Physics
Our department members work together to create an atmosphere of collaborative learning for all students, concentrators and non-concentrators alike. We hire faculty who share our interest in nurturing this community — working closely with students in their classes and doing research with undergraduate collaborators. As the Faculty Handbook makes clear, successful candidates for tenure will present strong records in three areas: teaching, research, and service. Our criteria reflect standards shared by other highly-selective liberal arts colleges, and we interpret these standards with an understanding that the composition of produced work will differ from candidate to candidate. Nevertheless, we expect that the record of a viable candidate will provide clear evidence of a successful pattern of accomplishments in both teaching and research, coupled with high motivation to sustain this activity throughout the candidate’s professional life. We also expect candidates to be effective and engaged departmental and college citizens. Teaching is the most heavily weighted criterion for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Scholarship is almost equally important. Service is expected but is not weighted as heavily as teaching and scholarship.
The Senior Project is a central part of the curriculum in Physics at Hamilton, and it often provides an opportunity for students to conduct collaborative research with their faculty supervisor. Thus, aspects of this experience might in certain circumstances be evidence of accomplishment in teaching and/or scholarship. Similarly, the supervision of students in summer research might provide evidence of successful teaching, whereas the final product might reasonably be considered in the category of scholarship.
Evaluation Criteria for Tenurable Positions:
Candidates for Reappointment in Tenurable Positions:
Candidates for reappointment prior to tenure should demonstrate clear evidence of progress toward the standards for tenure outlined in the next section, especially regarding teaching and scholarship. We also expect candidates for reappointment to meet the criteria for service described in the next section, but we do not require service on college-wide committees before reappointment.
Candidates for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure:
Teaching:
The Physics Department expects its faculty to be excellent teachers who teach courses at multiple levels of the curriculum, from introductory courses through the Senior Project, before being considered for tenure.
For all faculty in the Physics Department, across their careers, effective teaching includes the following, in no particular order:
- Communicating in a clear and organized fashion;
- Incorporating the current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice;
- Challenging students intellectually;
- Constructively interacting with students both in and outside of the classroom;
- Providing constructive and timely feedback on student work;
- Using appropriate and inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices;
- Encouraging a welcoming and inclusive environment; and
- Motivating students to think deeply about physics.
The Department will review multiple components of the file as evidence that candidates have met these criteria:
- A personal statement in which the candidate reflects on their teaching methods and effectiveness, demonstrating continued growth in teaching, course modifications, and commitment to student learning;
- Course materials (e.g., exams, assignments, syllabi) that provide evidence of effective and inclusive pedagogical practices, and that show appropriate adjustments over time;
- Peer reviews based on formal classroom visits, course material review, discussions of pedagogy, and informal observations of activities such as engagement of students in a variety of learning experiences including office hours, supervised research, and the Senior Project;
- Student teaching evaluations, both numerical and narrative; and
- Select and random student letters.
We expect that these sources of information will be consistent with one another. Should there be substantial conflict between these sources, we will tend to weigh our own observations and the student letters more heavily than the course evaluations. In reading course evaluations, we will pay more attention to the written comments than to the numerical summaries. We acknowledge that all these methods of evaluation are inherently biased. In particular, student evaluations have been shown to have a negative bias towards women and people of color.
In addition to these ways of demonstrating a strong record of teaching, the Department expects faculty to be successful in teaching a range of courses across the physics curriculum. Improvement while teaching a course over a number of years will be considered positively. Finally, when such opportunities arise, the development of courses new to the physics curriculum may also contribute to a strong record of teaching.
All types of evidence on the above list will be used to evaluate the extent to which the faculty member exhibits the components of effective teaching defined above, with the following exceptions:
- We do not expect students to be able to assess whether a faculty member is incorporating the current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice, nor the current state of physics pedagogy.
- We do not expect that classroom observations can assess faculty feedback on student work or faculty interactions with students outside of the classroom.
In some cases, a file component might contain no evidence about a particular criterion of effective teaching; we will not interpret that absence as an indication that the faculty member does not meet that criterion.
