What does merit pool mean

University of Colorado at BoulderDepartment of Geography108 Guggenheim Hall, Campus Box 260Boulder, Colorado 80309-0260(303) 492-8310, Fax: (303) 492-7501www.colorado.edu/geographyMerit Evaluation Standards, Criteria and GuidelinesIntroductionThis document describes the merit evaluation standards and criteria used by the Department of Geography’s personnel committee to annually evaluate Faculty. The previous system was based on undocumented criteria that did not match the report received by the College, and many Faculty did not understand how their numerical scores were obtained. This proposed new systems seeks to address these two concerns. The advantages over the old system are:Standardizes the review criteriaMore quantitative and less subjective Makes it clear how the scores are obtained, hence reduce grievancesStreamlines the personnel committee’s merit evaluation with the “Faculty Performance Rating for AY 20xx-20xx” Report Simplified scoring systemThe Faculty Report of Professional Activities (FRPA), a required annual submission to the College of Arts and Sciences, forms the basis for the Departments merit evaluation. The FRPA is used to describe all Professional activity that occurred during the calendar year. Failure to submit a FRPA by the required deadline (usually February 1) will severely limit the personnel committee’s ability for evaluation.Scoring SystemThe new system matches that currently used in “Faculty Performance Rating for AY 20xx-20xx” form. Scores range from 0 to 25 corresponding to five performance categories, based on the Department’s Standards of Expectation in each area (Research, Teaching, and Service) as shown in Table 1. The Chair, in conjunction with the Personnel Committee, shall determined the final overall performance category as reported on the Faculty Performance Rating form based on a combination of research, teaching, and service evaluation scores. Table 1. Guidelines for numericalscores assigned to each performance category.Performance CategoryNumerical Score RangeFar Exceeds Expectations21-25Exceeds Expectations16-20Meets Expectations11-15Below Expectations6-10Unsatisfactory0-5
Page -2The total score for the individual is calculated as the sum of the scores in each area, weighted by the percentage of time spent in each area as stated in individual contracts and reported for that year in the Faculty Report of Faculty Activities (FRPA), unless a written request for a differential work load was received and approved by the Chair. The final merit score is then calculated as the equally weighted average of the scores of each member of the personnel committee.For example, a faculty member with the standard 40:40:20 research:teaching:service split would earn a final score from the personnel committee of 17.5, corresponding to a recommended “Exceeds Expectations” ranking to be reported on the public document, the “Faculty Performance Rating for AY 20xx-20xx” form, as outlined in Table 2. Table 2. Example of how a faculty member earned a ranking of “Exceeds Expectations” on their Faculty Performance Rating form based on the reviews of the personnel committee members. Expectations in each area, Research, Teaching, and Service are given a score out of 25 corresponding to the categories given in Table 1. These are then multiplied by percentage of time devoted to each area as reported on the FRPA to calculate a score out of 25 for each personnel committee member. The faculty member’s final score is calculated as the mean of all members of the personnel committee (usually four members).Personnel Committee MemberResearch ScoreTimes Research Weight: 40%Teaching ScoreTimes Teaching Weight: 40%Service ScoreTimes Service Weight: 20%Total Personnel Committee Member Score12510156102182251025101022231561045111420815625519Final Score17.5 (Exceeds Expectations)Review CriteriaThis section describes the criteria used to gauge the faculty member’s performance in each of the three review areas; Research, Teaching, and Service.ResearchAll research-active faculty are expected to show evidence of their research productivity. Research productivity includes the publication record, presentations, and grant activity. The publication recordis the permanent record of professional achievements vetted through a peer-review process. For research-active faculty, the research expectations for the publication recordare at least the publication of a peer-reviewed journal article, book, book chapter report, or conference proceedings (first or co-authored). Non-referred products are also recognized (e.g. journal notes and letters, book reviews, extended abstracts, reports conference proceedings), but not valued as highly. The quality and significance of the