Section C: Regarding Deans - depts.ttu.edu

Section C: Regarding Deans

Regarding Deans. As evaluated by chairs, directors, associate/assistant deans, and other mid-level
academic leaders, deans earned a 4.01 (±0.04) rating. Only six deans had enough ratings for reporting
individually. Of those, three had overall rating averages between 4.34 and a 4.83. The leaders of
Agriculture, Human Sciences, and Visual & Performing Arts had 13 to 15 question all scoring at 4.0 or
above (including some unanimous 5.0 ratings). The lowest overall average was for the Dean of Arts &
Sciences where just one fairly low score pulled down the overall rating to 3.55 (±0.10).

Overall, the mid-level administrators judged deans best at promoting research & scholarly excellence
(4.51), while being weakest at inviting faculty input into decision making (3.49). Administering in an open
and transparent manner (3.61) is another area needing some improvement.

The general faculty tended to be much more critical of deans. The average rating was 3.29 (±0.02),

Looking at faculty ratings of individual deans, a small number of Honors College faculty gave Dean San
Francisco perfect 5.00 scores across the board. Otherwise, the next highest ratings went to Dean Galyean of
Agriculture (3.93, ±0.05). Also well regarded were Dean Edwards of Visual & Performing Arts (3.86,
±0.04), and Dean Perlmutter of Media & Communication 3.82 (±0.09).

However, two deans had overall rating averages a little below 3.0: Dean Lundquist (A&S) 2.93 (±0.03) and
Dean Ridley (Education) 2.93 (±0.05).

At the end of the list is Dean Vernooy of Architecture, 2.77 (±0.09) and Dean Sacco of Engineering, 2.70
(±0.05).

The primary weakness as viewed by the faculty was the failure to seek faculty input in decision making.
The overall average on that question is a 2.70 (±0.07), and one dean received only a 1.87 (±0.16) rating.

The Dean of Libraries was not included in the survey this year.

Summative charts regarding Deans appear on following pages:

January 2015 TTU Administrator Survey Fall 2014
Page 1 of 3
10C

Mean Evaluation Scores

of Deans
by Chairs, Directors, & Other Administrators

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00

Mean Evaluation Scores

of Deans
by Faculty

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00

January 2015 TTU Administrator Survey Fall 2014
Page 2 of 3
10C

Question data for Deans by evaluator:

Deans by Chairs, Directors, and Other Administrators 53.7% Response

1. Research & 2. Teaching 3. Institnl. & 4. Represen- 5. Open & 6. Responsive 7. Seeks Fac. 8. Supports
Scholarship Excellence Public Service tation Transparent Fac. Interests Input Fac. Devel.

32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

9. Effective 10. Strategic 11. Financial 12. Promotes 13. Promotion 14. Promotes 15. Inspires All Questions
Staff Plan Management Cooperation & Tenure Diversity Confidence
360
32 32 32 32 32 32 32 270
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 180
16 16 16 16 16 16 16
90
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12345

12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

Deans by Faculty 32.0% Response

1. Research & 2. Teaching 3. Institnl. & 4. Represen- 5. Open & 6. Responsive 7. Seeks Fac. 8. Supports
Scholarship Excellence Public Service tation Transparent Fac. Interests Input Fac. Devel.

144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144
108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108

72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

9. Effective 10. Strategic 11. Financial 12. Promotes 13. Promotion 14. Promotes 15. Inspires All Questions
Staff Plan Management Cooperation & Tenure Diversity Confidence
1700
144 144 144 144 144 144 144 1275
108 108 108 108 108 108 108
850
72 72 72 72 72 72 72 425
36 36 36 36 36 36 36
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

January 2015 TTU Administrator Survey Fall 2014
Page 3 of 3
10C