Classics Guidelines

Current Guidelines (PDF)

View Previous Guidelines

Guidelines for Reappointment on the Tenure Track

For tenure-track candidates, reappointment requires evidence of progress towards fulfilling the goals in all three categories of teaching, scholarship, and service outlined below, in the “Guidelines for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure” section.

In teaching, candidates should demonstrate commitment and excellence in the classroom, as well as continued development in their pedagogy. Syllabi, sample assignments, classroom observations, and student evaluations can provide evidence for pedagogical efficacy and development.

In scholarship, candidates should show significant progress towards meeting the goals outlined below, which specify the publication of several significant articles and/or a reputable book. We recognize that the timeline for Humanities publishing is quite slow, and that candidates for reappointment may have articles that are currently under review or in press.

Regarding service, the department recognizes that faculty members in their first years on the tenure track should and will have different service profiles than faculty members post-reappointment.

Guidelines for Promotion to Associate Professor With Tenure

Promotion to Associate Professor requires achievement in teaching, scholarship, and service. Candidates must present evidence of accomplishment in all three categories, with teaching and scholarship being the most important. While the department recognizes that each person has different strengths and that there is no single blueprint that covers every candidate, promotion and the granting of tenure requires evidence of work that has had an impact both within the college and beyond.

Teaching

The evaluation of teaching will be based on the criteria listed below, through the forms of evidence specified. When submitting their tenure packet, candidates should submit a syllabus for each course they have taught (one example will suffice for courses taught multiple times), and they are invited to upload any supplemental materials they deem useful for demonstrating their effectiveness in teaching. Guidelines for classroom observation are laid out below in the section titled "Guidelines for Peer Observation of Teaching." Excellence in teaching will be evaluated by the following criteria:

• Incorporates the current state of knowledge and disciplinary or inter-disciplinary practice and pedagogy into courses. Indicators of this can be found in the way syllabi and assignments incorporate recent scholarship and issues of contemporary relevance, particularly those that address historical inequities and marginalization in the discipline. Classroom observation can reveal how, and to what extent, current disciplinary or inter-disciplinary discussions shape course content, assignment design, and pedagogy. Indicators can also be found in self-evaluation in annual reports and personal statements for reappointment and tenure that describes the way a faculty member has revised a course or developed a new course based on developments in the field.
• Uses inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices. Indicators can be found in assignments and syllabi that allow students to demonstrate their learning and development through multiple modes. Classroom observation can assess the extent to which there is broad engagement and interaction with students at all levels. Self-evaluation in annual reports and personal statements for reappointment and tenure can reveal steps taken to adapt pedagogy to be more inclusive of the students in the class. Systematically-collected student feedback may also provide some evidence on the extent to which students are impacted by the faculty member's teaching strategies, and feel comfortable and safe in expressing their opinions and voices.
• Challenges students intellectually. Indicators of this can be found in syllabi and assignments and in systematically-collected student feedback, which demonstrate that courses are designed to challenge students appropriately, attentive to the diversity of preparation and experiences among students, while clearly defining expectations. Classroom observations and self-evaluation in annual reports and personal statements for reappointment and tenure can also reveal if the faculty member provides a variety of ways for students to succeed and/or demonstrate their learning, paying particular attention to being inclusive and equitable in assessments.
• Provides assistance to students inside and outside of class. Indicators of this can be found in systematically-collected student feedback, in classroom observation, and in self-evaluation in annual reports and personal statements for reappointment and tenure. Note, though, the potential of this criterion to make differential demands on women, racially or ethnically diverse faculty, and those from other minoritized groups.
• Involves reflective and iterative growth. Indicators of this can be found in the candidate’s self-evaluation in annual reports and personal statements for reappointment and tenure, in which the candidate reports on experimentation with different pedagogical approaches, development of new courses, or revision of existing ones. Further evidence may include participation in faculty development, such as attending workshops about teaching or undergoing voluntary formative peer review, as described in the candidate’s annual reports and personal statements.
  • In teaching, we recognize that members of our department do not often have the opportunity to repeat classes within a two- or three-year cycle. Candidates may therefore demonstrate their development as teachers through their range of courses rather than through repetition of a specific course. This includes their constructive processing of feedback received on their instruction, primarily based on annual reports. Candidates should demonstrate their response to such feedback in the classroom and in subsequent annual reports.
• Contributes to teaching service, scholarship, and community. Indicators of this could be found in the fact that the faculty member accepts teaching assignments at all levels, as reported in self-evaluations and peer evaluations. It may also be found in annual reports and personal statements for reappointment and tenure that recount their involvement in pedagogical conversations and initiatives within the department and at Hamilton more broadly through, for instance, their work in pedagogically oriented discussion groups and their organization of visits or panels related to teaching and learning. Publishing scholarship on pedagogy is another indicator of engagement with the teaching community at, and beyond, Hamilton.

