, Procedures
I. Criteria
Traditionally, judgments made of university faculty have been construed as
positive judgments. University faculty are, in general, expected to perform at
more than an adequate level. As a result, there is historical precedence for
distinguishing between what might be called contractual obligations and
expectations. Contractual obligations include such activities as meeting regularly
with classes, grading examinations and papers, and, perhaps, committee work.
University faculty are, however, expected to do a good deal more than meet these
minimum contractual obligations. University expectations include discipline-
related professional activity, service to the university or the community and
continuing development of teaching. The committee will base its
recommendations on an evaluation of a faculty member’s performance and
contributions in the following three areas with emphasis placed on teaching.
Criterion 1. Teaching
Competence in one’s discipline is essential to good teaching. Therefore,
an evaluation of competence by members of the candidate’s own
discipline will be considered. The ability to effectively transmit
knowledge in one’s discipline is equally essential to good teaching.
Therefore, student and colleague evaluations of such ability also will be
considered. The continuing development of teaching includes the review
and improvement of course materials, the development of effective
instructional methods and the enrichment of existing instructional
programs.
Criterion 2. Scholarly Activities and Professional Growth
Scholarly activities and professional growth contribute to a candidate’s
expertise in his/her discipline. This activity and growth includes such
activities as discipline related research, pedagogical presentations, papers,
advanced studies, publications, grants, and participation in professional
associations and their meetings.
Criterion 3. Service to the University and/or Discipline Oriented Community
Outreach
Because of the university’s emphasis on faculty governance, a candidate is
expected to contribute to institutional development. Such contributions
include active participation on campus, departmental, and system
committees. Community service which is related to a candidate’s
discipline is also encouraged. Examples of such service are development
of extension courses, consulting, and public lectures.
II. Merit Policies
1. Merit Categories
U – Unsatisfactory performance. The faculty member does not fully meet
contractual obligations or attempts to meet these obligations with less than
expected proficiency and thus receives no cost-of-living or merit salary
adjustment.
Meritorious – The faculty member meets contractual obligations and
fulfills expectations.
High Merit – The faculty member meets obligations and fulfills
expectations with outstanding quality.
Exceptional Merit – The faculty member meets obligations and fulfills
expectations with exceptional quality. Faculty members falling into this
merit category are judged exceptional in the Colleges system as a whole,
not just in the department.
2. Faculty members are required to provide a completed Faculty Activity
Report to the Executive Committee based on the activities for the calendar
year. Any faculty member who does not submit an Activity Report shall
not be eligible for merit consideration.
3. Faculty members will be required to participate in student evaluations
conducted by the local evaluations committee. According to the Colleges
Senate Guidelines, “Any faculty member who does not comply with the
“Procedure for the Administration of Student Evaluation of Teaching” as
ratified by the Senate shall automatically receive a “U.”
4. Student evaluations will be considered of secondary importance and will
not be quantified. Instructional materials, such as course syllabi, exams
and quizzes, reading and writing requirements, and other course materials
will receive primary consideration in evaluating teaching effectiveness.
Department members failing to submit supporting materials will
automatically receive a “U.”
5. Personal appearance will not be solicited. In the cases where the
committee has questions about the data, a letter will be sent asking for
written clarification.
III. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMIANTION OF MERIT CATEGORIES
1. Each committee member individually reviews the available faculty data.
2. The committee holds an initial discussion meeting in which the faculty
data are reviewed.
3. The committee holds a second meeting in which the following sequence of
votes is taken to place each faculty member (except see Additional Policy
#2) into a merit category:
a. Each committee member votes for all faculty who meet obligations
and fulfill expectations. Those receiving sufficient votes (#4
below) shall be placed in the Meritorious category.
b. Each committee member votes for those faculty in the meritorious category who meet obligations and fulfill expectations with outstanding quality. Those receiving sufficient votes shall be placed in the High Merit category.
c. Each committee member votes for those faculty in the High Merit category who meet obligations and fulfill expectations with exceptional quality, considered within all the UW Colleges. Those receiving sufficient votes shall be placed in the Exceptional Merit category.
4. Placement into a category shall be by a 4/5th majority vote.
5. At the end of any round of voting, in steps 3a through 3c above, any
committee member may demand a discussion and another vote on any
faculty members under consideration at that step.
6. Voting shall be by a signed ballot listing all faculty the committee member
wishes to include at the merit category under consideration.
7. Faculty who are not voted into the Meritorious category or higher are
subject to the following:
a. The committee shall vote for each faculty who is performing
unsatisfactorily. Determination of unsatisfactory performance shall be by
4/5 majority vote.
8. After merit categories for all other faculty have been determined, the
committee shall consider each of its own members (and possibly others,
see Additional Policy #2) in turn using steps 3 through 7 with a 3/4ths
majority vote.
ADDITIONAL POLICIES
1. No evaluation of faculty shall take place without all committee members
present except as necessary for policy 2 below.
2. No committee member shall participate in the discussion of, or the voting
for a personnel recommendation, pertaining to him/herself.
3. Each faculty member will be informed of her/his merit category which
was sent to the dean.
Adopted: 8/27/90
Amended: 8/26/92
Webpage Updated: April 16, 2005