There is a broad consensus that we should increase our emphasis on teaching in the evaluation and reward systems, although this has already been the major emphasis in many of our professional schools. Schools and colleges readily accept the notion that tenured as well as non-tenured faculty should be annually evaluated in areas of teaching and advising. Many units acknowledge that they can improve their summative evaluations of teaching, but they claim that it is more difficult to build in an effectively higher weighting for teaching in rewards such as salary, tenure and promotion. When these are combined with research evaluations, the latter ranging from none to excellent, research tends to dominate the sum, even though the two are formally weighted equally. The submissions revealed that the schools and colleges accept equal emphasis for teaching and research.
Individuals vary in their talents and interests and in the stages of their careers.
Different people at different times will be maximally productive for the department, if they are individually allowed unequal emphases on teaching and research. Some colleges propose an annual planning meeting between faculty and the dean or chair to deal with establishing an individual balance of teaching and research. Submissions were generally not satisfactory in describing policies and standards for faculty advising and mentoring and on procedures for evaluating advising. Because this appears to be a weak point institutionally, we have established a special project for the improvement of lower-division advising. Most schools and colleges did not cover in detail a response to an expanded definition of research, along the lines advocated by Rice and Boyer.