Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Agriculture
Michael L. Galyean
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 5 (55.6%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
5
5.00
5
5
5
0.00
0.00
5
4.80
5
5
4
0.40
0.18
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.80
5
5
4
0.40
0.18
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.40
5
5
3
0.80
0.36
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.80
5
5
4
0.40
0.18
5
4.20
5
4
3
0.75
0.33
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
5.00
5
5
5
0.00
0.00
5
4.80
5
5
4
0.40
0.18
80
4.66
5
5
3
0.44
0.05
No-Response out of 5
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
1
1
3
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
0
1
2
2
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
0
2
23
55
80
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
80.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
80.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
80.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
80.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
28.8%
68.8%
100%
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low ratings
No low ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Arts and Sciences
William B. Lindquist
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 11 (57.9%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
11
4.36
5
4
3
0.64
0.19
11
2.91
5
3
1
1.08
0.33
11
3.00
5
3
1
1.21
0.36
11
3.64
5
4
1
1.23
0.37
11
3.09
5
3
1
1.50
0.45
11
2.91
5
3
1
1.38
0.42
11
3.36
5
4
1
1.15
0.35
9
4.00
5
4
3
0.67
0.22
10
3.00
5
3
1
1.18
0.37
11
3.27
5
4
1
1.29
0.39
9
4.00
5
4
2
1.05
0.35
11
3.36
5
4
2
1.15
0.35
11
3.27
5
4
1
1.29
0.39
11
3.18
5
4
1
1.40
0.42
11
4.55
5
5
4
0.50
0.15
11
2.91
5
3
1
1.56
0.47
171
3.43
5
4
1
1.14
0.09
No-Response out of 11
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
18%
1
9%
0
0%
2
18%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
5
3%
0
0
1
5
5
11
2
0
7
1
1
11
2
1
4
3
1
11
1
1
2
4
3
11
3
0
4
1
3
11
2
3
2
2
2
11
1
2
1
6
1
11
0
0
2
5
2
9
1
2
5
0
2
10
1
3
1
4
2
11
0
1
2
2
4
9
0
4
1
4
2
11
1
3
1
4
2
11
2
2
1
4
2
11
0
0
0
5
6
11
3
2
2
1
3
11
19
24
36
51
41
171
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
45.5%
45.5%
100%
18.2%
0.0%
63.6%
9.1%
9.1%
100%
18.2%
9.1%
36.4%
27.3%
9.1%
100%
9.1%
9.1%
18.2%
36.4%
27.3%
100%
27.3%
0.0%
36.4%
9.1%
27.3%
100%
18.2%
27.3%
18.2%
18.2%
18.2%
100%
9.1%
18.2%
9.1%
54.5%
9.1%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
55.6%
22.2%
100%
10.0%
20.0%
50.0%
0.0%
20.0%
100%
9.1%
27.3%
9.1%
36.4%
18.2%
100%
0.0%
11.1%
22.2%
22.2%
44.4%
100%
0.0%
36.4%
9.1%
36.4%
18.2%
100%
9.1%
27.3%
9.1%
36.4%
18.2%
100%
18.2%
18.2%
9.1%
36.4%
18.2%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.5%
54.5%
100%
27.3%
18.2%
18.2%
9.1%
27.3%
100%
11.1%
14.0%
21.1%
29.8%
24.0%
100%
No low
ratings
1.0
1.3
3.5
1.3
0.8
2.3
No low
ratings
0.7
1.5
6.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
No low ratings
0.8
2.1
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
Rawls College of Business
Lance A. Nail
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 6 (54.5%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
6
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
6
3.83
5
4.5
2
1.34
0.55
6
3.33
5
3
2
1.37
0.56
6
3.00
5
3
1
1.41
0.58
6
3.00
5
3
1
1.73
0.71
6
2.33
5
1
1
1.89
0.77
6
2.33
5
1
1
1.89
0.77
6
2.83
5
2.5
1
1.86
0.76
6
3.67
5
4
1
1.37
0.56
6
4.00
5
4
2
1.00
0.41
6
2.50
5
1.5
1
1.80
0.74
6
3.00
5
3.5
1
1.53
0.62
6
3.17
5
2.5
2
1.34
0.55
6
2.67
5
2.5
1
1.49
0.61
6
2.33
5
1
1
1.89
0.77
6
3.17
5
3.5
1
1.67
0.68
6
3.17
5
3.5
1
1.34
0.55
96
3.02
5
3
1
1.56
0.16
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
2
0
1
3
6
0
3
0
1
2
6
1
2
0
2
1
6
2
1
0
1
2
6
4
0
0
0
2
6
4
0
0
0
2
6
3
0
0
1
2
6
1
0
1
2
2
6
0
1
0
3
2
6
3
1
0
0
2
6
2
0
1
2
1
6
0
3
1
0
2
6
2
1
1
1
1
6
4
0
0
0
2
6
2
0
1
1
2
6
1
1
1
2
1
6
29
15
6
17
29
96
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
16.7%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
16.7%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
16.7%
100%
33.3%
16.7%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