Scholarship

Scholarship will be evaluated with respect to the following: published books (including monographs and edited volumes), peer-reviewed articles and book chapters that are published or accepted for publication; reviews and review articles, dictionary entries and encyclopedia entries that are published or accepted for publication; completed books awaiting publication, book manuscripts in progress, public-facing scholarship (such as blog posts, podcasts, op-eds, and other media that is not peer-reviewed); lectures and papers delivered; conferences, panels and workshops organized; and grants received (in that order of importance). Tenure and promotion will require clear evidence of a strong and enduring commitment to research and scholarship.

Candidates should either have several peer-reviewed articles or a book (monograph or edited volume). Different kinds of research lend themselves to different forms of publications, so each person will differ in where and in what form they publish. Some classics journals are more traditional and publish more philological research, while others publish more theoretical and contemporary approaches, including pedagogy and reception; no approach is inherently better than the others. In all cases, evaluators in the field should rate the quality of the work as high. Early on, candidates should confer with the department chair and voting members regarding their plans for scholarship in preparation for reappointment and tenure.

Non-tenure-track faculty eligible for reappointment will be evaluated on the basis of their teaching, following the teaching criteria outlined above (Reappointment on the tenure track) and following the peer observation process outlined below (Guidelines for peer observation of teaching). The exception to this is that evaluation of non-tenure track faculty will place less emphasis on reflective and iterative growth, since non-tenure track faculty have typically only been at Hamilton for a short time.

Scholarship will not factor into the evaluation of non-tenure track faculty.

Non-tenure track faculty eligible for reappointment should show a record of participation in the department, which includes the attendance of departmental meetings and other department events, such as student-facing social gatherings and guest speakers. Broader service to the College beyond the department is not required.

Guidelines for Peer Observation of Teaching

Peer review of teaching will include:

1. A pre-observation meeting in which subjects such as session goals, course goals, pedagogical approaches, and assignments are discussed
2. Review of available course materials to contextualize the session
3. A classroom observation of a single class session
4. A post-observation meeting
5. Written documentation of the review that addresses pre-observation conversation, review of teaching materials, and observations about various aspects of the class session such as content, clarity, and organization; student engagement; teacher-student interactions; and attention to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access. This will be shared with the person reviewed by the end of the semester in which the observation occurred.

The department chair will coordinate peer review assignments at the beginning of each semester in consultation with the faculty being observed, the reviewer will take responsibility for scheduling on a mutually convenient date, and the department chair (or designated senior faculty member) will ensure that the review occurs.

Each faculty member will ordinarily be observed at least once per year and no more than twice per semester, and each classroom observation will be conducted by one colleague only.

As far as possible, all voting members will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through the peer review process above before voting on reappointment, and the remaining voting members will gain firsthand knowledge of teaching through review of teaching materials. As far as possible, all voting members will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through this peer review process before voting on tenure or promotion.

Written documentation will be stored by the department chair (or designated senior faculty member) and made available to the candidate and all members of the reappointment or promotion committee. The written documentation may be quoted in annual reviews or letters written by the department.

Faculty in non-tenurable positions will be reviewed using the same processes as those in tenure lines. Professors, who will be evaluated using the same criteria, are not required to undergo peer evaluation but are invited to do so.

---

Approved by COA: June 2, 2025