Tables
-
Table 1: Ratings Criteria of Teaching for Tenure at the Ñý¼§Ö±²¥ Campus
Rating
Course Design
Course Delivery
Other considerationsExcellent
Exemplar Course Design
Very good student and peer evaluations.
Very active dissertation committee participation. Very active participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program. Significant value added in programmatic curricular matters.
Very Good
Effective Course Design
Good student and peer evaluations.
Active dissertation committee participation. Active participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program. Value added in programmatic curricular matters.
Good
Effective Course Design
Good student and peer evaluations.
Some participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program or programmatic curricular matters.
Fair
Ineffective Course Design
Consistently below average student and peer evaluations.
Little, if any, participation in dissertation committees, Ph.D. mentorship, and programmatic curricular matters.
Poor
Ineffective Course Design
Consistently well below average student and peer evaluations.
Persistent pattern of complaints. Little, if any, participation in dissertation committees, Ph.D. mentorship, and programmatic curricular matters.
-
Table 2: Ratings Criteria of Research for Tenure at the Ñý¼§Ö±²¥ Campus
Rating
Research Output
Other Considerations
Excellent
Average a minimum of one publication per year, all at the A level or higher
OR
Average less than one publication per year, but with at least one A+ publication
Presentations at AFA, WFA, and FMA meetings; national/international research awards; recognition from prestigious finance societies.
Very Good
Average a minimum of one publication per year, with most at the A level
Presentations at the FMA, EFA, SFA, MFA and SWFA meetings; research awards; recognition from finance societies.
Good
Average about one publication per year, mix of A and B level
Presentations at EFA, SFA, MFA, and SWFA meetings.
Fair
Average about one publication per year, mix of B and C level
Some conference presentations.
Poor
No research program
No publications, no conference presentations.
-
Table 3: Ratings Criteria of University Citizenship for Tenure for Faculty Members at the Ñý¼§Ö±²¥ Campus
Rating
Service OutputExcellent
Significant service and significant value added to the functioning of the Department.
Significant role in Department, Campus, College and/or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach, directorship of programs, chairs, etc.
Very Good
Sustained service and positive value added to the functioning of the Department.
Sustained role in Department, Campus, College and/or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach, directorship of programs, chairs, etc.
Good
Some positive value added to the functioning of the Department.
Some role in Department, Campus, College and/or University productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach, directorship of programs, chairs, etc.
Fair
Meets the minimal Department/Campus obligations by participating within Department/College/University.
Poor
Does not meet Department/Campus obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant Department/campus events.
-
Table 4: Ratings Criteria of Teaching for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Ñý¼§Ö±²¥ Campus
Rating
Course Design
Course Delivery
Other ConsiderationsExcellent
Exemplar
Course Design
Very good student and peer evaluations.
Very active dissertation committee participation.
Very active participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program.
Significant value added in programmatic curricular matters.
Very Good
Effective
Course Design
Very good student and peer evaluations.
Active dissertation committee participation.
Active participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program.
Value added in programmatic curricular matters.
-
Table 5: Ratings Criteria of Research for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Ñý¼§Ö±²¥ Campus
Rating
Career Research Output
Since Promotion to Associate Professor
Other Considerations
Excellent
Minimum of eight publications at the A level or higher with a minimum of one A+ publication
OR
Minimum of five publications at the A level or higher with a minimum of two A+ publications
Minimum of five publications at the A level or higher
OR
Minimum of three publications at the A level or higher with at least one at the A+ levelInfluence on the field via documented evidence using Google Scholar or similar
Very Good
Minimum of five publications at the A level or higher with a minimum of one A+ publication
Minimum of three publications at the A level or higher
OR
At least one publication at the A+ level
Influence on the field via documented evidence using Google Scholar or similar
-
Table 6: Ratings Criteria of Teaching for Tenure at Regional Campuses
Rating
Course Design
Course Delivery
Other Considerations
Excellent
Exemplar Course Design
Excellent student and peer evaluations.
National and international awards for teaching. Leadership positions in teaching-related conferences.
Very Good
Effective Course Design
Very Good student and peer evaluations.
State and regional awards for teaching. Participation in teaching-related conferences.
Good
Effective Course Design
Good student and peer evaluations.
KSU and local awards for teaching. Participation in teaching-related conferences.
Fair
Ineffective Course Design
Consistently below average student and peer evaluations.
Poor
Ineffective Course Design
Consistently well below average student and poor peer evaluations.
-
Table 7: Ratings Criteria of Research for Tenure at Regional Campuses
Rating
Research Output
Other Considerations
Excellent
Average about one publication per year, mix of B and C level
Presentations at FMA, EFA, SFA, MFA, and SWFA meetings; research awards; recognition from finance societies.
Very Good
Average less than one publication per year, mix of B and C level
Presentations at EFA, SFA, MFA, and SWFA meetings.
Good
Average less than one publication per year at the C level
Some conference presentations.
Fair
Average less than one publication per year at the C level
No conference presentations.
Poor
No research program
No publications, no conference presentations.
-
Table 8: Ratings Criteria of Teaching for Promotion to Full Professor at Regional Campuses
Rating
Course Design
Course Delivery
Other considerations
Excellent
Exemplar Course Design
Excellent student and peer evaluations
National and international awards for teaching. Leadership positions in teaching-related conferences.
-
Table 9: Ratings Criteria of Research for Promotion to Full Professor at Regional Campuses
Rating
Course Design
Course Delivery
Other considerations
Excellent
Exemplar Course Design
Excellent student and peer evaluations
National and international awards for teaching. Leadership positions in teaching-related conferences.