100%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
100%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
16.7%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
50.0%
33.3%
100%
50.0%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
100%
33.3%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
100%
0.0%
50.0%
16.7%
0.0%
33.3%
100%
33.3%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
100%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
100%
33.3%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
100%
30.2%
15.6%
6.3%
17.7%
30.2%
100%
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.0
5.0
0.5
1.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Education
Dale S. Ridley
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 5 (100%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of 5
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
5
4.20
5
4
3
0.75
0.33
5
4.60
5
5
3
0.80
0.36
5
4.40
5
5
2
1.20
0.54
5
4.40
5
5
3
0.80
0.36
5
3.80
5
4
1
1.47
0.66
5
3.80
5
4
1
1.47
0.66
5
4.40
5
5
3
0.80
0.36
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.60
5
5
3
0.80
0.36
5
4.20
5
5
2
1.17
0.52
5
3.80
5
5
1
1.60
0.72
5
4.20
5
5
2
1.17
0.52
5
4.00
5
4
2
1.10
0.49
5
3.80
5
4
1
1.47
0.66
5
4.60
5
5
4
0.49
0.22
5
4.20
5
5
2
1.17
0.52
80
4.23
5
5
1
1.05
0.12
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
1
2
2
5
0
0
1
0
4
5
0
1
0
0
4
5
0
0
1
1
3
5
1
0
0
2
2
5
1
0
0
2
2
5
0
0
1
1
3
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
1
0
4
5
0
1
0
1
3
5
1
0
1
0
3
5
0
1
0
1
3
5
0
1
0
2
2
5
1
0
0
2
2
5
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
1
0
1
3
5
4
5
6
19
46
80
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
80.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
60.0%
100%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
80.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
60.0%
100%
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
60.0%
100%
5.0%
6.3%
7.5%
23.8%
57.5%
100%
No low
rating
No low
rating
4.0
No low rating
4.0
4.0
No low rating
No low
rating
No low
rating
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
No low rating
4.0
7.2
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Engineering
Albert Sacco
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 8 (80%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
8
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
8
4.50
5
5
3
0.71
0.25
8
3.88
5
4
2
1.05
0.37
8
3.88
5
4
2
1.05
0.37
8
4.13
5
4.5
2
1.05
0.37
8
3.38
5
3.5
1
1.32
0.47
8
2.88
5
3
1
1.62
0.57
8
4.13
5
4.5
2
1.05
0.37
8
4.25
5
5
2
1.09
0.39
8
4.50
5
5
3
0.71
0.25
8
3.50
5
4
1
1.66
0.59
8
4.00
5
4
3
0.87
0.31
8
3.75
5
4.5
1
1.48
0.52
8
3.25
5
3.5
1
1.48
0.52
8
2.88
5
3
1
1.69
0.60
8
4.13
5
4.5
1
1.27
0.45
8
4.00
5
4
2
1.00
0.35
128
3.81
5
4
1
1.19
0.11
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
1
2
5
8
0
1
2
2
3
8
0
1
2
2
3
8
0
1
1
2
4
8
1
1
2
2
2
8
3
0
2
1
2
8
0
1
1
2
4
8
0
1
1
1
5
8
0
0
1
2
5
8
2
0
2
0
4
8
0
0
3
2
3
8
1
1
1
1
4
8
2
0
2
2
2
8
3
1
0
2
2
8
1
0
0
3
4
8
0
1
1
3
3
8
13
9
22
29
55
128
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
62.5%
100%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
25.0%
37.5%
100%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
25.0%
37.5%
100%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
25.0%
50.0%
100%
12.5%
12.5%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
100%
37.5%
0.0%
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%
100%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
25.0%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
62.5%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
62.5%
100%
25.0%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
37.5%
25.0%
37.5%
100%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
50.0%
100%
25.0%
0.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
100%
37.5%
12.5%
0.0%
25.0%
25.0%
100%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
37.5%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
37.5%
37.5%
100%
10.2%
7.0%
17.2%
22.7%
43.0%
100%
No low
ratings
5.0
5.0
6.0
2.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
No low
ratings
2.0
No low ratings
