By what criteria are teaching, research, and service described as “below or meeting or exceeding expectations or outstanding”?
These descriptions were invented in the 1990s, with the consent of the Faculty Compensation Committee. In 1997 Departments were asked to determine criteria for these different rankings; departments have periodically revised their criteria, and the criteria are periodically discussed by the CAS Council of Department Chairs in order to promote consistency across departments. Most departments treat these “summative” rankings as holistic judgments rather than judgments to be inferred from a single piece of evidence. Thus, there need to be multiple sources of evidence for any judgment. The key evaluation is peer-evaluation of teaching and research and service, although self-evaluation is also crucial and (in the case of teaching) student evaluation. Departments should regularly reflect on the relationship between these evaluative descriptions (from “below expectations” to “outstanding”) and the requirement of the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement that candidates for tenure “show evidence of