Research:
A new faculty member is expected to develop a vibrant research program. Although we embrace different models of scholarship, most faculty build an independent program of which they are Principal Investigator. An alternative, successful model is a collaborative program with colleagues at other institutions with the faculty member leading an element of the larger program. In either case, the goal is a program of original research aimed at publication in research journals. In their personal statement, the candidate must clearly articulate the research trajectory to date and for the near future, and the candidate will be evaluated on the productivity of the research program. Evidence for this should be grounded in a record of publications that indicates a continuing trajectory of productive research.
While it is difficult to characterize absolute measures of a vibrant program of research, the following criteria offer a guide to the expected activity in four important categories, ranked in order of importance and explained below:
- Publications, primarily those in peer-reviewed journals as noted below,
- Student involvement in research,
- Obtaining external funding, proposals for external funding, and positive reviews of grant proposals (successfully-funded proposals are viewed very positively), and
- Activity in the scholarly community as evidenced by invitations to chair conference sessions, serving on committees or boards, conference presentations and lectures at other institutions.
Publications: The primary measure of success in research is the publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals. Our assumption is that published work that has undergone peer-review is of high quality. The Department recognizes that the expectations for publication in different sub-fields of physics and in different lines of research work, such as setting up laboratories, are highly variable. Senior members of the Department and candidates will discuss these expectations during the pre-tenure period. These expectations will be articulated in annual reviews. Given the different nature of fields within physics and a wide range of unpredictable variables, the emphasis should not be on numbers. For instance, quality can compensate for quantity. Publications in high-profile research journals (including Physical Review Letters, Nature, and Science) resulting from work carried out during one’s pre-tenure time at Hamilton carry greater significance than other publications.
Outside evaluators assess the quality of publications as part of the tenure review, which constitutes important evidence in the overall process. For example, outside evaluators often comment on the impact of published work within the subfield. For collaborative work, candidates should clearly delineate their intellectual contribution to published work in their personal statements.
The Department expects that peer-reviewed journal articles should result from work that is substantially performed after the candidate commences employment at Hamilton College. Articles published during the pre-tenure years that report on work largely completed before the candidate arrived at Hamilton add evidence of scholarly depth. However, such articles are not sufficient for tenure.
Publishing books (e.g. research monographs, textbooks), may constitute a significant portion of the record, when the work has passed through the equivalent of the peer review process for journals.
Other types of published and non-published scholarship contribute evidence of scholarly activity, but do not substitute for publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals. Such scholarship could include:
-
Publishing reviews, book chapters, or other items that receive minimal review
-
When physics pedagogy is not the primary field of the candidate, publishing papers on pedagogical approaches.
Student Involvement: Successful candidates for tenure will have involved Hamilton students in research with an active on-campus component to their research program. Faculty must work with seniors on research projects as part of the senior program. When appropriate, students should be involved in the candidate’s primary area(s) of research. The Department is also committed to offering either on- or off-campus summer research opportunities to students and views offering such opportunities positively. The tenure committee will view evidence of effective student research mentoring positively.
We understand that collaborating with students is nuanced. Student collaborations can substantially contribute to a research project but working with students can slow scholarly productivity, rather than enhance it. The chair and senior colleagues will work with the untenured faculty member to determine an appropriate level of participation.
External Funding: External funding and grant proposals contribute evidence of scholarly activity, but do not substitute for publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals. Obtaining external funding is a strong statement about peer review of the proposed research in a competitive environment. Since funding may be affected by circumstances beyond the faculty member’s control, positive reviews of unsuccessful grant applications may also demonstrate research activity.
Normally, all new faculty should submit proposals for external funding for their research programs. We recognize that it is more difficult to get funding in some areas than others; as long as a candidate actively seeks the funding that is needed to continue their research, the record is adequate in this category.
Activity in their Scholarly Community: It is important that new faculty remain connected with the larger community of researchers. Faculty should take advantage of the College’s support for faculty travel, and should attend conferences regularly, presenting current work. Other forms of valuable activity include service to professional societies, refereeing articles for publication in professional journals, etc.
