Page Comparison

Parallel procedures for athletic faculty are on file in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty.

3. Faculty Evaluation of Teaching is an essential part of third-year comprehensive review and decisions on tenure and promotion. Effective evaluation should involve observation and critical reflection over the course of time and necessarily runs parallel to mentoring (see section III.E). Tenured colleagues should show care in giving proper, careful, and timely feedback so that evaluation does not harm the mentoring process.

Faculty evaluation of teaching can occur in many ways. For example, there may be evaluation of candidates’ syllabi and other teaching materials; of their work in redesigning old courses and designing new ones; of the quality of their comments on or criticism of student examinations, papers, etc.; of their use of technology both in the classroom and on-line; or of their effectiveness in working with students outside the regular classroom.

Other than in exceptional circumstances, evaluation should be grounded in observation of classroom teaching. Each department/program should work out appropriate timing, frequency, and class level for the observation of the candidate. It is expected that a candidate’s teaching will have been observed by a significant number of tenured departmental colleagues. Faculty colleagues are in an important position to evaluate aspects of teaching that students cannot fully evaluate, such as mastery of the field, commitment to teaching, selection and organization of course content, and appropriateness of course objectives, methods, and materials.

It is the responsibility of department chairs to provide each untenured faculty member with a yearly assessment of his or her teaching. This assessment is part of the letter of annual consultation (see III.G.2). These assessments, like the letters of annual consultation, are intended to offer constructive and helpful advice to assist the faculty member to improve his/her teaching. They are not to become part of the dossier submitted for a decision on third-year comprehensive review, tenure, or promotion.

In line with these expectations, departments/programs design policies for evaluation appropriate to their discipline and pedagogy. These policies are on file in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty where they are available to any faculty member, to the Dean’s Advisory Council, and to the Committee on Promotion and Tenure. Department chairs and program directors are responsible for communicating the specific procedures to the new faculty members. Division directors are responsible for seeing that these descriptions accurately describe each department/program’s procedures. This procedure also extends to the Libraries and Division of Physical Education, Recreation, and Athletics.

In its meeting of March 31, 2014, the Faculty voted that a revised student questionnaire would be adopted beginning in the 2014–2015 academic year. The new student questionnaire incorporates a quantitative-rating instrument and also builds on the strengths of the previous narrative evaluations voted into effect on December 4, 1984.

On March 31, 2014, the Faculty voted to charge the 2017–2018 Committee on Faculty Affairs to review and evaluate the utility of the revised student questionnaire and reporting structure for faculty development, and also to consider whether the quantitative-rating instrument may be used for salary recommendations and/or promotion and tenure decisions. In 2017–2018, the Committee on Faculty Affairs will bring this review and evaluation to the faculty, who will vote on whether to continue, eliminate, or revise the student questionnaire and reporting structure.

Regulations for the administration of student questionnaires: (a) the questionnaire shall be administered once in each course each term; (b) the questionnaire shall be administered during the last two weeks of the semester, but not during the class period of, before, or after an examination; (c) the questionnaire shall be administered electronically at the beginning of the class period, and at least 20 minutes shall be set aside to allow ample time for students to write comments; (d) students may be instructed to bring appropriate technology to the class in advance of the administration, with paper copies of the questionnaire provided if necessary (the appropriate Administrative Assistant will record paper copies electronically); (e) the questionnaire shall be administered by a responsible person other than the instructor; (f) the individual who administers the questionnaire is to read aloud the introductory statement (see below) prior to the initiation of the student questionnaire, and this introduction shall appear at the start of the electronic student questionnaire; (g) students shall complete questionnaires for all instructors in team-taught courses, responding to course-related questions once (appropriate items from question 1 and questions 2–5) and instructor-related questions separately for each instructor (appropriate items from question 1 and question 6). 

The introductory statement shall read:

The faculty and administration of Colgate University pay close attention to student evaluations of teaching. These evaluations help members of the faculty improve their courses and their teaching, and the University uses the narrative responses in decisions about reappointment, continuous tenure and promotion. After the Registrar has received final grades for this course, your responses will be made available to the instructor(s) and to the appropriate department chair and program director without identifying you. We ask for your clear, constructive, and thoughtful responses to all items on this questionnaire.

