1	The Faculty Budget Committee presents
2	The Merit Review Process What do you like about it? What would you change?
3	Reminder: Our Salary Recommendations for 2007-2008 * 3.25% across the board increase * $650 per merit point for all faculty * $250 rank adjustment for instructors and assistants * An additional adjustment for a specific group of tenured faculty
4	Guidelines for Awarding Numerical Merit Assessment Scores Developed at Joint Meeting of Faculty Budget and Personnel Committees, October 14, 2004 Range will be 0 to 5 • Scores will be set using “disciplined subjectivity,” guided by “rules of thumb” Distribution (applied by last three budget committees) Teaching (50%) Scholarship (30%) Service (20%)
5	Guidelines for Evaluating Teaching 0 possible in theory, unlikely in practice 1 competent, static teaching with moderate evaluations 2 static teaching with excellent evaluations 3 new course, expanding teaching horizon, innovation 4 multiple new courses or innovations 5 innovations including assessment demonstrating impact
6	Guidelines for Evaluating Scholarship 0 no evidence of scholarly activity 1 small number of book reviews, presentations or performances/exhibitions at regional venues 2 invited chapters, minor journal articles, presentations or performances/exhibitions at national or international venues 3 peer-reviewed articles in significant journals 4 multi-year project of major proportions 5 multi-year project of major proportions with substantial impact
7	Guidelines for Evaluating Service 0 no evidence of service 1 departmental service 2 minor committee service (+ department service) 3 major committee service, busy committed department or concentration chair 4 multiple significant service roles (e.g., dept chair and Personnel Committee) 5 Chair of faculty, director of accreditation effort, etc.
8	Questions about Faculty Time Is this system less burdensome on chairs or designated departmental reviewers? Do reviewers have sufficient information for writing thorough letters?
9	Questions about the Scale Should we use different scales for teaching, scholarship and service? Should high scores require excellence in all three areas? Should we replace the 5 point scale with a 3 point scale? Should we shift the “center” of the scale? Should the Faculty Budget Committee adopt the one score practice used by the Personnel Committee?
10	Questions about Evaluating Teaching Should we make significant distinctions between the teaching scores of most tenured faculty? What should we emphasize in awarding merit for teaching? Single class visits yield little information, should we eliminate them? How can we get better information on teaching? Use End-of-Course Evaluations? Use information from the Dean’s Survey? Require more class visits?
11	The Results of the Review Process The new salary review system was designed to serve two purposes: to give us information to assign merit scores and to provide an opportunity for development. Has it served the second purpose? How can we provide better feedback to faculty without imposing an unreasonable burden on the Faculty Budget Committee?
12	Your Questions and Comments What do you think about the current system? What would you change? What would you keep the same?
13	Submitting Your Comments Write down comments NOW Send comments later via email