Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Engineering
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by All Faculty of a College
Survey participation: 67 (41.1%)
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
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
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
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
67
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)
67
3.76
5
4
1
1.21
0.15
67
3.91
5
4
1
1.19
0.15
67
3.75
5
4
1
1.20
0.15
65
3.68
5
4
1
1.33
0.16
66
3.68
5
4
1
1.38
0.17
66
3.73
5
4
1
1.49
0.18
64
3.80
5
4
1
1.26
0.16
59
3.66
5
4
1
1.32
0.17
62
3.77
5
4
1
1.18
0.15
67
3.55
5
4
1
1.46
0.18
57
3.44
5
4
1
1.35
0.18
64
3.44
5
4
1
1.33
0.17
60
3.82
5
4
1
1.12
0.14
67
3.57
5
4
1
1.51
0.18
67
4.03
5
4
1
1.04
0.13
63
3.49
5
4
1
1.38
0.17
1028
3.69
5
4
1
1.30
0.04
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
3%
1
1%
1
1%
3
4%
8
12%
5
7%
0
0%
10
15%
3
4%
7
10%
0
0%
0
0%
4
6%
44
4%
4
8
11
21
23
67
4
6
9
21
27
67
5
6
11
24
21
67
5
10
11
14
25
65
7
8
11
13
27
66
11
5
4
17
29
66
5
5
14
14
26
64
7
4
11
17
20
59
4
3
19
13
23
62
12
2
15
13
25
67
7
7
14
12
17
57
7
10
13
16
18
64
3
3
17
16
21
60
10
10
7
12
28
67
3
2
11
25
26
67
8
9
9
18
19
63
102
98
187
266
375
1028
6.0%
11.9%
16.4%
31.3%
34.3%
100%
6.0%
9.0%
13.4%
31.3%
40.3%
100%
7.5%
9.0%
16.4%
35.8%
31.3%
100%
7.7%
15.4%
16.9%
21.5%
38.5%
100%
10.6%
12.1%
16.7%
19.7%
40.9%
100%
16.7%
7.6%
6.1%
25.8%
43.9%
100%
7.8%
7.8%
21.9%
21.9%
40.6%
100%
11.9%
6.8%
18.6%
28.8%
33.9%
100%
6.5%
4.8%
30.6%
21.0%
37.1%
100%
17.9%
3.0%
22.4%
19.4%
37.3%
100%
12.3%
12.3%
24.6%
21.1%
29.8%
100%
10.9%
15.6%
20.3%
25.0%
28.1%
100%
5.0%
5.0%
28.3%
26.7%
35.0%
100%
14.9%
14.9%
10.4%
17.9%
41.8%
100%
4.5%
3.0%
16.4%
37.3%
38.8%
100%
12.7%
14.3%
14.3%
28.6%
30.2%
100%
9.9%
9.5%
18.2%
25.9%
36.5%
100%
3.7
4.8
4.1
2.6
2.7
2.9
4.0
3.4
5.1
2.7
2.1
2.0
6.2
2.0
10.2
2.2
3.2
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Chair: Sindee L. Simon
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 11 (64.7%)
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
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
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
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
11
4.82
5
5
3
0.57
0.17
11
4.55
5
5
2
0.89
0.27
11
4.36
5
5
2
0.88
0.27
11
4.64
5
5
3
0.64
0.19
10
4.40
5
5
3
0.92
0.29
10
3.90
5
4.5
1
1.37
0.43
11
4.27
5
5
2
1.05
0.32
9
4.78
5
5
4
0.42
0.14
11
4.64
5
5
3
0.64
0.19
11
4.27
5
5
2
1.05
0.32
10
4.30
5
5
3
0.90
0.28
10
4.30
5
5
2
1.10
0.35
10
4.30
5
5
2
1.10
0.35
11
3.91
5
5
1
1.38
0.42
11
4.45
5
5
3
0.78
0.24
11
3.91
5
5
2
1.31
0.40
169
4.36
5
5
1
0.94
0.07
No-Response out of 11
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
9%
1
9%
0
0%
2
18%
0
0%
0
0%
1
9%
1
9%
1
9%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
7
4%
0
0
1
0
10
11
0
1
0
2
8
11
0
1
0
4
6
11
0
0
1
2
8
11
0
0
3
0
7
10
1
1
1
2
5
10
0
1
2
1
7
11
0
0
0
2
7
9
0
0
1
2
8
11
0
1
2
1
7
11
0
0
3
1
6
10
0
1
2
0
7
10
0
1
2
0
7
10
1
1
2
1
6
11
0
0
2
2
7
11
0
3
1
1
6
11
2
11
23
21
112
169
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
90.9%
100%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
18.2%
72.7%
100%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
36.4%
54.5%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
18.2%
72.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
70.0%
100%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
20.0%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
9.1%
18.2%
9.1%
63.6%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
77.8%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
18.2%
72.7%
100%
0.0%
9.1%
18.2%
9.1%
63.6%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
30.0%
10.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
0.0%
