Skip to main content
University of Washington UW W Logo Human Centered Design & Engineering Wordmark Logo

HCDE Intranet

Faculty merit review policy

Approved 7 February 2024

1. Timeline

The merit review process will begin and end in Spring Quarter each year. The Assistant to the Chair (ATC) will work with the chair of the Faculty Support Committee to establish specific timelines for each year. All vitas should use April 1 as the start and end dates for one academic year (for the purpose of merit review). Although the specific timing of each year’s process will vary, the department will follow these general guidelines:

  1. The committee will budget for 15 minutes per faculty member being reviewed.
  2. The scheduling of this meeting will be set in early Winter quarter for the May meeting.
  3. The ATC will collect merit documents and place them in a shared folder for review by faculty at least one week before the meeting.
  4. Faculty members who do not submit merit materials will have their merit case determined based only on prior years’ or publicly available documentation, which may not represent the full case. (The discussant is not required to do additional research to find out this information.)

2. What will be considered?

The cumulative record (with a focus on the last three years of activity) will be considered. The cumulative record includes peer evaluations, student evaluations, publication lists, etc. The cumulative record will be based on the following materials:

  1. Sent by faculty member to ATC
    • An updated Curriculum Vitae (CV)
      • Faculty should use the College of Engineering CV template found on the Promotion & Tenure Toolkit for their annual/ongoing merit review. 
      • Use yellow highlighting to designate the new year’s activity (April 1 of previous year through April 1 of current year).  
    • A 1-2 page narrative statement contextualizing research/scholarship, teaching, and service accomplishments for the year not otherwise listed on CV. The narrative statement should address the alignment of the faculty member’s personal goals with department and strategic goals.
  2. Collected by ATC
    • Most recent signed annual workload plan (if applicable, aka Chapter 24 conference)
    • Peer Teaching Evaluation (if applicable), assigned in the fall of each year by the Department Chair in consultation with the ATC. 
    • Student Course Evaluations
    • Current salary and comparison to peers
    • Any documents created in response to two consecutive years of no merit (24-55, section H)

3. Review Committee Recommendations

The review committee consists of all faculty who are above rank for Assistant and Associate-level faculty (e.g., Assistant-level faculty are reviewed by Associates and Fulls, Associates are reviewed by Fulls). For Full-rank faculty, the review committee consists of all other Full-rank faculty other than the faculty member being reviewed.

For each faculty member, the review committee will make three recommendations:

  1. Merit – recommendations can be (a) meritorious or (b) not meritorious
  2. Priority for the Department Chair to pursue additional funds to address compression, inversion, or retention issues - (a) high (b) medium (c) low.
    • A recommendation to pursue these funds will have no impact on the regular merit pool. The committee will specifically state the reasons for pursuing these funds.
  3. Recommendation to pursue tenure and/or a promotion in the next review cycle: (yes) or (no). 
    • This recommendation will be made for all assistant and associate level ranked faculty.

4. Merit Review Meeting

The first part of the merit meeting should include all full-time faculty. It will begin with an overview of the merit review process. The meeting proceeds as follows:

  • Assistant-level professors leave the room and are reviewed by Associate-level and Full-level Professors. 
  • Next, Associate-level Professors leave the room and are reviewed by Full-level Professors.
  • Finally, Full-level Professors are reviewed by Full-level Professors, with the reviewee leaving the room during their own discussion. 

5. Outcome of Merit Review Process

The faculty discussants will draft a bullet list of merit recommendation points for each faculty member for which they were responsible and send it to the Department Chair. The Faculty Support committee chair will share the outcomes of the three recommendations above with the Department Chair.

The Department Chair must notify the COE HR Administrator before June 15 that the department has completed the merit reviews and whether all faculty have been found at least meritorious. 

The Department Chair will draft merit letters to all faculty, starting with the text provided from the discussant, which the Department Chair may adapt, as the faculty recommendations are advisory to the Department Chair. The faculty member will receive a letter stating the outcome of the discussion and merit vote in September that year. 

Faculty members are encouraged to discuss with their mentors and/or the Department Chair any feedback or questions they may have about the process or feedback.