Department of Mechanical and Materials
Engineering Bylaws
Approved: May 14, 2003
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
These
bylaws implement aspects of the Agreement Between Wright State University
and the Wright State University Chapter of the American Association of University
Professors, (hereafter known as the Agreement), that address procedures for
the participation by appropriate bargaining unit faculty members (hereafter
known as BUFMs) in the governance of the Department of Mechanical and Materials
Engineering (hereafter known as the Department). These bylaws may be modified
at any time through agreement of a majority of BUFMS in the department, the
dean, and the Faculty Governance Committee.
1.2 Faculty
Purpose
The
faculty of the Department is a community of scholars whose objective is (1)
to create and maintain a climate of free inquiry resulting in the expansion,
advancement and preservation of knowledge and its sharing with others and
(2) to promote the professions of mechanical and materials engineering. We
seek to promote a common spirit of inquiry between teacher and student in
an open framework of trust and mutual respect. Cooperative efforts
among those espousing different disciplines are encouraged and nurtured in
the hopes of achieving real progress in those areas where progress does not
come easily.
2.0 ORGANIZATION
2.1 Selection
of Departmental Chair
The
Dean shall initiate the selection process for a Department Chair. The
Dean shall announce whether the search is to be external or restricted to
candidates currently employed by the University. The Dean shall appoint
a search committee, which will include faculty of the department, and may
include other E&CS faculty and members from outside the College or University
at the discretion of the Dean. A majority of the committee will be BUFMS
from the department. The committee procedures are not specified except that
the committee will follow all University Affirmative Action policies and
procedures and will consult with the department faculty such that each full-time faculty
member has an opportunity for input into a faculty recommendation of acceptable
candidates. The committee will recommend one or more qualified candidates
to the Dean according to the charge to the committee.
2.2 Faculty Input to Review of Administrators
When the chair is formally
reviewed pursuant to the Agreement, each faculty BUFM will be provided an
opportunity to give written input to the review committee.
2.3 Department Committees
Standing
committees (excluding the Faculty Development Committee) are appointed by
the Department Chair. Appointments will be in effect September 1-August
31 of each year. The new committees will take office in the fall term.
Committee chairs are elected by the respective committees each year. In
addition, the Chair or the BUFMs may create from time to time such ad hoc
committees as may be required to undertake and discharge specific tasks.
2.3.1
Program Area Committee(s) (3)
These
committees shall be involved with planning and recommending curricular matters
specific to their program area. These groups shall also recommend teaching
assistant candidates for their laboratory areas and other related issues.
These
committees are composed of faculty groups from the design, energy and materials
areas within the Department. Each BUFM shall be on one area committee.
2.3.2 Curriculum
Committee
The
Committee has the responsibility for evaluating and making recommendations
on faculty requests for:
All
undergraduate and graduate course changes, additions or deletions.
All
changes in the department curricula.
The
committee is also responsible for assisting in the ABET curriculum assessment
process.
Curriculum Committee shall be composed of at least three BUFMs and the
department chair, as an ex-officio non-voting member.
2.3.3 Petitions
and Admissions Committee
The Petitions and Admissions Committee is responsible for recommendations
on student petitions specifically related to policies and requirements that
pertain to the Department and making recommendations on those involving
college and university requirements. This committee also makes admission
recommendations on M.S. program applicants.
The
composition of the Petitions Committee shall be 3 BUFMs and the Department
Chair as ex-officio, non-voting member.
2.3.4
Honors and Awards Committee
This
committee nominates departmental students for awards and scholarships. This
committee also nominates faculty for college and university honors and awards.
It also deals with issues involving departmental and university honors programs.
This
committee is composed of one BUFM from each of the Department’s design, energy
and materials areas and the department chair as an ex officio, non-voting
member.
2.3.5 Faculty
Development Committee
This committee works on behalf of the Department to achieve a diverse
faculty of outstanding ability and superior performance in teaching, scholarship,
and professional service. The specific responsibilities of the Committee
are as follows:
- To
recommend hiring standards for new faculty, and when requested, to aid in
the recruitment of new faculty.