Successful candidates for tenure will present a record of publications, research activity, student involvement, involvement in the scholarly community, and research plans that demonstrate a trajectory for continued active, productive, and visible scholarship post-tenure. Candidates’ personal statements must contain research agendas post-tenure. In assessing the quality of the candidate’s scholarship, the views of the outside evaluators constitute important evidence in the overall process. The Department’s evaluation will incorporate the reviews of these evaluators.
Service:
All tenure track members of the Physics Department are expected to contribute their share to the running of the department. This includes departmental discussions, decision-making, and service such as managing seminars, serving on search committees, hosting and participating in events, advising students and student groups, contributing to department documents, teaching necessary courses, and supervising and managing senior projects. Tenure-track faculty should serve on or stand for election to college committees. We encourage junior faculty to volunteer for committee work in order to make connections with faculty from other areas of the College. However, we are supportive of the choice to postpone major committee service until after the tenure decision.
Candidates for Promotion to Professor:
Promotion to Professor requires outstanding teaching, as demonstrated in the ways described in the Tenure Guidelines. After tenure, members of the Physics Department are expected to continue as productive scholars and to contribute to the community with service both inside the department and for the general College community. A candidate for promotion to full professor will ordinarily serve in the rank of associate professor for a length of time that is stipulated by the current Faculty Handbook. The chair of the department will provide ongoing feedback during that period about the faculty member’s progress toward promotion. Our Handbook states that successful candidates for promotion will present strong records in three areas: teaching, research, and service. The teaching and service record will be evaluated using the guidelines specified in the Handbook.
A candidate is expected to be able to demonstrate a strong post-tenure trajectory of original, published research, to have become well-established and well-regarded in the relevant field(s), and to show promise for continued research productivity in the future. The candidate will be evaluated both on the quality of the original research and on productivity. The candidate must also continue to be actively involved in senior project research, by working with students on a variety of research projects and by involving students in the candidate's research.
Other types of published and non-published scholarship contribute to evidence of scholarly activity but do not substitute for publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals. Strong candidates for promotion will be able to demonstrate a variety of the following in addition to peer-reviewed publications of original research:
- Successful grant applications
- Review articles, synthesis papers, or textbooks
- Encyclopedia entries, book reviews, or written materials that have not been peer-reviewed
- Positive reviews of unsuccessful grant proposals
- Convening workshops for faculty or students at various venues; taking students to national or regional meetings
In addition, strong candidates for promotion will be able to demonstrate that the professional community values the work by, for example, invitations to collaborate, speak, chair sessions, review proposals and manuscripts, etc. In addition, the candidate is expected to attend professional meetings regularly and to contribute with poster or oral presentations. Additional activity may include service to professional societies, editing journals, refereeing articles for publication in professional journals, organizing conferences, etc.
An estimation of the long-term research potential of the candidate is a component of the evaluation process. The candidate’s research record must show a trajectory consistent with continued productivity after promotion, and the candidate’s personal statement must contain a statement that describes the candidate’s post-promotion research agenda.
The department is committed to offering summer research opportunities to students. It is not necessary to mentor students every year, but each senior faculty member should participate on a regular basis.
Successful candidates for promotion will contribute their share to the running of the department as described above for junior faculty. In addition, senior faculty are expected to step into leadership roles in the department including fostering departmental discussions and decision-making, mentoring junior faculty, and engaging in college-wide service such as serving on major faculty committees. For promotion, faculty should make significant contributions to their department, college, and/or national communities.
Evaluation Criteria for Instructional Faculty Positions:
Candidates for Reappointment in Instructional Faculty Positions
In Faculty of Instruction positions, candidates for reappointment prior to promotion should demonstrate clear evidence of progress toward the standards for promotion outlined below, especially regarding teaching and administrative duties.
Candidates for Promotion to Associate Professor of Instruction
Teaching by Faculty of Instruction will be evaluated with the same criteria and using the same sources of evidence as those used for untenured faculty in tenure-track positions, except for the range of courses taught and mentoring students in research.
Professors of Instruction often take on responsibilities in support of the Physics Department. These may include administrative duties, supervisory responsibilities, lab maintenance, and student training; these are outlined in the individual’s job description. The evaluation of such responsibilities beyond teaching will be based on the following sources:
- Annual Reports from the candidate;
- Annual Reviews from the department;
- Comments collected from departmental and other relevant colleagues; and
- A Personal Statement for promotion from the candidate.