Regulations for the use and distribution of data from the student questionnaires: (a) the instructor shall be provided with electronic access to the completed forms organized by anonymous individual student responses (side-by-side reporting of narrative comments and quantitative ratings for each item from each student) after final grades for the course have been received by the Registrar; (b) the instructor shall be provided with a summary of the quantitative ratings organized by dimension of teaching (see below) that includes: the average value for each item, the distribution of responses for each item, and the average value of each overarching dimension of teaching; (c) the quantitative report shall not include an overall average score across all of the items; (d) the Office of Institutional Planning and Research shall be the holder of data from student questionnaires and shall be charged with providing results to the instructor; (e) any aggregate analysis of student questionnaires shall be pre-approved by the Committee on Faculty Affairs, which will determine whether the requested study will be used for the benefit of the institution and whether it will maintain instructor anonymity; (f) the appropriate department chair / program director and division director shall receive both the narrative and quantitative reports, for the purpose of mentoring discussions with the faculty member, and will maintain those in confidence; (g) the quantitative data shall not be used in departmental, program, or Committee on Promotion and Tenure discussions, or by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty or President in their respective evaluations of faculty members being considered for reappointment, promotion and tenure, nor in the consideration of salary recommendations; (h) the instructor shall have the right to submit a written commentary on the narrative questionnaire comments during the processes for reappointment, promotion and tenure.

The dimensions of teaching, which shall guide the organization of summary reporting of the quantitative ratings to the regular instructor, and the items that make up each dimension are as follows:

Effectiveness at Conveying Course Material (a) The instructor explained the material clearly and understandably; (b) The instructor is well organized and prepared; (c) The instructor presented material in class in an interesting way; (d) The instructor used methods that were effective in conveying the course material; (e) The instructor handled questions well.

Teacher-Student Interaction and Rapport (a) The instructor was accessible; (b) The instructor showed respect and concern for students; (c) The instructor was open to contributions from all class members. 

Course Difficulty/Workload (a) I was challenged by this course; (b) I have put a great deal of effort into my learning in this course; (c) The instructor had high standards for achievement in this class.

Grading/Evaluation (a) The instructor designed and used fair grading procedures; (b) The instructor’s standards for grading were clear; (c) The instructor returned assignments with enough time to benefit my learning. 

Student Self-Rated Learning (a) I have gained a good understanding of this course material; (b) This course inspired and motivated my interest in the subject matter; (c) I have grown in conceptual understanding and/or critical thinking as a result of this course; (d) My appreciation for this topic has increased as a result of this course; (e) This course helped me to think independently about the subject matter.

Other Aspects of Teaching (a) The instructor was effective in facilitating class discussions; (b) The instructor fostered an environment in which I was able to learn from my peers.

Reasons for Taking this Course (a) Major or minor requirement; (b) Exploration of possible major or minor; (c) Elective within major or minor; (d) Elective outside major or minor; (e) Core or Areas of Inquiry (distribution) requirement; (f) Other requirement; (g) Reputation of the instructor; (h) Interest in the course material.

Initial Interest in the Course (a) I had a strong desire to take this course when I registered for it.

It has become increasingly clear that certain institutional factors must help to guide our pre-tenure personnel decisions. Such factors as the field of specialization of the candidate, the future need of the college for that specific field, and the age structure and percentage tenured in a given department need to be considered at a number of points.

Obviously, the first time for such consideration is at the point of hiring. These institutional concerns need to be reflected in our hiring practices and shall be considered by departments, division directors and the Dean of the Faculty before authorization is given to recruit for a specific position. The Third-Year Review is the most appropriate time for the institution as a whole to reexamine those decisions. The Third-Year Review has taken on greater importance over the past few years and it is necessary that the University continue to make discriminations at this point in anticipation of eventual decisions on tenure. The candidate’s past and potential contribution to departmental and institutional needs shall be a part of the Third-Year Review.

Following passage of the Faculty resolution endorsing the report, which had requested the Dean of the Faculty “to insure that appropriate actions are taken to implement the Committee’s recommendations on Hiring and Third-Year Review Practices,” the Dean’s Advisory Council developed a statement concerning implementation of those recommendations. The following excerpts are taken from the January 16, 1979 statement of the Dean’s Advisory Council:

It is the Dean’s Advisory Council’s understanding that the recommendations were meant to focus our attention on such institutional factors, but not meant to create an inflexible series of guidelines based solely on such factors as the percentage tenured or the number of students enrolled in a particular department. Such factors are important and need to be seriously examined; however, specific decisions will require a discussion of complex issues not easily reduced to numbers....

Hiring We would expect that the most careful analysis of institutional need for a position would be done at the point of hiring. This analysis would benefit from periodic reviews of departmental programs and staffing.... Careful decisions at the point of hiring will decrease the possibility of institutional concerns being crucial factors in third-year review. Division directors now review requests for authorization to recruit personnel with chairs. At that point, they will also review the position in terms of departmental and institutional needs. The resulting recommendation made to the Dean will be submitted to the Dean’s Advisory Council for further discussion if desired by the Dean or a division director.

