1. The Department will award a cash prize of $2,000 and a certificate for the best teaching performance by a graduate student every spring at the Department’s Annual Awards Ceremony.
2. Any graduate teaching a class in the department for whom student evaluations are available will be eligible, except that previous recipients of this Prize will not eligible to receive it again.
3. The choice will be made by a faculty committee to be appointed no later than April 15 of each year. If possible, this committee shall include at least one member of the previous year’s committee. This committee could be the same as the committee on the Prize for Teaching Lower Division Mathematics.
4. The Committee’s selection shall be primarily based on the usual departmental student questionnaires, using, in year x, the evaluations for spring and fall of year x-1 and those for winter of year x, and, where applicable, also the performance during the preceding year’s summer sessions.
5. In exceptional cases, where there are two equally deserving recipients of the Prize, the committee–with the approval of the department chair and in consultation with the Undergraduate Program Committee–can select two recipients of the Prize, but this should be done rarely.

Attachment: Procedures for Selecting the Recipient of The Henry L. Alder Prize for Excellence in Teaching.

Date of this document: November 5, 1999

Presented by Henry L. Alder

Approved by Motohico Mulase, Chair, Department of Mathematics

In consultation with Faculty Representative Committee

_________________________________

1. Obtain a copy of the current rules adopted by the FRC governing this prize.
2. In early May, determine for each eligible graduate student the score on "Overall evaluation of instructor’s teaching" for each class he or she taught in the period under review.
3. For each candidate, list the average scores for all classes taught by the candidate in the period under review. List these scores in descending order indicating in parentheses the number of classes on which the average is based.
4. Select the six to eight top-ranking candidates for a more detailed review of their evaluations by the entire committee at a meeting around May 10. At this meeting, review the candidates’ score on pertinent other criteria, especially on "Overall evaluation of the quality of this course," all student comments for the courses taught by these top-ranking candidates, and other documents available on their contributions to the teaching mission of the department, such as, faculty reports on the candidate’s performance.
5. On the basis of this evaluation, narrow the list of candidates to at most 3.
6. Have every member of the Committee independently rank the candidates identified in Step 5.
7. Put all the rankings on the blackboard. If they clearly indicate who is ranked first, the process is over; if not, further discussion might be needed to arrive at an agreement.
8. Inform the chair of the department of the name of the recipient, so that arrangements can be made for printing the certificate, issuing the check, etc., but no one else should be given the information, in particular, the recipient is not to be told. The chair will take the necessary steps to assure the winner’s presence at the departmental awards ceremony in June.
9. Prepare a brief citation to be read at the Awards ceremony in June.

Date of this document: November 5, 1999

Presented by Henry L. Alder

Approved by Motohico Mulase, Chair, Department of Mathematics

_________________________________