- To
assign faculty mentors to assist new BUFMs in the department.
- To
annually evaluate BUFM progress toward Promotion and/or Tenure
- To
make recommendations regarding proposals for promotion and tenure of faculty.
- To
promote high standards of faculty achievement.
The Faculty Development Committee shall include all tenured BUFMs in the
department. The Department Chair will chair all promotion and tenure deliberations,
but is a non-voting member of the committee in all matters.
The
Faculty Development committee shall meet as needed to undertake such tasks
as it may set for itself in achieving the goals expressed above. Faculty
including members of the committee will not participate or be present at
committee meetings that affect their own promotion or tenure process or those
to a higher rank than their own. The committee shall explain
the reasoning for its conclusions in its recommendations.
2.3.6 Peer
Evaluation of Teaching Committee
The objective of the committee is to create an environment within the
department that emphasizes excellence in the classroom. The Committee undertakes
peer evaluation of faculty teaching. The Teaching Committee will be composed
of 3 tenured BUFMs (one from each department group) and the department chair
as an ex officio, non-voting member.
The Peer Evaluation Teaching Committee will select two individual evaluators
for each probationary BUFM who will conduct peer evaluations of teaching.
Each evaluator will review syllabi and other class materials, and attend
one lecture class on separate days, and submit a report to the reviewed faculty
member, the Department Chair, and the FDC. 2.4 Recommendation of the Faculty
In
all areas not specifically mentioned above, the faculty advice or recommendation
will result from a meeting of the faculty scheduled by the chair or at the
request of 25% of the BUFMs in the department. Except in emergencies, an
agenda must be distributed one week prior to the meeting. Recommendations
must be approved by a majority of the BUFMS present at the meeting.
3.0 Annual
Evaluation
3.1 General Criteria
All faculty members shall
be evaluated annually by the department chair. This is done primarily
based on the annual report filled out by the faculty member, on student evaluations
of teaching, and on the peer teaching evaluation, if any.
The faculty members shall
be evaluated separately in teaching, scholarship and professional service. After
evaluation of each of the three areas, the department chair shall assign
a numerical rating between 0 and 4 as foreseen in the Agreement: 0 = unsatisfactory,
1 = adequate, 2=meritorious, 3=outstanding and 4=extraordinary. The
criteria used to arrive at these ratings are to be uniform for all evaluations
and are listed below. The composite average rating is then calculated
based on an optimization of the three relative weighting factors to provide
a maximum composite rating for the individual faculty member. The relative
weighting factors must be constrained within the following ranges: 20%-70%
for teaching, 20%-70% for scholarship and 10%-50% for service, unless changed
for one of the reasons below. The department chair shall convey the
evaluation including the assigned scores and weights to the faculty member
in writing.
Under the following circumstances,
the department chair may assign weights without using the optimizing algorithm
or being constrained by the usual range of relative weights:
- unique
work assignments that differ from those of other BUFMs;
- disciplinary
action against the faculty member, pursuant to the Agreement;
- substandard
performance extending over more than one year.
3.2
Specific Criteria
If multiple measures are
required to achieve a certain level of performance, these measures may be
from the same category. For example, if two additional measures are necessary
from the list: i) publication of one journal article, ii) external grant
of $100,000 and iii) three quarters of graduate student support, publication
of two journal articles would fulfill the requirement.
Scholarship
and service criteria calling for three-year averages shall first apply during
the third year these bylaws are in effect. For the first annual evaluation
performed under these bylaws, accomplishments from the previous year only
will be considered; for the second annual evaluation, averages over
the past two years will be used. Similarly, new bargaining unit faculty
members who have been employed at Wright State University for less than two
full years will be evaluated for their accomplishments in the past year only. After
two full years at Wright State University, they will be evaluated using averages
of those first two years.