70.0%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
0.0%
70.0%
100%
9.1%
9.1%
18.2%
9.1%
54.5%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
18.2%
18.2%
63.6%
100%
0.0%
27.3%
9.1%
9.1%
54.5%
100%
1.2%
6.5%
13.6%
12.4%
66.3%
100%
No low
ratings
10.0
10.0
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
3.5
8.0
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
8.0
No low ratings
7.0
7.0
3.5
No low ratings
2.3
10.2
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 Engineering
Computer Science
Chair: Rattikorn Hewett
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 8 (61.5%)
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
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
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
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
8
3.00
5
2.5
2
1.22
0.43
8
2.63
5
2.5
1
1.32
0.47
8
2.75
5
2.5
1
1.39
0.49
7
2.43
5
2
1
1.50
0.57
8
2.38
5
2
1
1.58
0.56
8
2.00
5
1
1
1.73
0.61
8
2.50
5
2
1
1.58
0.56
8
1.88
5
1
1
1.54
0.54
5
3.00
5
3
1
1.41
0.63
8
2.00
5
1
1
1.73
0.61
8
2.63
5
2
1
1.65
0.58
8
2.88
5
3
1
1.45
0.51
5
3.00
5
3
1
1.79
0.80
8
2.00
5
1
1
1.50
0.53
8
3.13
5
3.5
1
1.36
0.48
8
2.25
5
1.5
1
1.48
0.52
121
2.53
5
2
1
1.52
0.14
No-Response out of 8
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
13%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
3
38%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
3
38%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
7
5%
0
4
2
0
2
8
2
2
2
1
1
8
2
2
1
2
1
8
3
1
1
1
1
7
3
3
0
0
2
8
6
0
0
0
2
8
3
2
1
0
2
8
6
0
0
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
5
6
0
0
0
2
8
3
2
0
1
2
8
2
2
0
3
1
8
2
0
1
0
2
5
5
1
0
1
1
8
2
0
2
3
1
8
4
1
1
1
1
8
50
21
12
15
23
121
0.0%
50.0%
25.0%
0.0%
25.0%
100%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
12.5%
12.5%
100%
25.0%
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%
12.5%
100%
42.9%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
100%
37.5%
37.5%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
100%
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
100%
37.5%
25.0%
12.5%
0.0%
25.0%
100%
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
100%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
100%
37.5%
25.0%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
100%
25.0%
25.0%
0.0%
37.5%
12.5%
100%
40.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
40.0%
100%
62.5%
12.5%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
100%
25.0%
0.0%
25.0%
37.5%
12.5%
100%
50.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
100%
41.3%
17.4%
9.9%
12.4%
19.0%
100%
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.3
2.0
0.4
0.5
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)
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Engineering
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Chair:Michael G. Giesselmann
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 12 (42.9%)
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
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
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
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
12
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)
12
3.75
5
4
2
1.09
0.31
12
4.00
5
4
2
1.00
0.29
12
3.75
5
4
2
1.09
0.31
12
2.83
5
2
2
1.14
0.33
12
3.67
5
3.5
1
1.31
0.38
12
3.58
5
4
1
1.32
0.38
12
3.83
5
4
2
0.90
0.26
12
3.67
5
4
2
1.03
0.30
12
3.75
5
4
2
0.92
0.27
12
3.08
5
3
1
1.26
0.36
11
3.27
5
3
1
1.21
0.37
12
2.50
5
2
1
1.32
0.38
12
3.58
5
3.5
2
0.86
0.25
12
3.08
5
3
1
1.44
0.42
12
4.00
5
4
2
0.91
0.26
11
3.45
5
4
2
0.99
0.30
190
3.49
5
4
1
1.11
0.08
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
8%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
8%
2
1%
0
2
3
3
4
12
0
1
3
3
5
12
0
2
3
3
4
12
0
7
2
1
2
12
1
1
4
1
5
12
1
2
2
3
4
12
0
1
3
5
3
12
0
2
3
4
3
12
