Administration Evaluation Committee 2005 results

Download a spreadsheet of all results

For your convenience, the data is available in several formats:

aec2005.csv   Plain text (fields separated by semicolons)

aec2005.xls   .xls file, for Microsoft Excel

aec2005.ods   .ods Open Document Spreadsheet, for OpenOffice (openoffice.org)

Spreadsheet columns are as follows:

Administrative unit tag:

Each administrative unit (school, college, or department) was assigned a unique four letter code for internal use in the questionnaire system.

Full list of the four letter unit codes

Sub-unit tag:

When reports for an administrator are broken down into smaller units, this field identifies the specific unit. This applies to reports for the president and provost broken down by school/college and to reports for deans broken down by departments.

Administrator type:

This identifies the type of administrator. Questionnaires were designed specifically for each administrator type.
pres=president
prov=provost
dean=dean
chair=department chair
lib=university librarian

Sorting key:

This is used only for chairs and deans. It consists of the letter c for a chair or d for a dean followed by the question number as a two digit number. The question number is padded with a leading zero if necessary. For example, question 7 for a chair would contain c07 in this field. This field is provided for convenience in sorting the spreadsheet into an order that makes it easy to make comparisons in the results for a given question among all applicable administrators.

Question number:

The question number. Example: Q7 would be question number 7.

Question text:

The full text of the question.

Eligible:

The number of University Senate members eligible to evaluate this administrator.

Responses:

The number of responses received for this question. NBJ responses are included in this number. Questions left blank on the questionnaire are not included in this number.

Strongly Agree:

The number of Strongly Agree responses received.

Agree:

The number of Agree responses received.

Neutral:

The number of Neutral responses received.

Disagree:

The number of Disagree responses received.

Strongly Disagree:

The number of Strongly Disagree responses received.

No Basis for Judgement:

The number of No Basis for Judgement responses received.

Median:

The median (interpolated) of the results. To compute this, responses were assigned the following values: No Basis for Judgement responses and blank responses were not included in computing the median.

2004 Median:

The median for the 2004 evaluations (only shown if the same administrator in the same position was also evaluated in 2004).
5=Strongly Agree (or Far Too Much)
4=Agree (or Too Much)
3=Neutral (or About Right)
2=Disagree (or Not Enough)
1=Strongly Disagree (or Not Nearly Enough)