Sabbatical Application Evaluation Criteria and Procedures

Two general criteria guide the evaluation of sabbatical applications.  First, the quality of the proposal itself is assessed.  This part of the reviewing process considers specificity, persuasiveness, and thoughtfulness of the project plan.  Second, the magnitude and potential significance of the described project(s) is examined.  Projects are reviewed with respect to how they are of value to the University and to the individual.  Some questions that might be asked in this regard are: will the project lead to a finished product; will it open a new course or curricular area; will it enhance the individual’s teaching and/or professional development?

The Dean evaluates submitted proposals by first assigning each a grade (judging it against the two general criteria listed above).  An A proposal receives 16 points, a B 12 points, a C 8 points, and so on.  After scoring of the proposal, the quality and quantity of the applicant’s leadership and service in the College--his or her activity and value as a citizen of the University--are evaluated.  Up to 4 points can be added to a proposal’s score in recognition of the person’s contributions to the University.  Seniority is the final consideration.  Applications from persons with more than 25 years of service receive 4 additional points, those with 20-25 years of service get 3 points, those with 10-19 years of service receive 2 points, and those with less than 10 years of service get 1 point. 

Sabbatical Recommendations by the Dean

By October 12, 2009, the Dean will inform sabbatical leave applicants of her recommendation regarding their applications.  Normally, ten sabbaticals are awarded per year to the ten proposals with the highest total scores.  Sabbatical leaves may be taken for a full year at half pay or for either semester at full pay.  In either case, full benefits continue while one is on sabbatical leave.  Final action on the awarding sabbatical leaves is taken by The Rector and Visitors of the University of Mary Washington at their next meeting after the Dean’s recommendations are made (a meeting typically held in November or December). 

In making sabbatical recommendations, the Dean considers the impact such leaves will have on the faculty member’s department.  The smaller the department, the harder it is to redistribute routine faculty duties (such as advising and committee work).  If two applicants from a department with less than ten full-time continuing faculty members (or more than two in a department with more than ten full-time continuing faculty members) qualify for an available sabbatical, the lower-scoring applicant(s) must postpone the sabbatical for a year.