Faculty Evalution–Flawed Yet Serious
I have been spending most of my writing efforts focused on my evaluation. Although I could make it easier on myself, that is not the way I have decided to go about it. Instead, I am both taking the evaluation seriously while also addressing flaws in the evaluation process. Because the quality of my work is there, I can be critical without seeming to whine about low scores.
For example, today I was organizing some of the materials for the Professional Development section. The highest score you can earn on this section is 20 points based on some very specific criteria. Although we can go pack five years to earn these points, I believe that I earned more than 20 points during fall semester. Especially if the requirements did not limit how many points you could earn in any one area (e.g. you cannot count attending more than three conferences toward the total), I do not know now many hundreds of points I would have earned during the past five years.
Therefore, when I “complain” that certain things do not count as professional development, I am not doing it because I need to points or have to justify myself.
The same is true for the area of service which was the focus of yesterday’s work. I do enough service for the college that no one can doubt my commitment. Therefore, when I raise issues about things that do not count as service; as I did in “Faculty Members as Widgets,” I am writing from a position of strength. Although I believe it would be better to modify our understanding of service, I do not need such modifications to do well on the evaluation.
Finally, although I believe that the evaluation process is seriously flawed, because I take it seriously, it has been a good experience for me to put the material together. Although I would argue that much of the effort is meaningless at the institutional level, for me the time compiling the materials has been well spent.