President Donald R. Gerth
RTP Credit for Consulting and Report Writing
RTP Evaluation for Faculty with Multiple Academic Assignments
Responsibility to Record Information in the RTP File
RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPARTMENTAL AND SCHOOL RTP EVALUATIONS
Departmental and school RTP evaluators are expected to comment specifically about those aspects of a faculty member’s performance that can only be evaluated by those familiar with the discipline, the degree program, the modus operandi of the department or school, and the professional environment, which are specific to the individual faculty member. It is important for these RTP evaluators to provide, as much as is feasible, a comparative context within which the faculty member’s record can be reviewed. Some illustrative but not exhaustive examples for each of the three RTP criteria follow:
1) Teaching Performance
a) How do this faculty member’s PTE scores compare to those of other faculty
teaching comparable courses?
b) If available, how do the teaching materials, course teaching outlines,
examinations, and other course preparation documents compare to those used
by other faculty teaching comparable courses?
c) If available, how do the subjective student evaluations, and/or documented individual
student comments compare to those of other faculty teaching comparable courses?
d) Are there any special factors—e.g. student population served, level and difficulty of
course content, whether the course is required, etc.—influencing
the student evaluations of this faculty member’s teaching?
2) Scholarly and Professional Performance
a) How does this faculty member’s record of scholarship (publication, creative
activity, consulting, etc.) compare, specifically, with that of other faculty
members in the appropriate TSA, department and/or school?
b) What is the nature of the faculty member’s publications? For instance, are
they in leading journals? Refereed journals? Published by respected presses? Etc.?
c) How does this faculty member’s attendance at, and membership in, various
scholarly and professional organizations compare to that of other faculty
members? Is this faculty member active in these organizations or merely a
a) How does this faculty member’s attendance at, and participation in, various
committees compare to that of other faculty members? Does this faculty
member chair groups, participate effectively, or merely attend some of the
b) Does the faculty member actively seek out ways to serve the academic community?
Significant consulting, paid or unpaid, in fields closely related to the teaching discipline; or evidence of related research, paid or unpaid, from which no publication necessarily results, even though propriety reports may be written—provided that the quality and originality of these activities is attested by recognized experts in the field or by equivalent evidence.
Faculty members whose primary academic assignment does not coincide with their primary Teaching Service Areas, or who have secondary TSAs, will be subject to review in the unit in which the primary assignment is carried out, in the unit associated with the primary TSA, and in the unit or units associated with the secondary TSAs; except, no review will be required in a unit associated with a secondary TSA when there has been no teaching or scholarly activity in that unit since the last review. Each Unit will review the entire file, but will emphasize, in its evaluation, performance within that unit.
In any year during which a faculty member’s service is subject to review in more than one unit, unless the RTP file includes a prior agreement to the contrary between the units involved and the faculty member, the relative weights to be given, at the University level of RTP evaluation and review, will follow these principles:
a) Teaching: Teaching performance in two or more units will be weighted
according to the amount of teaching in each unit in the period under review,
except that in all circumstances at least some weight must be given to
performance in the primary TSA.
b) Scholarship: The criteria for scholarship may be different in different fields,
and the faculty member’s retreat rights into the primary TSA require that the
TSA have important input into the evaluation of his or her scholarship. All the
reviewing units specified above will prepare an evaluation of the faculty
member’s scholarship. The greater weight in the final evaluation of the faculty
member’s performance as a scholar is to be assigned on the basis of quality of
scholarship in any field relevant to the faculty member’s assignments.
However, in the absence of evidence of scholarship of higher quality outside
the primary TSA, the primary TSA’s criteria for scholarship shall be given the
c) Service: Service in two or more units will be evaluated with the greater weight being
given to performance in the area of primary assignment, whether or not that coincides
with the primary TSA.
Since promotion and tenure review are cumulative, there must be full RTP review and evaluation prepared by each unit in which the faculty member has been assigned or has taught a significant number of courses since the last RTP review. If a faculty member has served full-time in different units in different years, the relative weight given to performance in each unit should be closely related to the number of years’ service in each.
Faculty members with multiple teaching assignments shall submit a balanced sample of PTE forms from all such assignments.
[Modification of previous language—“…does not restrict any RTP Committee’s right…” becomes “…does not restrict any RTP Committee’s or Academic Administrator’s right…”]
The paragraph above [Ref. is to 1980 edition of Faculty Handbook, p. D-1, paragraph 3.] does not restrict any RTP Committee’s or Academic Administrator’s right or responsibility to discuss or comment upon these materials or to receive clarification of any materials submitted for the committee’s consideration. If any new or substantively different information is presented during such clarification, this information will be recorded and included in the academic employee’s file and the employee will be informed of that action.