Purpose

The Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professorship recognizes excellence in instruction at the undergraduate and graduate levels.  The Meigs Professorship communicates the University of Georgia 's commitment to excellence in teaching, the value placed on the learning experiences of our students, and the centrality of instruction to the University's mission. 

 The Award

A maximum of five Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professors will be named each year.  The faculty so named shall receive a permanent salary increase of $6,000 beyond the raise provided through the normal allocation process at the college and departmental levels. In addition, the awardees shall receive a $1,000 discretionary fund for one year.  Funds for the Meigs Professorships will come from the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. 

Process

Each College or School may forward to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost one nomination per year with the exceptions that the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences may forward six nominations per year and the Colleges of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Business, Education and Veterinary Medicine may each forward two nominations per year. No more than one professorship will be awarded in a single year to faculty nominated from a single department. The mechanism by which nominees are selected within colleges or schools will be determined by the respective deans but it should include a review by a designated faculty committee. In addition, any department wishing to make a nomination for consideration by the college or school should have its own internally designated committee to advise the department head in selection of the faculty member to be nominated.

 Nominations will be reviewed and the Meigs Professors selected by the Meigs Professorship Selection Committee, a University Committee comprised of nine faculty members and three students. The faculty members will be chosen by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost from a pool nominated by Deans of the various colleges and schools. The Chair of the Instructional Advisory Committee will serve as one of the nine faculty members on the Meigs Professorship Selection Committee. Student members will be appointed yearly based on Student Government Association nominations. At least one student must be either a graduate or a professional school student seeking a post-baccalaureate degree. The committee members will elect a chair at the first meeting.

The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost shall review the recommendations of the Meigs Professorship Selection Committee and, if acceptable, forward the recommendations to the President and then to the Board of Regents.

Criteria

The intent is to interpret distinguished teaching broadly to include, as noted below, significant contributions to graduate and/or undergraduate instruction. For this reason, no detailed format or set of criteria for nominations will be specified. Since the Meigs Professorship is designed to recognize continued quality instruction, nominations will be limited to individuals who have held tenure-track faculty positions for at least five years. Faculty who have won the award since September 1, 1988 are not eligible for re-nomination.

The dossier must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in its total length (that is, including all materials, exclusive of the cover page) with a typeface no smaller than 11 point font size. Dossiers exceeding this length shall not be considered. Nomination portfolios should not be placed in folders or binders - staple each copy in the upper left-hand corner.

Supporting dossiers should include (1) a written statement; (2) a condensed curriculum vitae; and (3) supporting documentation, such as course evaluation data, letters or statements from colleagues or students (or summaries or excerpts thereof), syllabi, etc. The written statement should be prepared by the departmental executive officer and should be no more than five pages in length. It should state clearly the candidate’s teaching load, past and present, and how it compares to the typical teaching load in the candidate’s department; it might also address the variety and levels of courses the candidate teaches. It should clearly and explicitly address each of the three following questions:

1. How well does the nominee engage and stimulate students? This involves meeting responsibilities to students (e.g., well prepared for class, available for consultation, involved in undergraduate student tutorials, responsive to student questions and needs, provides clear instructions for assigned materials and assessments), and challenging students intellectually (e.g., stimulating ideas and interchange which provoke students to learn more, demanding quality performance in a responsible manner, and causing students to rethink their values and epistemologies). Documentation might come, for example, in the form of carefully designed surveys of students, in-depth review with representative students, solicitation of testimony from successful former students, and/or faculty evaluation of syllabi or other indicators of content organization and course objectives. These examples are intended to be illustrative, not prescriptive or exhaustive.
2. How well is the nominee intellectually prepared for and dedicated to quality instruction? This can be addressed with information obtained from peers here and elsewhere. It might include, for example, instructional awards from professional societies or other groups, thoughtful observations from faculty colleagues about the nominee's scholarly orientation to instruction, formal participation in the national organizations devoted to the improvement of instruction, or past departmental evaluations for promotions or raises. Here, again, these examples are only illustrative.
3. What has the nominee contributed to the overall quality of education? There are myriad ways in which significant contributions can be made: principal role in major curricular reform, introduction of pedagogical methods (including computer-aided instruction) that have resulted in others improving instructional quality, publication of a highly valued and used textbook or other course materials, development of new or innovative courses that occupy a key role in the curriculum, evaluated contributions to (or research in) disciplinary pedagogy, or systematic mentoring of young faculty members or teaching assistants striving to become better instructors.

The supporting documentation should be judiciously assembled to include only essential materials. For example, a summary of a student survey might be included, though it is unnecessary to include each survey form. Similarly, reliance on course syllabi as indicators of content and objectives might necessitate the inclusion of a single syllabus rather than syllabi from all courses.

It cannot be expected that any one individual will excel in all of the ways mentioned. However, other than in extraordinary instances, excellence must be manifested with more than a single indicator. For example, a student survey may be relevant to the case and provide useful information. However, at best it is but one indicator of what it means to achieve distinction in instruction in the broad manner intended with these awards.

It is in the interest of all concerned that dossiers be completed in full conformance with the requirements set forth above. For this reason, persons involved in preparing dossiers should be sure to clear up any uncertainties they may have prior to submitting dossiers for committee review. Sample dossiers are available for review, and questions concerning the proper form of the dossier are encouraged. 

Questions should be directed to:

Susan Landrum
Executive Assistant to the Provost
Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
105 Administration Building
Phone: 542-0415