邢唷��>� /1��.��欹�q` ��<bjbjqPqP .::< ��c � ��$ h�� 04爒��:��3 0c � H4 � ��\ "B�Zn� | c ��D��TO: UAF Unit Criteria Committee FROM: Stephen D. Sparrow, SNRAS DATE: 14 January 2009 SUBJECT: Revisions to SNRAS Unit Criteria Thank you for your input for regarding revisions to the SNRAS unit criteria. We appreciate and thus have accepted most of the committee抯 suggestions. We added a statement at the end of IIA.(Evaluation of Faculty, General Criteria, p 2) to indicate these criteria apply to both tenure track and non-tenure track faculty. While it may seem redundant, there seems to be lots of confusion about what criteria non-tenure track, and especially research faculty, should be evaluated under. We believe this statement helps relieve this confusion. Under teaching, item h (p. 3), we added a statement about evaluation of student advising. Advising is difficult to evaluate; we believe using exit interviews and/or student surveys will give us at least some information of advising effectiveness. We already do these activities so it will only require only adding a question about advising. Under research, we combined item n with item a as suggested, but did not combine item o (now n, p. 6) with a. Rather, we reworded it to hopefully show how it is different from a. We kept it as a separate item because we believe it important that faculty not only publish in the external literature, but also in literature published in-house. We removed the word 搒everal� from the section on specific criteria for research performance, however, we have purposely avoided listing what we consider overly specific criteria (such as number of publications expected). We believe doing so would hinder rather than help promotion/tenure review committees since many factors, such quality of publications and overall strength of research programs are as or more important than simply counting numbers of publications. We removed part of the added wording from section 1. Public Service (p. 7), but kept the last sentence. While it may seem redundant, we believe it necessary to stress that SNRAS puts particular emphasis on service in arenas relating to management of natural resources in Alaska. We did not combine item q (now item o, p. 8) with item k, but changed the wording to hopefully indicate how they are different and to emphasize the importance of involvement in K-12 education at a higher level than simply assisting and judging educational competitions. I made all those changes visible through the MS Word track changes feature so committee members can easily see any deletions, additions, or word changes. If you would rather have it without the changes showing, please let me know. NO � � � � � �� %��/ 9 O &ip��^cdgikMNO67:;<扈祠禳桎栲栲栲茇茇茇茉卦茉苄粜茑�h��h'�hRwRh'�h�3�h�h揋�h�%�h薸�h� h��h��' !ABXY�� N O %&>?NO78;<��<�,1恏靶/ 班=!�"�#悹$悹%�靶靶愋��@@�@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA��DDefault Paragraph FontRi��RTable Normal�4� l4�a�(k��(No List< �� !ABXY��NO%&>?N O 7 8 ; > �0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌�0赌赌< <<��tK\MuK\J�66> <<> 9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€State€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€T�> BD%&(V ` > 3333 !ABYi�> > �� 襤.RwR"e揋�Q �薸��3�'� !��%�'����@€GG0{��GG< `@��Unknown��G�噝 €�Times New Roman5�€Symbol3&�噝 €�Arial"��鹦h漵裦焥裦��亖247 7 2��HP)�?��2��TO: UAF Unit Criteria Committee Steve Sparrow Steve Sparrow�鄥燆鵒h珣+'迟0�� $0 P\ ht|�� TO: UAF Unit Criteria CommitteeSteve SparrowNormalSteve Sparrow3Microsoft Office Word@H'�@F枢焩�@襊(爒��胀諟.摋+,0hp�� UAF-SNRAS7 � TO: UAF Unit Criteria CommitteeTitle �� !"#$%��'()*+,-��0��Root Entry�� F�<4爒�2€Data ��1Table��WordDocument��.SummaryInformation(��DocumentSummaryInformation8��&CompObj��q�� FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8�9瞦