Tables | Department of Finance Handbook | Kent State University

Tables

  1. Table 1: Ratings Criteria of Teaching for Tenure at the Kent Campus


    Rating


    Course Design


    Course Delivery


    Other considerations

     

    Excellent

     

    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.

  2. Table 2: Ratings Criteria of Research for Tenure at the Kent 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.

  3. Table 3: Ratings Criteria of University Citizenship for Tenure for Faculty Members at the Kent Campus


    Rating


    Service Output

     

    Excellent

     

    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.

     

  4. Table 4: Ratings Criteria of Teaching for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Kent Campus


    Rating


    Course Design


    Course Delivery


    Other Considerations

     

    Excellent

     

    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.

     

  5. Table 5: Ratings Criteria of Research for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Kent 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+ level

     

    Influence 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

     

  6. 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.

     

     

  7. 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.