annual review

We have to do these "development plans" every year that explain what we did in the last year. And then we have to go in and talk it over with our department chairs (and, if we disagree on the 'ratings,' argue it out.)

There are four rating categories at my university, which are oddly like the pre-letter-grade grades my elementary school used to give out:

needs improvement
satisfactory
commendable
outstanding.

So I went in today. My department chair asked me what I thought I deserved. (In another instance, I might hate that tactic, but I know she figures we know our own abilities better than she does). I reminded her that I presented a paper at an international conference this summer - so that rates an "outstanding" in scholarship (well, it does. That's the established standard). She agreed with me and wrote that down. And I remarked that I had been a committee-chair in a state organization this past year, and she agreed that that deserved Commendable.

What about teaching? she asked me.

Well...um. I began. I really haven't being doing anything innovative or wonderful or special (and remember, I'm still hurting from those bad tests). I guess a 'satisfactory' I said, and started to explain more why.

She stopped me.

No, she said. You deserve a "commendable." I'm giving you a "commendable."

I like that my department chair has more faith in me than I have in myself.

I think I've said before that I tend to be hyperactively self-critical - I can see all the areas where I've screwed up generally before I see the areas where I did okay (or better than okay.) Sometimes it helps to have someone go, "No, ricki, you're better than you think you are."

I also like my department chair. She's very low-key, she doesn't believe in berating people to do BETTER or do MORE or to have to resort to Powerpoints of dancing ducks and explosions to get student interest. She's more concerned about good scholarship and good standards than she is about flash and surface stuff.