2.5
2.0
1.0
7.0
6.0
3.8
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Human Sciences
Linda C. Hoover
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 6 (54.5%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of 6
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
6
4.50
5
5
3
0.76
0.31
6
4.50
5
5
3
0.76
0.31
6
4.50
5
5
3
0.76
0.31
6
4.67
5
5
4
0.47
0.19
6
4.50
5
4.5
4
0.50
0.20
6
4.17
5
4.5
2
1.07
0.44
6
4.83
5
5
4
0.37
0.15
6
4.83
5
5
4
0.37
0.15
6
4.50
5
4.5
4
0.50
0.20
6
4.67
5
5
3
0.75
0.30
6
4.67
5
5
4
0.47
0.19
6
4.33
5
5
2
1.11
0.45
6
4.83
5
5
4
0.37
0.15
6
4.17
5
4.5
2
1.07
0.44
6
4.33
5
4.5
3
0.75
0.30
6
4.50
5
5
3
0.76
0.31
96
4.53
5
5
2
0.68
0.07
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
1
1
4
6
0
0
1
1
4
6
0
0
1
1
4
6
0
0
0
2
4
6
0
0
0
3
3
6
0
1
0
2
3
6
0
0
0
1
5
6
0
0
0
1
5
6
0
0
0
3
3
6
0
0
1
0
5
6
0
0
0
2
4
6
0
1
0
1
4
6
0
0
0
1
5
6
0
1
0
2
3
6
0
0
1
2
3
6
0
0
1
1
4
6
0
3
6
24
63
96
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
33.3%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
83.3%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
83.3%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
83.3%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
16.7%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
83.3%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
33.3%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
3.1%
6.3%
25.0%
65.6%
100%
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
5.0
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low ratings
No low ratings
5.0
No low
ratings
5.0
No low ratings
No low
ratings
29.0
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
School of Law
Angela D. Dickerson
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 18 (25%)
1
2
3
4
Actively
promotes
research and
scholarly
excellence
Actively
promotes
teaching
excellence
18
4.50
5
5
3
0.69
0.16
18
4.06
5
4
1
1.08
0.25
18
4.28
5
5
2
0.99
0.23
18
3.56
5
4
1
1.54
0.36
18
3.89
5
4.5
1
1.41
0.33
18
3.33
5
4
1
1.63
0.38
18
4.22
5
5
1
1.13
0.27
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
2
5
11
18
1
0
4
5
8
18
0
1
4
2
11
18
4
0
3
4
7
18
2
2
1
4
9
18
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
27.8%
61.1%
100%
5.6%
0.0%
22.2%
27.8%
44.4%
100%
0.0%
5.6%
22.2%
11.1%
61.1%
100%
22.2%
0.0%
16.7%
22.2%
38.9%
100%
13.0
13.0
2.8
Actively
promotes
Effectively
excellence in represents the
institutional and
college
public service
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes
to appoint
administrators
within the college
(departmental
chairs, associate
deans, etc.)
Has a clear
strategic plan
and allocates
resources
consistently
with that plan
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
Administers
in an open
and
transparent
manner
Has an effective
and competent
administrative
staff
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
18
4.11
5
4.5
1
1.10
0.26
18
3.89
5
4.5
1
1.33
0.31
18
3.56
5
4
1
1.61
0.38
18
3.56
5
4
1
1.57
0.37
18
3.50
5
4
1
1.50
0.35
17
3.35
5
4
1
1.64
0.40
18
2.94
5
3
1
1.68
0.40
18
3.94
5
4
1
1.22
0.29
16
4.00
5
4
2
1.00
0.25
285
3.79
5
4
1
1.32
0.08
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
6%
0
0%
0
0%
2
11%
3
1%
4
3
1
3
7
18
1
0
4
2
11
18
1
0
4
4
9
18
1
3
2
3
9
18
4
1
2
3
8
18
3
3
1
3
8
18
2
5
0
4
7
18
4
2
2
2
7
17
7
0
3
3
5
18
1
2
2
5
8
18
0
1
5
3
7
16
35
23
40
55
132
285
11.1%
11.1%
5.6%
22.2%
50.0%
100%
22.2%
16.7%
5.6%
16.7%
38.9%
100%
5.6%
0.0%
22.2%
11.1%
61.1%
100%
5.6%
0.0%
22.2%
22.2%
50.0%
100%
5.6%
16.7%
11.1%
16.7%
50.0%
100%
22.2%
5.6%
11.1%
16.7%
44.4%
100%
16.7%
16.7%
5.6%
16.7%
44.4%
100%
11.1%
27.8%
0.0%
22.2%
38.9%
100%
23.5%
11.8%
11.8%
11.8%
41.2%
100%
38.9%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
27.8%
100%
5.6%
11.1%
11.1%
27.8%
44.4%
100%
0.0%
6.3%
31.3%
18.8%
43.8%
100%
12.3%
8.1%
14.0%
19.3%
46.3%
100%
3.3
1.4
13.0
13.0
3.0
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.1
4.3
10.0
3.2
Conducts fair
Seeks faculty
Is responsive
and rigorous
input in
Supports faculty
to faculty
tenure and
decision
development
interests
promotion
making
processes
9
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
18