3.3 Teaching
Factors used in rating teaching
performance include effectiveness of in-class teaching; teaching of workshops
and continuing education courses; student advising; serving as major advisor
for Ph.D. dissertations and M.S. theses; serving on thesis and dissertation
committees; supervising senior design, honors and independent study projects;
supervising postdoctoral fellows; developing new courses and laboratories,
integrating new technologies in courses and attracting funds for laboratory
equipment to support teaching.
3.3.1 Unsatisfactory
The faculty member does
not meet the requirements of an adequate level of in-class teaching performance.
Unsatisfactory performance often leads to a significant number of student
complaints. Examples of in-class teaching problems include:
- the faculty member does not seem prepared for classroom activities;
- the faculty member does not return examinations and assignments in a timely
manner, does not manage the classroom well or is not available to students;
- on a regular basis, the faculty member shows up late for class, dismisses
class early or does not show up for class at all;
- on a regular basis, the faculty member is not available during office
hours.
3.3.2 Adequate
The faculty member in this
category performs satisfactorily based on student evaluations and review
of the relevant teaching materials. Adequate performance in teaching is represented
by only few negative comments by students and, if available, an overall positive
assessment by peers. Performance at an adequate level of teaching is typically
demonstrated through:
- meeting with the class at scheduled times unless there are extenuating
circumstances;
- being available during posted office hours unless there is an unavoidable
conflict;
- being prepared for the classroom;
- keeping course content current.
3.3.3 Meritorious
Assuming the faculty member
has met the requirements for adequate performance, at least two measures
such as those listed below can be used as evidence of meritorious teaching:
- preparing a course that the faculty member is teaching for the first time;
- making major modifications to a course;
- serving on master’s thesis and dissertation committees of students graduating
during that year;
- effectively supervising independent study projects and honors thesis students;
- effectively integrating new technologies into classroom instruction.
3.3.4 Outstanding
Assuming the faculty member
has met the requirements for meritorious performance, at least two measures
such as those listed below can be used as evidence for outstanding teaching:
- co-authoring at least one journal article with students;
- attracting funds for laboratory equipment to support teaching;
- serving as a major advisor for a completed master’s thesis or doctoral
dissertation.
3.3.5 Extraordinary
The faculty member must
demonstrate teaching activities that exceed expectations for outstanding
and make major contributions to department and college which are recognized
outside the university.
3.4 Scholarship
Factors
used in rating the scholarship performance include submission
of journal articles to peer-reviewed archival journals; acceptance
of submitted articles; submission and acceptance of abstracts, proceedings,
book chapters, reports, etc.; submission and award of patents; invitationto
give lectures, conference presentations, seminars; submission of research
proposals; funding of research proposals; support
of students in the faculty member’s research program. One awarded patent
equals one peer-reviewed archival journal article.
3.4.1 Unsatisfactory
The faculty member does
not meet the requirements of an adequate level of performance in scholarship
as outlined below.
3.4.2 Adequate
Research progress may be
indicated by documenting an average of at least one of the following measures
per year over the past three years:
- publication
of a technical paper in a technical conference or a book chapter;
- submission of a journal paper for a peer-reviewed journal;
- submission of a research proposal to an external agency.
If the faculty member has
had no external research support during the year, there must be documentation
about submission of a research proposal to an external agency. This proposal
must be for a major grant from a national source with the faculty member
as the principal or co-principal investigator.
3.4.3 Meritorious
Research performance in
the meritorious category can be demonstrated by an average of at least two
measures per year over the past three years such as those listed below:
- publication
of a technical paper in a peer-reviewed journal;
- initial funding of a research grant;
- three quarters of graduate student support.
3.4.4 Outstanding
Assuming the faculty member
has met the requirements for meritorious scholarship, an average of at
least two additional measures per year over the past three years such
as those listed below can be used as evidence of outstanding performance:
- publication
of at least one additional journal article;
- external research grants and contracts exceeding $100,000 in total costs
per year;
- an additional three quarters of graduate student support.