Third-Year Review The departmental evaluation of candidates for the third-year review will need to include a section on the relationship of departmental and institutional needs to the position and individual being considered. As pointed out in the Faculty Affairs Committee report to the faculty, the University has had this as a goal in third-year review for some time now, and the recommendation is simply to implement what has already existed as policy. Division directors will review the positions with chairs prior to the development of that evaluation and suggest questions which should be addressed.

This comprehensive review, which is made by departments and submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, is based on the quality of the individual’s teaching, scholarly promise in addition to the Ph.D. dissertation, and service to the University. The third-year review is meant to insure that individuals who pass this stage are of sufficient quality that continued appointment up to the tenure decision is warranted. In addition, as is the case with all reappointments of non-tenured faculty members, college-wide needs will properly be taken into account when making decisions at the third-year review level. The recommendations of the Committee on Faculty Affairs, which were approved by the Faculty in September 1978 (and which are quoted in the preceding section III.G.5 ), underline the importance of the third-year review as “the most appropriate time” for the institution as a whole to reassess personnel decisions in light of institutional needs. As the Committee concluded, “it is necessary that the University continue to make discriminations at this point in anticipation of eventual decisions on tenure.”

It should be clear to all candidates that a positive decision at the third-year review stage does not have any necessary implications for an eventual decision on tenure, which is made in a candidate’s sixth year.

a. Departments should review individuals who are in the third year of their appointment at Colgate.

b. The departmental review should be made by all tenured members of the department and is based on the individual’s teaching, scholarly promise in addition to the Ph.D. dissertation, and service to the University community. The review should also include an analysis of departmental and institutional needs in relation to the individual and position being considered. Chairs should consult with their division directors prior to the development of this evaluation.

c. Each third-year review case will be assembled by the candidate's chair (in conjunction with the program director in the case of joint appointments) with the help of the division director.  The dossier is reviewed by the division director(s), before being forwarded to the dean of the faculty's office.  The process for third-year review will follow the procedures in sections III.G.8 d-j below.

 d. A decision to terminate a faculty member in the tenure stream after the fourth year will be made on the basis of one of the following considerations:

(1) Inadequate teaching with insufficient evidence of potential for improvement.

(2) Non-completion of the Ph.D. or insufficient evidence of significant scholarly promise beyond the Ph.D. (Successful candidates must have completed the Ph.D. by January 1 of the third year as documented by a letter from the Ph.D.-granting institution.)

(3) Failure to satisfy or to show promise of satisfying reasonable expectations for service as expressed in Section F, “Guidelines,” concerning service to the university community.

(4) Evidence that the candidate has not met the pedagogical or curricular or professional expectations established at the time of hire.

(5) Institutional needs and priorities which would mandate a termination or redefinition of the position.

A checklist of items to be included in the third-year review recommendations is issued every semester by the Dean's Advisory Council and the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and is available from the offices of the division directors and the Dean of the Faculty.

Tenure Guidelines We propose a flexible, long-term tenure guideline range of 55 percent to 65 percent of faculty in the tenured ranks. Tenure decisions for each class would be based on individual merit.

If a trend develops which suggests that we are making tenure decisions which would take us below 55 percent, this shall be taken as an indication that personnel policies are in need of review. Continued tenure decisions which would yield fewer than 55 percent of the faculty on tenure should raise questions about the future leadership of departments and the University, and about the quality of the applicant pool, our hiring practices, the possible need for senior-level appointments, and the effect on junior faculty morale. Similarly, a trend which would take us above 65 percent shall also indicate the need for a review of faculty personnel policies and an examination of the impact of such a trend on departments, the University, faculty quality, and faculty salaries. In considering either situation, we should differentiate between short-run aberrations due to the age structure of the faculty and changes in the retirement age and longer-run implications. Initial investigations shall be conducted by the Dean’s Advisory Council and the Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure, with results passed on to the Faculty Affairs Committee.

a. Decisions on tenure and promotion are made in accordance with the REGULATIONS ON APPOINTMENTS, TENURE, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM (see Section III.C.) and the GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE (see Section III.F.), both printed above. In the case of tenure and promotion to associate professor, recommendations, positive or negative, are normally made for full-time faculty by departments in and not later than the fall of a candidate’s sixth year (counting previous teaching experience as appropriate), after review by all tenured members of the department.