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
No low rating
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Media and Communication
David Perlmutter
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 6 (75%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
6
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
6
4.17
5
4.5
3
0.90
0.37
6
3.83
5
4
3
0.69
0.28
6
4.00
5
4
3
0.82
0.33
6
3.83
5
3.5
3
0.90
0.37
6
2.83
4
2.5
2
0.90
0.37
6
2.33
4
2.5
1
1.11
0.45
6
3.83
5
4
3
0.69
0.28
5
3.80
5
4
3
0.75
0.33
6
4.17
5
4
3
0.69
0.28
6
2.83
4
3
1
1.21
0.50
6
3.50
5
3.5
1
1.38
0.57
6
3.50
5
3.5
2
1.26
0.51
6
3.17
4
3
2
0.69
0.28
6
2.33
4
2.5
1
1.11
0.45
6
4.17
5
4.5
2
1.07
0.44
6
4.00
5
4
3
1.00
0.41
95
3.52
5
3.75
1
0.95
0.10
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
17%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
1%
0
0
2
1
3
6
0
0
2
3
1
6
0
0
2
2
2
6
0
0
3
1
2
6
0
3
1
2
0
6
2
1
2
1
0
6
0
0
2
3
1
6
0
0
2
2
1
5
0
0
1
3
2
6
1
2
0
3
0
6
1
0
2
1
2
6
0
2
1
1
2
6
0
1
3
2
0
6
2
1
2
1
0
6
0
1
0
2
3
6
0
0
3
0
3
6
6
11
28
28
22
95
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
16.7%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
50.0%
16.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
50.0%
16.7%
33.3%
0.0%
100%
33.3%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
50.0%
16.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
50.0%
33.3%
100%
16.7%
33.3%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100%
16.7%
0.0%
33.3%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
33.3%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
50.0%
33.3%
0.0%
100%
33.3%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
33.3%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100%
6.3%
11.6%
29.5%
29.5%
23.2%
100%
No low
rating
No low
rating
0.7
0.3
No low rating
No low
rating
No low
rating
1.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
0.3
5.0
No low
rating
2.9
No low rating No low rating
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College Visual and Performing Arts
Andrew W. Martin
Academic Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators
Survey participation: 5 (100%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
college
interests
making
7
8
9
10
Supports
faculty
development
Conducts fair
and rigorous
tenure and
promotion
processes
Actively
promotes
diversity
within the
college
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Conducts fair and
rigorous processes Has a clear
to appoint
strategic plan
administrators
and allocates
within the college
resources
(departmental
consistently
chairs, associate with that plan
deans, etc.)
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
college
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
5
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
5
3.80
5
4
3
0.75
0.33
5
3.60
5
4
2
1.02
0.46
5
3.40
5
3
2
1.02
0.46
5
3.00
4
3
2
0.89
0.40
5
3.40
5
3
2
1.02
0.46
5
3.60
5
4
2
1.02
0.46
5
4.20
5
4
3
0.75
0.33
4
3.75
5
3.5
3
0.83
0.41
5
3.40
5
3
2
1.02
0.46
5
3.00
4
3
2
0.89
0.40
3
4.00
5
4
3
0.82
0.47
5
2.80
5
3
1
1.33
0.59
5
3.80
5
4
3
0.75
0.33
5
3.20
4
4
2
0.98
0.44
5
3.80
5
4
3
0.75
0.33
5
3.80
5
4
2
0.98
0.44
77
3.53
5
4
1
0.93
0.11
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
20%
0
0%
0
0%
2
40%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
3
4%
0
0
2
2
1
5
0
1
1
2
1
5
0
1
2
1
1
5
0
2
1
2
0
5
0
1
2
1
1
5
0
1
1
2
1
5
0
0
1
2
2
5
0
0
2
1
1
4
0
1
2
1
1
5
0
2
1
2
0
5
0
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
0
1
5
0
0
2
2
1
5
0
2
0
3
0
5
0
0
2
2
1
5
0
1
0
3
1
5
1
13
22
27
14
77
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
40.0%
20.0%
40.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
40.0%
20.0%
40.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
100%
20.0%
20.0%
40.0%
0.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
40.0%
0.0%
60.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
60.0%
20.0%
100%
1.3%
16.9%
28.6%
35.1%
18.2%
100%
No low
rating
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
No low rating
No low
rating
2.0
1.0
No low raing
0.5
No low
rating
1.5
No low rating
4.0
2.9
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1