#+TITLE: Q & A session for RCSC
* criteria
** the areas of evaluation: 4.3 (pp. 57- )
+ teaching and advising
+ university and community service
+ scholarship and professional development
  - the appendices
  - the distinction between "teaching faculty" and "clinical faculty" (p. 58)
** rank: 3.4.B
+ 3.4.B has the actual guidelines that the RCSC *should* be using (pp. 37-38)
+ wording is important - e.g., "sustained" (p. 38)
  - if your school doesn't elaborate on this, you should guide the RCSC -- "hold the reader's hand" --> why is your record a demonstration of "sustained" excellence?
  - don't assume things are self-evident (each reader will have a distinct perspective)
** continuing status
+ 3.3.B has the guidelines that the RCSC *should* be using (p. 34)
* the portfolio
+ consider submitting it *early* to your Dean or Division Chair
  - are any components missing?
  - do any components merit additional attention/revision?
** portfolio content (4.6 pp 68- )
- serves as evidence (4.6.D, p. 70)
- note that evidence is now explicitly outlined in subsections of 4.6.F (pp. 70-)
- areas that, at times, are neglected (absent or vary in quality)
  - reflective self-assessment (p. 69)
    - accomplishments
    - areas for improvement in areas under evaluation
    - prose
  - reflection on one's spiritual journey (4.6.E, p. 70)
    - prose
  - Professional Development Plan self-report + proposed Professional Development Plan (4.7, p. 74)
  - summarizing data in a meaningful way (e.g., pages of raw IDEA data versus a table of summarized data --> aid the reader, don't torture him/her)