Faculty Annual Evaluation Rating Categories

February 2014

I. Statement of Purpose.

This document describes rating categories used in the chair’s annual letter of evaluation of faculty members in performance of assigned duties. University criteria for annual performance evaluations appears in Article 18.5 of the 2013-2016 collective bargaining agreement. Representative examples of the achievements or performance characteristics used in assigning the ratings can be found in the department precis of merit pay and in Appendix II of the Department’s Tenure and Promotion Guidelines. In these ratings, it is understood that productivity is always to be evaluated in proportion to the faculty member’s assignment.

II. Rating Categories.

Excellent. Exceeds the standards for quality of work and productivity expected by major research universities. Excellent by the standards of major research universities.

Commendable. Meets in all aspects, and exceeds in many, the standards for quality of work and productivity expected by major research universities. Commendable by the standards of major research universities.

Satisfactory. Meets, in all aspects, the standards for quality of work and productivity expected by major research universities.

Needs Improvement. Meets overall the standards for quality of work and productivity expected by major research universities, though does not meet the standards in all aspects.

Unsatisfactory. Does not meet the standards for quality of work and productivity expected by major research universities, though may meet these standards in certain aspects.