Tables

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

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

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

Table 5: Ratings Criteria of Research for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at the �� 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

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.

Tables

Mailing Address