Professors of Instruction should address these contributions in their annual review and personal statement.
The evaluation of faculty of instruction is based primarily on their teaching and on their administrative duties. According to their personal interests, Faculty of Instruction may choose to engage in research and additional service to the Department and to the College, possibly including academic advising. Such research and service are not required and are considered above and beyond the requirements of the job. Faculty of Instruction may choose to have research and service included in any of their reviews and these will be viewed positively, but research and service cannot replace teaching or administrative duties. Contributions to departmental discussions and decision-making will be viewed positively.
Candidates for Promotion to Professor of Instruction
Promotion to Professor of Instruction requires outstanding teaching as discussed in the criteria for tenure, using the same sources of evidence, and outstanding performance in administrative duties. Criteria for promotion fall in the same categories as for promotion to associate professor of instruction detailed above. The chair of the department will provide ongoing feedback about the faculty member’s progress toward promotion. Successful candidates for promotion will contribute to departmental discussions and decision-making.
Evaluation Criteria for Renewable, Term, and Adjunct Positions:
Candidates for Reappointment in Renewable, Term, and Adjunct Positions
Teaching will be evaluated with the same criteria as those used for tenure, except for the range of courses taught and mentoring students in research. Some aspects of the above standards will not apply to all positions. For example, adjunct faculty do not typically have responsibility for course design.
Appendix: Physics Peer Review of Teaching Policy
In the Physics Department, formal peer review of teaching serves two purposes: (1) to provide faculty with constructive feedback to help improve their teaching, and (2) to evaluate teaching for the purposes of annual reviews and the reappointment, tenure, and promotion process. We expect that all members voting on a candidate’s reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion will have first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s classroom teaching and teaching materials.
In order to make the peer review policy systematic yet unobtrusive, the Physics Department has agreed on the following procedures:
- The chair will ensure that each continuing, untenured faculty member is observed at least once per semester, excluding the senior project, but normally no more than two times in a single course, unless at the request of the faculty member. Ideally, every type of class should be visited before file submission. The chair will also offer non-continuing faculty members the opportunity to be observed. Classes taught by faculty coming up for promotion to Professor are also visited, though less frequently, to ensure that all voting members have relatively recent (e.g., normally within two years of promotion) first-hand knowledge of teaching effectiveness. We also welcome those who have been promoted to Professor to continue to engage in peer review for continued growth.
- Normally, every member of the Department voting on a person’s reappointment and tenure will have made a classroom visitation every one to two years.
- Classroom visitations and discussions related to visitations will be arranged by mutual prior agreement of the two parties. Those involved might agree that more than one visit in a particular course would be helpful.
- The two parties will meet prior to the visit so that the faculty member being observed has a chance to explain their overall goals for the course and for the class session being observed, share relevant teaching materials, and specify anything about which they would like specific feedback.
- Following the visitation, the two parties will meet to discuss it. The observer will provide both the chair and the faculty member with written documentation of the review that addresses the pre-observation conversation, review of teaching materials, and observation 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. The memo should be provided no later than four weeks following the observation. The chair will retain a copy of the evaluation for the faculty member’s file.
- Faculty members being evaluated are encouraged to write a response to the chair if they consider the written evaluation to be inaccurate, unfair, or inappropriate.
- Quotes from the peer observation letters may be included in the Department letter for reappointment/tenure/promotion, but the Department will not include the letters themselves. Candidates may elect to include any peer observations they choose when they submit their file for consideration.
- If continuing, untenured faculty are interested in having members outside of the Department observe their teaching (e.g., to help inform future colleague letters), they are welcome to either make the arrangement themselves or ask the chair to facilitate the observations.
- Faculty in their first semester of teaching will be reviewed for formative purposes only; no written report of the first semester review will be generated.
We encourage faculty to engage in activities that are purely for formative purposes and are not tied to future evaluation, such as peer review of teaching materials, classroom observation of senior faculty, teaching circles, and pedagogy workshops.
Review by COA completed November 9, 2025