0
1
4
4
3
12
2
1
5
2
2
12
1
2
3
3
2
11
3
5
0
3
1
12
0
1
5
4
2
12
2
3
2
2
3
12
0
1
2
5
4
12
0
3
1
6
1
11
10
35
45
52
48
190
0.0%
16.7%
25.0%
25.0%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
25.0%
25.0%
41.7%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
25.0%
25.0%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
58.3%
16.7%
8.3%
16.7%
100%
8.3%
8.3%
33.3%
8.3%
41.7%
100%
8.3%
16.7%
16.7%
25.0%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
25.0%
41.7%
25.0%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
25.0%
33.3%
25.0%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
33.3%
33.3%
25.0%
100%
16.7%
8.3%
41.7%
16.7%
16.7%
100%
9.1%
18.2%
27.3%
27.3%
18.2%
100%
25.0%
41.7%
0.0%
25.0%
8.3%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
41.7%
33.3%
16.7%
100%
16.7%
25.0%
16.7%
16.7%
25.0%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
16.7%
41.7%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
27.3%
9.1%
54.5%
9.1%
100%
5.3%
18.4%
23.7%
27.4%
25.3%
100%
3.5
8.0
3.5
0.4
3.0
2.3
8.0
3.5
7.0
1.3
1.7
0.5
6.0
1.0
9.0
2.3
2.2
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Engineering
Civil Environ Construct Engineering
Chair: David L. Ernst
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 12 (34.3%)
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
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
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
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
12
3.50
5
4
1
1.12
0.32
12
4.00
5
4
2
0.91
0.26
12
3.67
5
4
1
1.03
0.30
12
3.75
5
4
1
1.23
0.36
12
4.08
5
4.5
1
1.19
0.34
12
4.42
5
5
1
1.11
0.32
11
4.18
5
4
3
0.83
0.25
9
3.78
5
4
3
0.63
0.21
11
3.82
5
4
1
1.19
0.36
12
3.92
5
4
1
1.19
0.34
10
3.60
5
4
2
1.02
0.32
11
3.55
5
4
2
0.99
0.30
11
4.00
5
4
2
0.95
0.29
12
4.25
5
5
2
1.16
0.34
12
4.33
5
4.5
2
0.85
0.25
11
3.73
5
4
1
1.35
0.41
182
3.91
5
4
1
1.05
0.08
No-Response out of 12
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
8%
3
25%
1
8%
0
0%
2
17%
1
8%
1
8%
0
0%
0
0%
1
8%
10
5%
1
1
3
5
2
12
0
1
2
5
4
12
1
0
3
6
2
12
1
1
2
4
4
12
1
0
2
3
6
12
1
0
0
3
8
12
0
0
3
3
5
11
0
0
3
5
1
9
1
0
3
3
4
11
1
0
3
3
5
12
0
2
2
4
2
10
0
2
3
4
2
11
0
1
2
4
4
11
0
2
1
1
8
12
0
1
0
5
6
12
1
1
3
1
5
11
8
12
35
59
68
182
8.3%
8.3%
25.0%
41.7%
16.7%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
16.7%
41.7%
33.3%
100%
8.3%
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
16.7%
100%
8.3%
8.3%
16.7%
33.3%
33.3%
100%
8.3%
0.0%
16.7%
25.0%
50.0%
100%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
27.3%
27.3%
45.5%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
55.6%
11.1%
100%
9.1%
0.0%
27.3%
27.3%
36.4%
100%
8.3%
0.0%
25.0%
25.0%
41.7%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
18.2%
27.3%
36.4%
18.2%
100%
0.0%
9.1%
18.2%
36.4%
36.4%
100%
0.0%
16.7%
8.3%
8.3%
66.7%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
0.0%
41.7%
50.0%
100%
9.1%
9.1%
27.3%
9.1%
45.5%
100%
4.4%
6.6%
19.2%
32.4%
37.4%
100%
3.5
9.0
8.0
4.0
9.0
11.0
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
7.0
8.0
3.0
3.0
8.0
4.5
11.0
3.0
6.4
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 Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Chair:Hong-Chao Zhang
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 7 (58.3%)
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
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
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
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
7
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)
7
3.71
5
4
1
1.48
0.56
7
3.14
5
3
1
1.73
0.65
7
3.29
5
4
1
1.75
0.66
7
3.57
5
4
1
1.50
0.57
7
3.29
5
4
1
1.75
0.66
7
3.71
5
4
1
1.48
0.56
7
3.43
5
4
1
1.68
0.63
7
3.71
5
4
1
1.48
0.56
7
3.14
5
3
1
1.73
0.65
7
3.00
5
3
1
1.85
0.70
7
3.00
5
3
1
1.85
0.70
7
3.29
5
3
1
1.67
0.63
7
3.57