b. Colgate is committed to a policy that balances transparency with the need for confidentiality. As a consequence, candidates for tenure will be given the following information as the process proceeds:

• • i. A letter summarizing the department's views of the case.  The letter will maintain confidentiality but will include a summary of external evaluations of scholarship and a summary of the department's views on strengths and weaknesses in the candidate's record of teaching, scholarship, and service. The candidate will be provided with the summary letter prior to further review beyond the department in a meeting with the division director (or division directors, in the cases of joint appointments). At this meeting the division director will present the candidate with the chair's summary letter, prepared after consultation with the division director. The candidate may decide, after discussion with the division director, to provide a written response to the summary for inclusion in the dossier.
    ii. The separate recommendations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the dean of the faculty, and the president will be made known to the candidate and the tenured members of the candidate's department and/or program after all case reviews have been completed.
    iii. In order to receive frank appraisals from external scholars, external reviewers will be informed that their letters will remain confidential, except as required by law or as necessary to protect the interests of the University. With the letter writer's permission, excerpts may be shared anonymously with the candidates when the process is completed.

c. Each case for promotion to associate professor and/or the granting of tenure will be assembled by the candidate's chair (or chairs, in the case of joint appointments) with the help of the division director. The division director will be responsible for contacting outside reviewers from the list assembled by the department or program and will provide a final review of the dossier before it is forwarded to the Dean of the Faculty's office. Regardless of the departmental recommendation, all faculty members otherwise entitled to a tenure review by the Promotion and Tenure Committee may have that review.

d. The review will be conducted by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, who will sit in the presence of the candidate's division director (or directors, in the case of a joint appointment). The committee will not engage in any discussion of the contents of a review dossier except with the division director(s) present. The division director will act as a source of clarification and offer explanations of the content of the dossier without rendering an evaluative judgment. The division director will not vote.

e. On occasion it may be necessary to replace a division director or a member of the promotion and tenure committee in regard to a particular case. Such a replacement will be required if a division director or a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee has voted on the case at the department or program level. If there is a conflict of interest, as determined by the division director or Promotion and Tenure Committee member concerned, or by the members of the Promotion and Tenure committee, the division director and/or Promotion and Tenure Committee member will participate in the departmental/program discussion and vote but not in the deliberations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee; the division director and/or Promotion and Tenure Committee member will normally be replaced for this case only with a previous division director or with a previous elected member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The replacement division director or Promotion and Tenure Committee member will be chosen by the Committee members (excluding the member with a conflict), in consultation with the dean of the faculty.

f. Resolutions of procedural questions in preparation of the cases will be resolved by the relevant division director, who will normally consult the other division directors in coming to a resolution.

g. The Promotion and Tenure Committee will deliberate with a concern to ensure a thorough and fair hearing for the cases, while maintaining an efficient process. It should be understood that each case is to be considered on its own merits; there shall be no comparison of cases. Only the material in the dossier is up for discussion, and it will be considered a potential procedural error in the case if extraneous material is discussed. Except as required by law or as necessary to protect the interests of the University, the Promotion and Tenure Committee will maintain confidentiality in regard to the cases and the deliberations, beyond the information described in section III.G.8.b.

h. The dean of the faculty will meet with the Promotion and Tenure Committee after it has taken an initial vote on the cases. The division director will first address any issues of procedure related to the case. In the presence of the full committee and the division director, the Committee chair will report the vote and summarize the Committee's discussion, articulating explicitly its judgments of how the candidate has performed with respect to the Handbook standards in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The dean will then join in the discussion with the committee. After the discussion with the dean of the faculty, and outside of his or her presence, the Promotion and Tenure Committee will take a final vote. The chair will report the final numerical vote and recommendation to the dean of the faculty. Either the Promotion and Tenure Committee or the dean of faculty may request a follow-up meeting on any case.

i. When the final vote of the case has been reported by the Committee chair to the dean of the faculty, the dean will communicate to the Committee chair their recommendation to the president. In each case, the dean of faculty will report the Committee vote to the president, but may make a different recommendation from that of the Committee. If the dean of the faculty's recommendation is different from that of the Committee in any particular case, the president will consult with the Committee before making his or her decision. The president of the university may accept, modify, or reject the recommendations received from the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the dean of faculty in submitting final proposals to the Board of Trustees. If the president is considering a reversal of a recommendation from the committee that is supported by the dean then the president will meet with the committee and the dean prior to making a final decision. The Board of Trustees makes final decisions on tenure and promotion.

j. The candidate will meet with the dean of the faculty and the relevant division director or directors to discuss the outcome of the review as soon as possible after the candidate has been informed of the decisions of the Committee, the dean of faculty, and the president. The dean of the faculty and division director(s) will also meet with the department chair (and program director in the case of joint appointments) to discuss the outcome of the review as soon as possible after the meeting with the candidate. 

