In this forum article, faculty reward systems are discussed, and teaching, research, and service activities are summarized in some detail. Hopefully, discussions of this type will lead to meaningful development of desirable faculty reward systems. Successful implementation of curriculum changes, and particularly those implying a close coordination between different subjects, is demanding on faculty time and requires faculty dedication. Yet the primary role of universities has changed from education to research, with little faculty time for teaching undergraduates. In many universities, a faculty performance evaluation depends primarily on the amount of research funding generated and the number of publications, with only lip service to teaching. If our universities are going to continue to be educational institutions rather than just research establishments, and curriculum changes as advocated in recent years by many are to be successfully implemented, it is essential to have a reward system that recognizes properly the quality of all faculty activities rather than the quantity. The activities of engineering faculty can be sorted into three main categories: teaching, research, and service. Most universities, if not all, would state that faculty performance is reviewed on the basis of these three types of activities. Unfortunately, very few universities, if any, are willing to state clearly and concisely what are their performance metrics and promotion criteria. It might be easier to define, at least, the minimum requirements. That would provide a lower bound, but even this is generally unavailable today. A precise definition of the performance measures and evaluation criteria used for annual reviews, promotion, and tenure would make it easier for many faculty members to assess their status and their chances. It would also considerably simplify potential grievance hearings, which are becoming more common. On the other hand, it would reduce the flexibility of university administrations at various levels ~department, college, and university! to adapt their criteria to each individual case. What may be more important deterrents to the publication of clear reward metrics is the lack of consensus on what these should be and the difficulty in accounting properly for all possible activities involved in each one of the three main categories and assigning relative values to them. In the following, we consider these different activities.