BackgroundBenchmarking faculty workload is key for equity, but a standard model like the Carnegie Unit, originally designed for student workload, does not fit all scenarios. MethodsA novel Faculty Effort Data Collection Tool assessed whether the Carnegie Unit accurately reflected faculty effort in a graduate nursing program. Workload was evaluated course-by-course based on faculty self-reported hours. ResultsAnalysis of 62 APRN courses showed faculty spent nearly twice the Carnegie Units expected (84 h of faculty effort per student credit hour vs the 45 projected). Half of courses exceeded 90 h per credit; 21 % were under the anticipated 45. In some courses, faculty effort was up to sevenfold higher than expected for a 3-credit course (996 h vs 135 h). A single, universally applicable “per credit hour” formula for all courses could not be identified. Using faculty reported hours, the taskforce designed a new course workload credit plan. Revised workload credits increased from 1 to 8 (mean 3.7) to 2 to 15 (mean 4.92), appropriately crediting faculty for their work. ConclusionsThe Carnegie Unit did not accurately reflect faculty effort in our program. A tailored approach was necessary to ensure fairness, and promote a more equitable distribution of effort.