Recognizing that the timing for promotion to Full Professor is not fixed, and in the interest of providing clarity within departments and advice for potential promotion candidates, there should be periodic assessments of whether the promotion process for a particular candidate should move forward in the fifth year following tenure and every four years thereafter. These meetings should include the full professors of a given department (or of the department and program, in the event of a joint appointment) and should be convened by the division director. (If there are no, or too few, full professors in the department, the division director should assemble a small group of full professors from within the Division.) These meetings should include a frank discussion of the standards and expectations for promotion within the department as well as an assessment of whether the candidate in question is ready to move forward. After this discussion, the division director should then meet with the associate professor (and, if the associate professor so desires, the chair/a full professor within the department and/or program) to discuss whether, or when, the case should move forward. These regular meetings are not meant to prevent individuals from coming forward for promotion in the intervals between the meetings.

The process for promotion to full professor will be the same as that outlined for promotion to associate professor with tenure: see above, III.G.8.b-j, except that there will not be a departmental summary letter provided to the candidate, i.e., section III.G.8.b.i does not apply.

Recommendations in promotion cases are based on the quality of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service.

In addition to the criteria contained in the GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, and PROMOTION and in Regulation 2 of the REGULATIONS ON APPOINTMENTS, TENURE, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM, the department, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Dean of the Faculty may take into account time in rank.

• Information about the candidate's record (a cv, courses taught, scholarly accomplishments, a record of service activities, etc.)
• A statement from the candidate providing context and interpretation for accomplishments in the three areas being evaluated.
• Student evaluations of teaching from recent semesters, including student evaluations from off-campus study, together with evidence/conclusions derived from departmental peer evaluation of teaching.
• Internal letters evaluating teaching, when appropriate, and, in tenure reviews and promotion reviews, letters evaluating service.
• External evaluations of scholarship
• A formal record of the department's meeting(s) to review the case, including the departmental vote/recommendation, and individual letters from those eligible to participate in the review.  For faculty holding joint appointments, the record of the program's meeting(s) and letters from individual program faculty are also included. 

a. The division director (or directors, in the case of a joint appointment) will meet with each third-year review, tenure, and promotion candidate once the dossier is complete or near completion but before the deliberations begin, in order to inquire about concerns the candidate might have about fair treatment³ in regard to the preparation of the file.

b. The relevant division director (or directors, in the case of a joint appointment) will attend all meetings of the Promotion and Tenure Committee when that Committee is involved in making decisions on promotion, tenure, and third-year review for the candidates in their division. Their purpose is to protect the interests and welfare of the faculty as a whole, and to assure that fair treatment is accorded members of the faculty eligible for promotion, tenure, and third-year review.

c. The division director will participate in these meetings as observers, to see to it that University policy regarding tenure, promotion, and third-year review is fairly interpreted and administered, and that all relevant evidence is presented and discussed. The Division Director does not have responsibility for making decisions concerning promotion, tenure, and third-year review, and therefore the members do not discuss the candidates nor take part in the voting.

d. Complaints from members of the faculty concerning preparation or content of a third-year review, tenure, or promotion dossier should be addressed to the relevant division director. 

The Promotion and Tenure Committee and the division directors have a role in the University’s grievance procedures. See Sections III.C.9(b) and III.C.17. (III.C.17, paragraph 4, repeats the grievance procedure and is thus revised to conform to III.G.13, below.)

The division director makes certain that annual consultations (III.G.2) take place, and convenes an annual meeting with each department chair for a candid and constructive assessment of the progress of untenured members of that department.

The division director initiates a meeting before Third-Year Review (III.G.6) and a meeting immediately following Junior Faculty Leave (III.L.1) with each untenured faculty member in the division. These meetings are meant to be formative rather than evaluative, and to provide a useful opportunity for the untenured faculty member to ask questions, register any concerns about departmental issues, and to take a broad view of their status and career development.

In the third year following tenure, and every four years thereafter, the division director initiates a meeting with each associate professor in the division for a candid and constructive discussion of their progress towards promotion to full professor (III.G.9). These meetings are not evaluative, but instead are intended to provide mentoring towards promotion to full professor in the intervals between departmental and program assessments, which should occur in the fifth year following tenure and every four years thereafter (III.G.9).

Footnotes