General Comments on Scoring
Scoring range
The maximum score for an evaluative criterion is reserved for demonstrable exceptional achievement against the norms of the applicant’s discipline, for example, a high level of recognition from their peers for their stage in their career. It would be highly unusual for an applicant to operate at the maximum score across both evaluative criteria; therefore, any panel awarding such high scores is expected to include a justification in the minutes of their meeting.
Performance descriptors (bandings)
As shown in the scoring tables in the sections above, each score for an assessment criterion has a corresponding performance descriptor (banding). Please note the following points regarding these bandings:
- A score in the Outstanding Evidence banding would be expected for applications which demonstrate the applicant has delivered exceptional accomplishments, demonstrated in their achievement of the Assessment Criteria.
- A score in the Strong Evidence banding would be expected for applications which demonstrate the applicant has exceeded expectations, demonstrated in their achievement of the Assessment Criteria.
- The lowest two bandings (‘Clearly Unsatisfactory’ and ‘Insufficient/Unclear Evidence’) are deemed to be below the threshold for promotion.
The promotion line
Applicants are required to achieve a total score of 80 out of 100 in order to be recommended for promotion. The total score will be the sum of the score given for the assessment criteria relevant to the applicant’s pathway.
However, as noted above, the lowest two bandings (‘Clearly Unsatisfactory’ and ‘Insufficient/Unclear Evidence’) are deemed to be below the threshold for promotion. As such, should an applicant receive a score in any assessment criterion that falls in either of these performance descriptors/bandings, their application would be deemed to be below the threshold for promotion, and they will not be recommended for promotion, even if their total score is 80 or higher.
Scoring Teaching and Scholarship contribution
For applicants on the T&S pathway, each Promotion Panel will assess the quantity, quality and degree of innovation and leadership (e.g. course design at a macro level) in teaching. If an academic (T&S) post holder is undertaking a standard amount of teaching in a satisfactory way, a mid-range score would be appropriate. Many teaching staff teach more than their stint from time to time and regularly contribute to updating courses and modules; such contributions are regarded to be part of their usual academic role.
If a Head of Institution (or other senior academic) providing the Institutional Statement believes the applicant’s contribution is at a significantly higher or lower level than the standard expected of academic (Teaching & Scholarship) staff on the grade currently held and merits a score substantially higher or lower than the standard expected, detailed evidence must be provided.
An applicant seeking promotion on the T&S pathway is required to show consistent and sustained excellence in providing high-quality education that benefits from and engages with Cambridge’s research-rich environment and engagement in scholarship of relevance to their discipline.
It is recognised that effective contributions may differ between disciplines and that an applicant’s contribution is therefore to be assessed in the context of their Department/Faculty’s expectations, including the local workload model where applicable. Evidence from relevant College teaching could also be used to demonstrate the individual’s wider contribution to Teaching & Scholarship.
Any research conducted by the applicants and referenced in their applications should be considered as evidence of their scholarship.
All academic (T&S) staff are expected to be able to evidence criteria 1 and 2 as relevant to each stage of progression, with scoring reflecting the quality and quantity of contribution. The award of a very high score therefore indicates that the applicant is making an exceptional contribution in several aspects of teaching. The nature of that exceptional contribution should be addressed in the Promotion Panel meeting minutes. A low score indicates that there are significant concerns about the quantity or quality of an applicant’s teaching and the Institutional Statement should clearly set out these concerns.
Furthermore, teaching is expected to benefit considerably from relevant scholarship in the discipline or applied to its delivery (criterion 3) and/or the applicant will be expected to evidence significant contributions to developmental or strategic initiatives (criterion 4). Thus, even excellent teaching and a contribution to curriculum redesign without evidence of such contributions would not warrant scores in the highest banding.
Panels may find it helpful when scoring Teaching and Scholarship contribution to apportion the full score evenly between the four criteria and then score achievement against each of the criterion individually. The sum of the four criterion-based scores would then be the overall score for Teaching and Scholarship.
Scoring Service to the University and to the Academic Community
All applicants seeking promotion are required to show an effective service contribution. [Note that this is not a compulsory requirement for promotion to Grade 6 and 7 unless the alternative weighting outlined below is being used.] University members are expected to demonstrate and promote collegiality by nurturing a culture of mutual respect. The University recognises that people may contribute in different ways at different times and that as individuals become more senior they may be asked to take on more commitments that are external to the University. Nevertheless, the University normally expects applicants to demonstrate some degree of service contribution that is internal to the University. Evidence of contributions in a College may also be recognised as contributing service to the wider University.
For a standard contribution to service to the University and to the Academic Community, a mid-range score would be appropriate. To justify a higher score there needs to be evidence of sustained contribution to the Institution, University or externally. If a Head of Institution (or other senior academic) providing the Institutional Statement believes the applicant’s contribution is at a significantly higher or lower level than the standard expected and merits a score substantially higher or lower than the standard expected, detailed evidence needs to be provided. The award of a very high score indicates that the applicant is making an exceptional contribution, and this should be addressed in the respective Promotion Panel’s minutes.
Departure from the Standard Scoring Model
In exceptional circumstances, it may be appropriate to depart from the standard scoring model when assessing applications for promotion. As shown in the scoring section for both pathways, alternative models are available for use, in recognition of the different contexts and roles held by employees in different institutions.
Such circumstances may include, for example, when an applicant has had a larger service commitment than would normally be expected.
Where deemed appropriate, the Head of Institution may propose an alternative scoring model in their Institutional Statement for an applicant, setting out the reasons for the proposed exception, for the Promotion Panel to consider. Promotion Panels may also consider this, even if not proposed in the Institutional Statement. The panel must record the reasons for their decision on the appropriate scoring model to use in the applicant’s Assessment Record. Heads of Institutions and panels should bear in mind the standard scoring model reflects extensive discussion across the University on the critical importance of high-quality teaching to the University’s mission and the wish to reflect this in the promotions process.
It is not appropriate to seek to use the alternative scoring models to side-step the normal expectation of one year of teaching experience at Cambridge (for those on the T&S pathway).
Scoring applications from those working part-time hours
It is important to consider an applicant’s contracted hours when assessing a promotion application. Those working part-time hours (including those working part-time on Guaranteed Minimum Hours Contracts) may produce smaller quantities of research outputs, may deliver fewer hours of teaching, or have less time to contribute to activities considered as service. In these circumstances, an applicant’s contribution should be considered proportionally, based on their contracted hours. It is also important to note that the same quality of contribution to research, teaching and service is expected regardless of the applicant’s working hours, but the expectations in terms of quantity or volume of output should be pro-rated to reflect their part-time hours.
Where appropriate, Promotion Panels may consider departing from the standard scoring model for applicants who work part-time.
Scoring applications from applicants in non-standard positions
Applications from those in non-standard positions should be assessed in the same way as applications from those in standard academic or research positions, in terms of the expectations of their achievement of the Assessment Criteria. Promotion Panels should consider the scoring model to use to score these applications, and if appropriate, may choose to use a non-standard scoring model. More details on departing from the standard scoring model can be found in the previous section.
No carry forward of scores for reapplicants
Any score received, whether against a particular criterion or as a total score, only applies to the ACP 6-9 exercise for that particular year. The score will assist the Promotion Panel for that year’s exercise in creating a rank-ordered list, rather than being an absolute number. Scores will not be carried forward from one ACP 6-9 exercise to another and the panels will not be made aware of scores from any previous applications.
Each year is a new exercise, and it is the responsibility of each panel to make its own decision on the basis of an evaluation of the evidence provided.