A new version of this site was created, following the June 24 Bylaws update. This is now the ARCHIVED site.
At tenure, promotion to full professor, and the five-year post-tenure review, faculty are eligible for merit adjustments to their base salary.
Overall, the criteria that define strong academic work across the categories of teaching, research/creative work, and service are largely the same at each stage of evaluation. The expected degree of achievement varies (for example, research/creative work expectations are greater at the review for full professor than they are at time of tenure). The evaluative framework is not discipline-specific; likewise, it takes into consideration that not every professional path looks the same over time, attributing comparable weight to participation in a number of campus committees as it does to intensive service in a central leadership role .
The faculty member’s work in each of the three pillars may be denoted as either “excellent,” “strong,” “satisfactory,” or “unsatisfactory.” The evaluation letter will highlight the most salient elements of the file that contribute to these assessments.
Collectively, the elements of file will be assigned EXTRA MERIT, MERIT, SOLID PERFORMANCE, or NO ADDITIONAL MERIT (see Appendix B: Merit Evaluation Process and Merit Milestones for a full discussion of the merit pay allocations at each stage of evaluation). While there is no cap on the number of faculty files per year that may be assigned "extra merit," note that this category is meant to designate exceptional achievement, and typically represents between 5-10% of all faculty merit awards annually.
Below are each of the criteria of evaluation considered at tenure, promotion to full, and the five-year post-tenure review. For each standard, a few examples of "strong" and "excellent" performance are listed for illustrative purposes, although these examples are by no means exhaustive.
Teaching
Evidence of student-centered approach
Reflective practice: internal influences
Ongoing pedagogical growth
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: efforts to adapt the course in real time to student needs; explicit articulation of inclusive classroom; meaningful examples of how reflective practice has informed changes to a particular teaching method or assignment over time; pedagogical collaborations, either as a co-instructor or in campus discussions of teaching.
Excellent performance might include consistent inclusive classroom practices; meeting students where they are (additional support and/or extracurricular opportunities); conscious cause/effect connections driving course changes. Can demonstrate that methodology, approach, and/or assignment structures are iterative; Seeking teaching feedback from others (classroom visits, syllabus exchange, etc.) Evidence of new content, staying current with new trends in the field. Development of new courses.
Research/Creative Work
Evidence of mindful choices and planning in building scholarly/creative profile
Productive outcomes
Ongoing development of research goals
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: some mindful choices in defining a project; evidence that the completed work was reviewed by appropriate professional audience in venue of moderate/ modest impact; some long-term work may be nearly (but not fully) complete; goal setting for short and long term future projects is appropriate, with reasonable revisions in timetable as needed.
Excellent performance might include: Suitable timeline to undertake projects with milestones to mark progress. work demonstrates recognized disciplinary expertise; evidence that completed work has expanded the discipline, as peer reviewed by an appropriate professional audience.
Service
Service activities/load (NB: external service work is valued, but does not replace the expectation for College service.)
Impact
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: Moderate engagement with College and/or Program service; service as a member (not chair) that maintains/supports faculty work (AJB, CEC, other standing Senate committees) OR Engagement in a few unrelated service roles on ad hoc committees, admissions days, etc. with strong engagement at the departmental level.
Excellent performance might include: evidence of engagement in BOTH Program and College service AND 1) evidence of widespread engagement across a number of College and/or Program service roles OR 2) Moderate College and/or Program service + strong external service work
Teaching
Evidence of student-centered approach
Reflective practice: internal influences
Ongoing pedagogical growth
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: explicit articulation of inclusive classroom; evidence of active support for high achieving or for struggling students, but perhaps not an awareness of both kinds of needs; efforts to adapt the course in real time to student needs; engaged pedagogical collaborations, either as a co-instructor, curricular redesign, or in campus discussions of teaching.
Excellent performance might include: inclusive classroom practices; transparent syllabus design; consistent self-evaluative process; evidence of new content, staying current with new trends in the field. development of new courses; ongoing engagement in pedagogical training, workshops, etc., as well as mentoring.
Research/Creative Work
Evidence of mindful choices and planning in building scholarly/creative profile
Productive outcomes
Ongoing development of research goals
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: Grant or award proposals in support of scholarly/creative work; evidence that the completed work was reviewed by appropriate professional audience in venue of moderate/ modest impact; goal setting for short and long term future projects is underway but general in scope.
Excellent performance might include: work demonstrates established disciplinary expertise; successful funding or disciplinary recognition; support for disciplinary-level goals (planning conferences, edited volumes, reviewing manuscripts).
Service
Service activities/load (NB: external service work is valued, but does not replace the expectation for College service.)
Impact
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: Moderate engagement with College and/or Program service; service in a leadership or co-leadership role maintaining/supporting faculty work (AJB, CEC, other standing Senate committees OR engagement in a few unrelated service roles on ad hoc committees, admissions days, etc. with strong engagement at the departmental level; moderate engagement in national/disciplinary service.
Excellent performance might include: evidence of sustained service in a leadership capacity; service established new initiatives / policies / foci / curricula / etc. OR Varied service roles have connected different elements of the campus community,
Teaching
Evidence of student-centered approach
Reflective practice: internal influences
Ongoing pedagogical growth
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: explicit articulation of inclusive classroom; meaningful examples of how reflective practice has informed changes to a particular teaching method or assignment over time; demonstrates awareness of (formal or informal) student feedback; pedagogical innovation in the form of collaborative work, skill building/training, curricular redesign
Excellent performance might include: inclusive classroom practices; efforts to adapt the course in real time to student needs; evidence of reflection on student outcomes; collaboration with and/or mentoring in the pedagogy of colleagues; seeking teaching feedback from others (classroom visits, syllabus exchange, etc.)
Research/Creative Work
Evidence of mindful choices and planning in building scholarly/creative profile
Productive outcomes
Ongoing development of research goals
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: scaffolded work in defining a research path (i.e., research grant leading to presentation leading to publication); productivity in multiple research paths; evidence that the completed work was reviewed by appropriate professional audience in venue of moderate/ modest impact.
Excellent performance might include: work demonstrates established disciplinary expertise; research output is appropriate in frequency and scale; circulated for an appropriate professional audience;
Service
Service activities/load (NB: external service work is valued, but does not replace the expectation for College service.)
Impact
Strong performance across these criteria might include such qualities as: Moderate engagement with College and/or Program service; Ongoing and consistent service as a committee member (not chair) maintaining/supporting faculty work (AJB, CEC, other standing Senate committees OR engagement in a few unrelated service roles on ad hoc committees, admissions days, etc. with strong engagement at the departmental level. Moderate engagement in national/disciplinary service.
Excellent performance might include: evidence of sustained service in a leadership capacity OR varied service roles contributing to a cohesive campus community