The University’s Faculty Senate conducted voluntary exit interviews with departing faculty members following the 2025-26 academic year in collaboration with the Work Institute. Following the interviews, the University released a report including the findings of the exit interviews. Key takeaways include that the University is doing well in maintaining a diverse learning environment and positive teaching culture, while some departing faculty reported overall concerns about University leadership and low compensation.
The Faculty Senate partnered with the Work Institute — a research firm that helps employers reduce turnover, boost engagement and create a thriving workplace by providing evidence-based insights — to conduct the exit interview report. The report was discussed at the Faculty Life Committee meeting April 29.
The Work Institute conducted interviews with 46 departing faculty members, reflecting under 30 percent of faculty leaving the University following the 2025-26 academic year, according to the report. Leaving faculty voluntarily participated in the interviews, rating the University in 10 different categories — which include but are not limited to “teaching experience,” “research & creative work,” “compensated appropriately,” “school/unit leadership” and “climate & culture.”
The Faculty Senate advises both the University president and the Board of Visitors on relevant educational and other matters that affect the University's welfare. The Faculty Senate represents all faculty at the University, and the body is composed of 82 faculty representatives from schools across the University.
The report asked respondents to detail their reason for leaving the University. “Retirement” and “relocation” were the two most common reasons for departure, each making up 26 percent of respondents. Other reasons for leaving include “career” at 13 percent, “job” at 11 percent and “involuntary” at 9 percent. Over one-third of respondents reported being employed and under two-thirds responded that they were unemployed at the time of the report.
In several of the categories, respondents ranked the University as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “fair” or “poor.” Interviewees were also given the option to refuse to respond or respond with “N/A.” Other categories asked respondents to either respond “strongly agree,” “agree,” “neutral,” “disagree” or “strongly disagree” about a statement regarding the University such as “U.Va. appreciates cultural differences & diverse lived experiences,” “[the University] provided time, resources & infrastructure” and "[University employees are] compensated appropriately." Respondents were also given the ability to refuse to respond or respond “N/A.”
Based on employee responses, among the 10 categories, faculty ranked the University highest in “rating of teaching experience” and “[appreciation of] cultural differences and diverse lived experiences.” 43 percent of respondents rated the quality of teaching experience as excellent, with a majority of the remaining responses rating it as very good, good or fair. Zero percent rated quality of teaching experience as poor, and two percent responded with “N/A.”
Exiting faculty reported positively on their teaching experience at the University during the exit interviews, citing a supportive atmosphere with collegial departments that focused on creating productive interactions between students and faculty. Several respondents also noted that the University offered strong mentorship and frequent feedback, which helped with professional growth. The overall sentiment among respondents included high satisfaction with the quality of teaching, learning engagement and institutional culture.
Maite Brandt-Pearce, vice provost for faculty affairs, said in a statement to The Cavalier Daily that many faculty members demonstrated satisfaction with the teaching experience and interactions with students.
“Respondents shared positive reports about their experiences teaching U.Va. students, which reflects what I observe directly: U.Va. faculty are deeply invested in their students, and that shows in how they describe the work,” Brandt-Pearce wrote.
Several departing faculty members also agreed with the statement “U.Va. appreciates cultural differences and diverse lived experiences,” — 46 percent of responses strongly agreed with the statement, and 11 percent of responses disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.
Most departing faculty reported that the University had a strong and visible institutional commitment to diversity and inclusion, citing the University's diverse faculty, staff and students from many different backgrounds. Departing employees also noted initiatives that contributed to the University's dedication to diversity and inclusion, mentioning inclusion committees, cultural events and other activities within individual departments that they said made people feel “accepted, safe and appreciated.”
Throughout all the responses on diversity and inclusion, “no major negative experiences were reported,” and concerns about recent threats to the University's commitment to diversity and inclusion were seen as hopefully “temporary,” according to the report.
Participants also reflected on possible areas for improvement to help the University better appreciate cultural differences. Interviewees acknowledged recent external political pressure and decisions by the Board that have contributed to backsliding, some specifically referencing former University President Jim Ryan’s forced resignation last summer. Further, respondents cited decisions by University leadership, including the Board, as contributing to the regression of the University’s promotion of diversity and inclusion. Respondents' suggestions focused on increasing the recruitment of underrepresented faculty and students, improving cultural support, boosting social cohesion and strengthening efforts at highlighting and celebrating diverse community achievements.
“U.Va.’s scores on climate, culture and appreciation of diverse perspectives [are] on par with other employers,” Brandt-Pearce said. “U.Va. is competitive in these areas while also giving us a clear target for continued improvement.”
The University was rated relatively poorly in the categories "compensated appropriately” and “rating of school/unit leadership.”
For respondents who “strongly agreed” — 17 percent — that the University compensated faculty appropriately, the overall sentiment among responses was positive regarding pay fairness and competitiveness. For participants who “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed,” respondents reported being consistently underpaid relative to “peers, nonacademic roles and new hires.” They reported that their salaries have often been below the median for several years, despite having high qualifications or leadership roles. Many female employees reported gender wage gaps in compensation between male and female faculty and staff.
Brandt-Pearce said that the University will continually compare the compensation of its faculty to universities of equal status, and that it will stay committed to working with University leadership to address concerns over compensation among faculty.
“[The University will] continue to benchmark against peer institutions and work with deans to address salary compression where it exists,” Brandt-Pearce said.
For participants who rated “unit/school leadership” positively, many cited their “strong overall support for the current departmental leadership,” with many citing specific unit leaders. The overall sentiment, according to the report, among the 24 percent who responded with “excellent” was a confidence in the morals, values and responsiveness of leadership.
For areas of improvement, responses commonly cited a need for improved leadership communication — respondents mentioned unclear decision-making and a lack of transparency from leadership, both of which “created mistrust, slowed approvals and hindered motivation.” Of the participants who responded fair or poor when rating “unit/school leadership,” many referenced deep dissatisfaction with University leadership. The dissatisfied mentioned perceived political interference and cited “pressure leading to a University leader's resignation,” likely referencing Ryan’s resignation last summer.
Brandt-Pearce mentioned that concerns with leadership are shared with the deans of each school, allowing them to work with department chairs and other members of University leadership to improve and strengthen faculty support and retention.
The report's repeated themes include pay and affordability, equity, leadership, governance and a lack of self-aware or development-focused leaders. The report concludes that the overall sentiment of the interviews is a combination of gratitude with targeted criticisms about compensation, leadership, coordination and support infrastructure.
Brandt-Pearce recognized the importance of conducting interviews and stressed taking the findings seriously while understanding the small sample sizes from which they came.
“The exit interview process gives us a useful window into faculty experience, and we take the results seriously,” Brandt-Pearce said. “[The findings] are nonetheless informative and help us identify areas for continued attention.”
Read More
The Contemplative Sciences Center reports successful academic year
By Charlotte Gabriel | 4 hours agoWith the conclusion of the 2025-26 academic year, the Contemplative Commons building celebrates its first year since its grand opening.
How do Virginia’s redistricting efforts compare to those of other states?
By Abigail Larkin | 2 days agoHere is a closer look at each states’ redistricting efforts and how they compare to Virginia.
Jeri Seidman aims to rebuild trust as faculty representative to the Board
By Lucia Gambacini | 4 days agoIn her role as faculty representative to the Board, Seidman is a non-voting member who provides the faculty perspective to Board members during open and closed sessions of meetings.