3.4.5 Extraordinary
The faculty member must
demonstrate research activities that exceed expectations for outstanding.
3.5 Service
Factors used in rating the
service performance include membership in department, college, program and
university committees; chairmanship in committees; participation in student
recruitment efforts; active participation in professional societies and their
committees; organization of professional conference sessions, chairmanship
of conference sessions; review of professional articles and grant proposals;
editorship of professional journals; lectures to community groups.
3.5.1 Unsatisfactory
There is little or no service
activity demonstrated by the faculty member in the annual activity report.
The faculty member does not meet the requirements of an adequate level of
performance.
3.5.2 Adequate
The faculty member demonstrates
all of the following in the area of service:
- regular and timely attendance at the department faculty meetings;
- fulfilling individual responsibilities to the department, including effective
service on department committees;
- participation in student advising, open houses and other representative
functions vital for the department.
3.5.3 Meritorious
Assuming the faculty member
has met the requirements for adequate performance, an average of at
least three measures per year over the past three years such as those
listed below can be used as evidence for meritorious performance:
- effectively
serving on college or university committees;
- effectively chairing an active department committee;
- effectively
serving as an advisor for a student club;
- serving as a session chair in a national conference;
- holding an office in a local or professional organization;
- reviewing for a journal;
- serving as a guest speaker for area business, government or community
organization.
3.5.4 Outstanding
Assuming the faculty member
has met the requirements for meritorious performance, an average of at least
two measures per year over the past three years such as those listed
below can be used as evidence for outstanding performance:
- effectively serving as an editorial board member or associate editor for
a professional journal; · effectively
serving as a track chair in a national conference;
- organizing a conference workshop or panel for a national conference;
- holding positions of leadership in community or professional organizations.
3.5.5 Extraordinary
The faculty member must
demonstrate service activities that exceed expectations for outstanding performance.
Extraordinary performance requires demonstration of leadership roles in several
service activities and appropriate outcome of these activities.
4.0 General
Evaluation Criteria for P&T
The
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering establishes the following
general criteria for the evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure. More
specific quantitative requirements for promotion to Associate Professor
and to Professor are discussed below, but are qualitatively defined by
these general measures. It is the responsibility of the candidate
to provide evidence of excellence in scholarship, teaching and service
to the institution and to the academic and professional communities. Letters
of reference may be used as evidence of strength. The criteria are grouped
into three categories: Scholarship, Teaching, and Service.
4.1 Scholarship
The
most important components of a candidate’s scholarship performance are the
publication record, the record of external funding, and the evaluation letters
received from external referees. For favorable consideration for promotion
at either level and for the award of tenure, candidates must provide clear
and compelling evidence that they are productive scholars who have developed
an active and independent research program. General expectations with
respect to publications and funding are summarized below.
4.1.1 Publications
4.1.1.1 Archival Journal
Papers
A publication
record consists of several components, however peer reviewed archival
journal papers serve as the foundation on which the remainder of the
record should be built and evaluated. While it is expected that faculty
members engage in research primarily related to their engineering disciplines,
a candidate's scholarship record may also include peer-reviewed journal
publications in the area of engineering education.
4.1.1.2 Quality of Published Works
It is expected
that faculty publish in various quality journals according to the nature
and scope of the contribution, the intended audience, and the technical
level of the discussion. Nevertheless, it is required that a
significant portion of the scholarship appears in respected journals
in the faculty member's research area, as confirmed by the external
reviewers.
4.1.1.3 Other
Forms
A complete publication
record may include more than archival, refereed journal papers. For
example, books, book chapters, refereed conference papers, substantial
software packages, and patents are all worthy products of faculty
scholarship. While these individual works are generally considered
to be of lesser scholarly value than the archival journal paper they
may, in aggregate, represent some scholarship equivalence of journal
papers. This depends largely upon the quality and visibility
of the individual works.
