The compensation plans for each of the Departments in the College of Humanities and Public Affairs can be accessed from this page. Questions about the plans can be addressed to the individual Departments or to the Office of the Dean.
Below is a set of guiding principles agreed to by the Department Heads and the members of the College Compensation committee. These principles guided the revision of the Departmental Compensation Plans in fall 2008:
Principles for Reviewing the Compensation Process in CHPA
(September 19, 2008)
When the Council of CHPA Department Heads examined the compensation rankings of each of the faculty that had been recommended by departmental compensation committees and individual Department Heads in spring 2008, consensus on final rankings was reached through a deliberative process. The basic principles that resulted from that process were further refined in August 2008 based on comments received since the document was circulated last spring. Then on September 5, 2008 the CHPA Department Heads and the CHPA Compensation Committee met to discuss the principles for reviewing the compensation plans in the College. One additional change was made to the principles document by the compensation committee on September 19.
Department Compensation Committees should consider these principles when reviewing their plans. It is to be understood that these principles will serve as the primary basis for a determination of comparability and rigor between the compensation plans in the College. They also will be used in the Dean’s final review before accepting the plans and sending them on to the Provost’s office.
1. CHPA will follow the lead provided by the September 2, 2008 “Best Practices” document produced by the University Compensation Committee on forced distribution of ratings:
“The Compensation 101 document and other material which have been published on the Provost website states clearly that there are no provisions or suggested practices for a forced distribution of performance ratings at the college or departmental levels.”
2. The departmental plans that serve as the basis for assigning initial compensation rankings are based on minimal qualifications for that ranking and may not ensure that a specific ranking will be assigned.
3. A single publication, unless it is a monograph published by a university or academic press, is not sufficient to merit consideration for a 5 ranking in research. A case could be made that an article published in a major journal in the field could merit a 5 ranking in research. In the case of a contract for a book, no special ranking beyond a 3 will be assigned unless there is a firm publication date within the coming year.
4. While faculty are encouraged to present their research at professional meetings, this alone does not merit a ranking in research above a 3. Higher rankings are based on the publication of this research.
5. Strong teaching evaluations alone do not merit a 5 ranking in teaching. Departments also may use class-weighted-scores to calculate teaching performance. However, no more than 50% and no less than 25% of a faculty member’s case for merit in teaching can be based on the teaching evaluations. There must be additional evidence of teaching effectiveness such as the creation and teaching of new courses, the introduction of innovative teaching techniques/technologies, and regular participation in advisement and teaching seminars. Evidence of student success based on the ratio of N-grades, grade distribution, and peer evaluation of teaching are also a consideration for merit.
6. Service on committees at any level does not merit consideration of a ranking in service above a 3 unless that faculty member is on a very active committee requiring a significant expenditure of time, is chairing an active committee that actually produces a product of particular importance, or distinguishes themselves by their leadership skills as part of the group.
7. Normally, a combination of several minor accomplishments in any of the categories (teaching, research, or service) is not sufficient to merit consideration of a 5 ranking in that category. Real evidence of leadership on university and college committees with a measurable accomplishment, exceptional teaching, publication of refereed journal articles or monographs, and funding of major external grants as a principal investigator or as a major contributor to the grant are considered as best evidence for consideration of a ranking of 5 in a category.
8. The primary workload for instructors is teaching. If an instructor chooses to add research to his or her performance weights, then the expectation for consideration at level 4 or level 5 must be comparable with ranked faculty including the publication of refereed articles or monographs. Those that choose to add a larger weight to service must distinguish themselves in a similar manner to regular faculty in terms of participation on committees or disciplinary-related service to the community.
In every instance, it is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide an adequate rationale and make the case for their performance ratings in teaching, research, and service.
The College committee elected for 2008-2009 that will provide input on compensation plan decisions:
CHPA Compensation Committee
ECO – Reed Olsen
HST – Bill Piston
PHL – Dan Kaufman
PLS – Dennis Hickey
REL – Kathy Pulley
SOC – Bill Wedenoja