> A great teacher should be treated at the same level of prestige as a great researcher. Make influence merit based based on contribution to the university on i

> A great teacher should be treated at the same level of prestige as a great researcher. Make influence merit based based on contribution to the university on its most important mission: teaching students. The problem is that while research quality can be measured to a certain extent (in a flawed way that brings problems, like all the publish-or-perish culture, but it can be done); measuring teaching quality, even crudely, is an unsolved problem. If you measure by academic grades or pass/fail rates, you are just incentivizing easy exams and easy courses, typically not the best for learning. If you ask students, they will also be biased by the difficulty of the course, apart from other possible biases (gender, etc.). If you measure student employability, your metrics will be more correlated to discipline than to actual teaching quality, and you can't rate individual teachers/courses that way anyway. If you count "achievements" like acknowledging teachers for taking training courses, etc., people will just do that to improve their metrics without necessarily improving teaching quality. There just doesn't seem to be a good solution. I am a professor in a metrics-obsessed academic system and to be honest, research metrics are gamed by some but at least if you're good you're going to be fine. Teaching metrics are pure noise, and I say this as someone who hasn't had any problem with them (in fact I've reached full professorship).