4.1.1.4 Authorship Considerations
At
least half of the required publications, especially the archival publications,
should have the faculty member or his or her students as the primary author. Collaborative
efforts are encouraged where appropriate to the research topic and when resources
can be obtained through teamwork that would not be available to the single
investigator. Nevertheless, a publication record in which a disproportionate
share of the papers are primarily authored by collaborators is not appropriate
in that it fails to document the establishment of an independent research
program.
4.1.1.5 Consistency in the Scholarly
Record
The
faculty member should be able to show that the scholarly record has been
built and sustained over his or her time at Wright State University. It
is natural that a transient period may occur as faculty acquire and develop
graduate student researchers, build laboratory facilities, focus on a new
area of research or assume additional duties. However, once a reasonable
period of adjustment is past, the research program of the faculty member
should begin to grow in a fairly steady manner. To receive a favorable evaluation,
evidence of consistency must be present in the faculty member’s record.
4.1.2 External
Funding
Faculty
members are expected to contribute to the departmental research mission not
only through scholarly publication, but also by obtaining resources to support
research activities. The primary objective of obtaining external funding
is to aid in the production of high quality scholarship and to allow a faculty
member to build the infrastructure to sustain such activities.
A
cornerstone of an active academic research program and a priority in the
departmental research mission is the sustained support of graduate students. In
addition to graduate student support, funding from external awards is commonly
used to support research activities, facilities and equipment, and other
personnel. While these expenditures are all instrumental in establishing
and maintaining a research program, the sustained support of graduate students
is considered a particularly important measure of the scholarship value of
external funding awards.
4.1.2.1 Competitive Awards
Along
with refereed journal publications, competitively reviewed proposals by funding
agencies or members of industry provide an additional external measure of
the quality and contribution of faculty research. Faculty members are
expected to demonstrate success in obtaining competitive funding awards as
principal or co-principal investigators.
4.1.2.2 Internal Funding
Opportunities
for “internal” funding frequently exist within Wright State University, that
limit the competition for the awards. The objectives of these programs
are to enhance the recipient’s ability to competitively obtain additional
external funding from other agencies. Success of these programs should
be directly reflected in the publications generated and external funding
obtained as a result of the internal support. Consequently, except
for funds to support graduate students, internal funding has no bearing in
an evaluation for promotion or tenure.
4.2 Teaching
Faculty members are expected
to demonstrate excellence in the classroom, as a graduate advisor, and as
a mentor. Evidence of excellence can be inferred from such measures
as student and peer evaluations of classroom performance, number of graduate
students successfully advised to completion, successful advisement of senior
design and independent study projects, papers coauthored with students, involvement
with student chapters of professional societies, publications addressing
engineering education or courseware, published textbooks or courseware, effective
course enhancement or teaching innovations, curriculum development, lab development,
and teaching awards. Each faculty member is expected to teach a variety
of material at both undergraduate and graduate levels subject to department
scheduling requirements.
Faculty
members are expected to effectively use the resources available and administer
their classes in a manner that is punctual, prepared, professional, and personable. In
addition, faculty members should be available, outside of class, for a reasonable
period of time each week to meet with students from class, from student organizations,
or who are seeking advice on other academic matters.
4.3 Service
In order to be considered
for promotion, faculty members must demonstrate that they have performed
service responsibilities for the Department, the College, and the University
community, by participating actively in Department, College, and University
committees. In particular, faculty members should consistently attend
assigned committee and other Departmental meetings and complete the work
necessary for the committees to fulfill their responsibilities. In
addition, faculty members are expected to contribute to their academic community
and its professional activities in a manner which increases with rank, as
outlined below.
4.3.1 Expectations
for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
Assistant
Professors are expected to focus primarily on scholarship and teaching, and
to a lesser extent on service. However, for promotion to Associate
Professor with tenure, candidates are expected to participate in College
and Department committees and to show some evidence of professional service
involvement at the national level. Typical examples of such involvement
include membership in professional societies, participation in national conferences
and symposia, and reviewing of journal papers.
