Scoring Associate Professorships (Grade 10)
Promotion to Associate Professor (Grade 10) is intended to recognise and reward academic staff who are fulfilling the relevant Assessment Criteria.
Promotion to Associate Professor (Grade 10) is determined by reference to the scoring scheme for promotion to Professor but adapted to reflect the fact that the balance between research, teaching and researcher development and service can shift in different directions over the course of an individual’s career.
The ACP R&T scheme has the flexibility to accommodate the non-linear progression of many academic careers. At the point of application, applicants are asked to choose which scoring weighting option they would like the committees to use when assessing their application; option 1 provides the same research-weighted scoring option used for scoring applications for Professorships (Grades 11 and 12) and Clinical Professorships, and option 2 provides a teaching-weighted scoring option.
Scoring applications for promotion to Grade 10 from staff with curatorial, conservation and associated responsibilities
Those who currently hold Grade 9 offices or unestablished posts with curatorial, conservation and associated responsibilities in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the Whipple Museum of the History of Science and the Fitzwilliam Museum who wish to apply for promotion to Grade 10, must select the "Associate Professor (Grade 10)" option in the ACP application portal. Curatorial, conservation and associated staff are necessarily more focused on research and service than on teaching, so are expected to choose option 1 (research-weighted) as outlined below. Additionally, committees assessing these applications would ordinarily be expected to use the alternative scoring models available under option 1 for these applicants, to reduce the weighting of the score awarded for Teaching and Researcher Development to a maximum of 20/100.
Applications from curatorial, conservation and associated staff for promotion to Grade 10 will be scored and ranked alongside applications for this grade from Assistant/Associate Professors (Grade 9).
Promotion to Associate Professor (Grade 10): Option 1 (research-weighted)
Applicants are assessed against the following evaluative criteria and scoring methodology:
- Research and Research Leadership (50/100);
- Teaching and Researcher Development (30/100); and
- Service to the University and the Academic Community (20/100).
The lowest two bandings (‘Clearly Unsatisfactory’ and ‘Insufficient/Unclear Evidence’) are deemed to be below the threshold for promotion.
Performance Descriptor (Banding) | Standard scoring model for option 1 | ||
Research and Research Leadership | Teaching and Researcher Development | Service | |
Outstanding Evidence* | 36 - 50 | 24 - 30 | 15 - 20 |
Strong Evidence** | 22 - 35 | 15 - 23 | 10 - 14 |
Moderate Evidence | 12 - 21 | 9 - 14 | 7 - 9 |
Insufficient/Unclear Evidence | 7 - 11 | 4 - 8 | 4 - 6 |
Clearly Unsatisfactory | 1- 6 | 1 - 3 | 1 - 3 |
*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.
In exceptional circumstances, it may be appropriate to depart from the standard scoring model. This should be on an individual basis so that the maximum score for Teaching and Researcher Development is reduced to 20 with either:
- First alternative, Research and Research Leadership up to a maximum of 60 and Service remaining at a maximum of 20 points, or
- Second alternative, Research and Research Leadership remaining at a maximum of 50 but with Service up to a maximum of 30 points.
The table below provides the details of the alternative scoring models available. More information on when it is appropriate to depart from the standard scoring model can be found here.
First alternative scoring model for option 1 (research-weighted) | Second alternative scoring model for option 1 (research-weighted) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance descriptor (banding) | Research and Research Leadership | Teaching and Researcher Development | Service | Research and Research Leadership | Teaching and Researcher Development | Service |
Outstanding Evidence* | 43-60 | 15-20 | 15-20 | 36-50 | 15-20 | 24-30 |
Strong Evidence** | 26-42 | 10-14 | 10-14 | 22-35 | 10-14 | 15-23 |
Moderate Evidence | 14-25 | 7-9 | 7-9 | 12-21 | 7-9 | 9-14 |
Insufficient/Unclear Evidence | 8-13 | 4-6 | 4-6 | 7-11 | 4-6 | 4-8 |
Clearly Unsatisfactory | 1-7 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 1-6 | 1-3 | 1-3 |
*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.
Promotion to Associate Professor (Grade 10): Option 2 (teaching-weighted)
Applicants are assessed against the following evaluative criteria and scoring methodology:
- Teaching and Researcher Development (50/100);
- Service to the University and the Academic Community (30/100); and
- Research and Research Leadership (20/100).
The lowest two bandings (‘Clearly Unsatisfactory’ and ‘Insufficient/Unclear Evidence’) are deemed to be below the threshold for promotion.
Performance Descriptor (Banding) | Standard scoring model for option 2 | ||
Teaching and Researcher Development | Service | Research and Research Leadership | |
Outstanding Evidence* | 36 - 50 | 24 - 30 | 15 - 20 |
Strong Evidence** | 22 - 35 | 15 - 23 | 10 - 14 |
Moderate Evidence | 12 - 21 | 9 - 14 | 7 - 9 |
Insufficient/Unclear Evidence | 7 - 11 | 4 - 8 | 4 - 6 |
Clearly Unsatisfactory | 1- 6 | 1 - 3 | 1 - 3 |
*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.
In exceptional circumstances, it may be appropriate to depart from the standard scoring model. This should be on an individual basis so that the maximum score for Service is reduced to 20 with either:
- First alternative, Teaching and Researcher Development up to a maximum of 60 and Research remaining at a maximum of 20 points, or
- Second alternative, Teaching and Researcher Development remaining at a maximum of 50 but with Research up to a maximum of 30 points.
The table below provides the details of the alternative scoring models available. More information on when it is appropriate to depart from the standard scoring model can be found here.
Performance descriptor (banding) | First alternative scoring model for option 2 (teaching-weighted) | Second alternative scoring model for option 2 (teaching-weighted) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Teaching and Researcher Development | Service | Research and Research Leadership | Teaching and Researcher Development | Service | Research and Research Leadership | |
Outstanding Evidence* | 43-60 | 15-20 | 15-20 | 36-50 | 15-20 | 24-30 |
Strong Evidence** | 26-42 | 10-14 | 10-14 | 22-35 | 10-14 | 15-23 |
Moderate Evidence | 14-25 | 7-9 | 7-9 | 12-21 | 7-9 | 9-14 |
Insufficient/Unclear Evidence | 8-13 | 4-6 | 4-6 | 7-11 | 4-6 | 4-8 |
Clearly Unsatisfactory | 1-7 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 1-6 | 1-3 | 1-3 |
*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.