5
3
1
1.40
0.53
7
3.43
5
4
1
1.68
0.63
7
3.71
5
4
1
1.28
0.48
7
3.00
5
3
1
1.85
0.70
112
3.38
5
4
1
1.63
0.15
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
0
2
3
7
2
1
1
0
3
7
2
1
0
1
3
7
1
1
1
1
3
7
2
1
0
1
3
7
1
1
0
2
3
7
2
0
1
1
3
7
1
1
0
2
3
7
2
1
1
0
3
7
3
0
1
0
3
7
3
0
1
0
3
7
2
0
2
0
3
7
1
0
3
0
3
7
2
0
1
1
3
7
1
0
1
3
2
7
3
0
1
0
3
7
29
8
14
14
47
112
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
28.6%
42.9%
100%
28.6%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
42.9%
100%
28.6%
14.3%
0.0%
14.3%
42.9%
100%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
42.9%
100%
28.6%
14.3%
0.0%
14.3%
42.9%
100%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
28.6%
42.9%
100%
28.6%
0.0%
14.3%
14.3%
42.9%
100%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
28.6%
42.9%
100%
28.6%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
42.9%
100%
42.9%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
42.9%
100%
42.9%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
42.9%
100%
28.6%
0.0%
28.6%
0.0%
42.9%
100%
14.3%
0.0%
42.9%
0.0%
42.9%
100%
28.6%
0.0%
14.3%
14.3%
42.9%
100%
14.3%
0.0%
14.3%
42.9%
28.6%
100%
42.9%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
42.9%
100%
25.9%
7.1%
12.5%
12.5%
42.0%
100%
2.5
1.0
1.3
2.0
1.3
2.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
3.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
1.6
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Chair:Edward E. Anderson
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 13 (31.7%)
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
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
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
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
No-Response out of
13
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)
13
3.77
5
4
1
0.97
0.27
13
4.31
5
4
3
0.61
0.17
13
4.08
5
4
3
0.73
0.20
12
4.42
5
5
3
0.76
0.22
13
4.08
5
4
2
0.83
0.23
13
4.46
5
5
3
0.63
0.18
11
4.36
5
5
3
0.77
0.23
10
4.20
5
4.5
3
0.87
0.28
12
3.92
5
4
3
0.86
0.25
13
4.31
5
4
3
0.72
0.20
7
3.86
5
4
3
0.83
0.31
12
3.75
5
3.5
3
0.83
0.24
11
4.09
5
4
3
0.67
0.20
13
4.31
5
5
2
0.91
0.25
13
4.15
5
4
3
0.77
0.21
11
4.18
5
4
3
0.57
0.17
190
4.14
5
4
1
0.77
0.06
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
8%
0
0%
0
0%
2
15%
3
23%
1
8%
0
0%
6
46%
1
8%
2
15%
0
0%
0
0%
2
15%
18
9%
1
0
2
8
2
13
0
0
1
7
5
13
0
0
3
6
4
13
0
0
2
3
7
12
0
1
1
7
4
13
0
0
1
5
7
13
0
0
2
3
6
11
0
0
3
2
5
10
0
0
5
3
4
12
0
0
2
5
6
13
0
0
3
2
2
7
0
0
6
3
3
12
0
0
2
6
3
11
0
1
1
4
7
13
0
0
3
5
5
13
0
0
1
7
3
11
1
2
38
76
73
190
7.7%
0.0%
15.4%
61.5%
15.4%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
7.7%
53.8%
38.5%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
23.1%
46.2%
30.8%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
25.0%
58.3%
100%
0.0%
7.7%
7.7%
53.8%
30.8%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
7.7%
38.5%
53.8%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
18.2%
27.3%
54.5%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
30.0%
20.0%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
41.7%
25.0%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
38.5%
46.2%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
42.9%
28.6%
28.6%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
18.2%
54.5%
27.3%
100%
0.0%
7.7%
7.7%
30.8%
53.8%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
23.1%
38.5%
38.5%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
63.6%
27.3%
100%
0.5%
1.1%
20.0%
40.0%
38.4%
100%
10.0
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
11.0
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
No low ratings
No low ratings
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
11.0
No low ratings
No low
ratings
49.7
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1