4.3.2 Expectations
for Promotion to Professor
For
promotion to Professor, the candidate is expected to have assumed a leadership
role in Departmental, College, or University committees, and to have demonstrated
significant professional service involvement at the national level. Examples
of such involvement include holding editorships of journals, serving on conference
organization committees, organizing and chairing sessions at conferences,
holding offices in professional societies, continued paper and proposal reviewing,
and participating in review panels for funding agencies.
5.0 QUANTITATIVE
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR P&T
In
the sections that follow, representative levels of performance in specific
areas of scholarship and teaching are quantified and described in terms of "marginally
acceptable", "acceptable" and "strong". Measures
of performance substantially below these representative values would be considered "weak",
while those substantially above would be considered "very strong". When
taken in conjunction with the general criteria previously outlined for scholarship,
teaching and service, a candidate's cumulative performance record
must be rated at least an average of "acceptable" in order to receive
a favorable recommendation for promotion.
5.1 for
Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
In
this section specific quantitative requirements for promotion to Associate
Professor with tenure and for awarding tenure to an untenured Associate Professor
are outlined. It is normally expected that an Assistant Professor will
be considered for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure during his
or her sixth year at Wright State University, and that an untenured Associate
Professor will be considered for tenure during his or her third year at Wright
State University. However, for those candidates having substantial
relevant prior experience or demonstrating exceptional performance, provisions
for early consideration for promotion with tenure are also provided.
The
quantitative criteria below refer to the candidate’s total performance record,
which may include time prior to the candidate’s joining the faculty at Wright
State University. However, a candidate's performance record within
the previous five years, and particularly since appointment at Wright State
University, is given strongest consideration.
5.1.1 Scholarship
In
this section, representative levels of performance are given for several
quantifiable measures of scholarship, including total number of refereed
journal publications, total dollars in external research funding, and total
quarters of full-time graduate student support.
In
regard to the number of refereed journal publications, a total of 8 is
considered "marginally acceptable", a total of 10 is considered "acceptable",
and a total of 12 is considered "strong". While papers
submitted for publication are certainly indicative of ongoing scholarship
activity, the above representative numbers refer only to papers officially
accepted for publication and those already in print. Further, it
is expected that at least half of the above representative numbers of papers
would have been published following the candidate's appointment at Wright
State University, and that a consistent scholarly record has been maintained
throughout the candidate's probationary period.
In
regard to total dollars of external research funding, a total of $200,000
is considered "marginally acceptable", a total of $250,000 is
considered "acceptable", and a total of $300,000 is considered "strong". Here,
only external research funding officially awarded to Wright State University
and allocated to a research account under the direction of the candidate
is considered.
In
regard to total quarters of full-time graduate student support, a total
of 12 is considered "marginally acceptable", a total of 15 is
considered "acceptable", and a total of 18 is considered "strong". Here, "full-time" support
refers to no less than the minimum level of graduate student salary required
by the School of Graduate Studies to garner a full-time tuition waiver
for the student supported. For the purpose of quantifying graduate
student support, the source of funding may be either internal or external,
as long as the support is payable from a WSU account under the direction
of the candidate.
5.1.2 Teaching
Due to the qualitative
nature of student and peer evaluations, a candidate's classroom performance
is primarily judged according to the qualitative guidelines outlined in
section 4.2. In addition to strong classroom performance, a candidate is
expected to demonstrate success as a graduate student advisor. This
is most easily quantified in terms of number of students graduated.
In
regard to the total number of graduate students advised to completion (with
the candidate as major professor), a total of 2 masters students graduated
is considered "marginally acceptable", a total of 3 is considered "acceptable",
and a total of 4 is considered "strong". If the candidate
has graduated both M.S. and Ph.D. students during the probationary period,
each Ph.D. student is considered equivalent to 2.5 M.S. students.
5.1.3 Early
Consideration
A candidate
may be considered for promotion to Associate Professor or for tenure prior
to the end of the probationary period when a candidate has experience as
a tenure track faculty member at other institutions or when a candidate’s
overall performance is rated “strong”. In this case, it is necessary
that the candidate’s level of performance has been of sufficient duration
at Wright State University to confirm that criteria have been met. 5.2 for Promotion to Professor
For promotion to Professor,
the career accomplishments of the candidate should show clear evidence of
a nationally or internationally recognized contributor to the discipline. Moreover,
evidence of continuing and consistent scholarship is required to ensure that
the candidate’s contributions represent the current state of the discipline.
In
order to provide sufficient time to establish a continuous record of scholarship
at the level expected for promotion to Professor, a candidate normally will
have completed at least five years at the rank of Associate Professor. In
exceptional cases, a candidate may be considered for promotion to Professor
prior to the completion of five years at the rank of Associate Professor. A
case may be considered exceptional when a candidate’s performance is uniformly
rated “strong” according to the criteria outlined below, and when this level
of performance has been of sufficient duration to confirm that the criteria
have been met.
The
quantitative criteria outlined below refer to the cumulative performance
record throughout the candidate's career, although specific consideration
is also given to the candidate's performance record during the preceding
five years.
5.2.1 Scholarship
In
this section, representative levels of performance required for promotion
to Professor are given for several quantifiable measures of scholarship,
including total number of refereed journal publications, total dollars
in external research funding, and total quarters of full-time graduate
student support.
In
regard to the number of archival journal publications, a total of 20 is
considered "marginally acceptable", a total of 24 is considered "acceptable",
and a total of 28 is considered "strong". As previously
stipulated, the above representative numbers refer only to papers officially
accepted for publication and those already in print. Further, it
is normally expected that at least half of the above representative
numbers of papers would have been published within the previous five years.
In
regard to total dollars of external research funding, a total of $600,000
is considered "marginally acceptable", a total of $750,000 is
considered "acceptable", and a total of $900,000 is considered "strong".
Here, only external research funding officially awarded to Wright State
University and allocated to a research account under the direction of the
candidate is considered. Further, it is normally expected that at
least half of the above total research dollars would have been awarded
within the previous five years.
In
regard to total quarters of full-time graduate student support, a total
of 45 is considered "marginally acceptable", a total of 60 is
considered "acceptable", and a total of 75 is considered "strong". Here "full-time" support
refers to no less than the minimum level of graduate student salary required
by the School of Graduate Studies to garner a full-time tuition waiver
for the student supported. For the purpose of quantifying graduate
student support, the source of funding may be either internal or external,
as long as the support is payable from a WSU account under the direction
of the candidate.
5.2.2 Teaching
For
promotion to Professor, it is expected that the candidate has maintained
a high level of classroom performance, as determined from the qualitative
measures outlined in section 4.2. In addition, the candidate is expected
to have been actively involved in curriculum or laboratory development
consistent with the needs of the Department and his or her specialty area.
In
addition to consistent performance in the classroom, a candidate for Professor
is expected to have advised to completion a significant number of graduate
students, including at least one Ph.D. student. With each Ph.D. student
graduated being equivalent to 2.5 M.S. students, the equivalent of 8 M.S.
students graduated is considered "marginally acceptable", the
equivalent of 10 is considered "acceptable", and the equivalent
of 12 is considered "strong". Criteria
for Appointment with Tenure
Occasionally an award
of tenure is made with an initial appointment to the rank of Associate
Professor or Professor. When this is considered, it is normally
expected that the candidate currently has tenure at an academic institution
whose stature and expectations are at least comparable with those of Wright
State University. The career accomplishments of the candidate should
establish him or her as a nationally recognized contributor to the discipline. To
ensure that the candidate’s contributions represent the current state of
the discipline, the specific criteria previously discussed for promotion
to the rank being considered must be satisfied.
| 
