 }}){kind=logo}
 }})
RATING INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE APPLICANTS FOR FACULTY POSITION
(per BOR Resolution No. 89, s. 2018)
| Name of Applicant: {{ $data["applicant"]->fullname }} | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria (additional criteria with highlight) | Points per Indicator |
Maximum points |
Total Points |
Rating |
| I. Academic background: degree finished (to be rated en banc based on documents submitted) |
40 | {{ number_format($sumAcadBack, 2) }} | ||
| PhD/doctoral degree: Appropriate major field | 30 | 30 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][0] }} | |
| Closely Related field | 20 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][1] }} | ||
| Slightly related | 10 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][2] }} | ||
| Masteral Degree: Appropriate major field | 20 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][3] }} | ||
| Closely Related field | 15 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][4] }} | ||
| Slightly related | 5 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][5] }} | ||
| Bachelors degree (applicable only if there are no applicants with Master's degree) |
||||
| Appropriate major field | 10 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][6] }} | ||
| Closely Related field | 5 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][14] }} | ||
| Slightly Related | 3 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][15] }} | ||
| Grade point average: | 5 | |||
| 1.00 – 1.25 | 5 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][7] }} | ||
| 1.26 – 1.50 | 4 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][8] }} | ||
| 1.51 – 1.75 | 3 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][9] }} | ||
| 1.51 – 1.75 | 2 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][10] }} | ||
| 2.0 and beyond | 1 | {{ $data["enbancOne"][11] }} | ||
| Related additional graduate units: For every 3 units earned | 5 | |||
| A higher relevant degree course (not to exceed 5.0 points) | 0.50 | {{ ($data["enbancOne"][12]) ? number_format($data["enbancOne"][12], 2) : "" }} | ||
| A slightly relevant degree course (not to exceed 2.5 points) | 0.25 | {{ ($data["enbancOne"][13]) ? number_format($data["enbancOne"][13], 2) : "" }} | ||
| II. Work experience (rated en banc) (instruction/research/extension/administrative designation): |
10 | {{ number_format($sumWorkExp, 2) }} | ||
| For every year of full-time academic service in SUCs, CHED- supervised HEI or TESDA-supervised TEI (teaching in college or doing research & extension functions) |
1.00 | {{ $data["enbancTwo"][0] }} | ||
| For every year of full-time academic service in institution of higher learning other than SUC, HEI or TEI |
0.75 | {{ $data["enbancTwo"][1] }} | ||
| For every year of full-time non-academic service but experience |
0.50 | {{ $data["enbancTwo"][2] }} | ||
| III. Professional Development Achievement and Honors (rated en banc) |
10 | {{ number_format($totalSumProfDev, 2) }} | ||
| Honors & Awards | 2.50 | {{ number_format($sumFirstQuarter, 2) }} | ||
| Undergraduate Honors: Summa cum laude | 3.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][0] }} | ||
| Magna cum laude | 2.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][1] }} | ||
| Cum laude | 1.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][2] }} | ||
| Awards: (Scholarships): Doctorate | 3.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][3] }} | ||
| Masteral | 2.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][4] }} | ||
| Undergraduate (based on honors) | 0.75 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][5] }} | ||
| Undergraduate (non-competitive) | 0.50 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][6] }} | ||
| Recognition of achievement: International | 1.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][7] }} | ||
| National/Regional | 0.75 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][8] }} | ||
| Local | 0.50 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][9] }} | ||
| Training/seminar workshops | 2.50 | {{ number_format($sumSecondQuarter, 2) }} | ||
| For every one year of relevant training: International | 1.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][10] }} | ||
| National | 0.75 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][11] }} | ||
| Local | 0.50 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][12] }} | ||
| For every 8 hours of relevant conferences, seminars or workshops: | ||||
| International | 0.25 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][13] }} | ||
| National | 0.20 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][14] }} | ||
| Local | 0.10 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][15] }} | ||
| For every expert services as lecturer/resource person or guest speaker in conferences, workshops, and/or training courses: |
2.50 | {{ number_format($sumThirdQuarter, 2) }} | ||
| International | 1.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][16] }} | ||
| National | 0.75 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][17] }} | ||
| Local | 0.50 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][18] }} | ||
| Publication (for every scholarly research/monograph/educational technical articles in a technical/scientific/professional journal): |
2.50 | {{ number_format($sumFourthQuarter, 2) }} | ||
| International | 1.00 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][19] }} | ||
| National | 0.75 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][20] }} | ||
| Local | 0.50 | {{ $data["enbancThree"][21] }} | ||
| IV. Interview (rated individually by committee member using the Competency Assessment/Rating Form) |
10 | {{ number_format($totalInterview, 2) }} | ||
| V. Teaching Demonstration (rated individually) | 20 (20% of the total points obtained in the teaching demo) |
20 | {{ number_format($totalDemo, 2) }} | |
| Has adequate knowledge of the subject matter | 10 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][0] }} | ||
| Gives clear statement of objectives and content is appropriate in satisfying these objectives |
10 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][1] }} | ||
| Has poise and feels confident, delivers logical and organized presentation |
8 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][2] }} | ||
| Emphasized key points and makes subject matter meaningful (through examples/analogies and/or illustrations) |
8 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][3] }} | ||
| Demonstrates enthusiasm and interest in the subject matter | 7 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][4] }} | ||
| Uses understandable vocabulary, speaks clearly and distinctly with appropriate pacing |
10 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][5] }} | ||
| Can stir up interest and withhold attention of the audiences as well as encourages participatory discussion |
10 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][6] }} | ||
| Answers questions directly with a sensation of accuracy | 10 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][7] }} | ||
| Uses appropriate non-verbal communications (i.e. gestures, facial expressions, etc.) without annoying mannerisms, maintains eye contact |
10 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][8] }} | ||
| Uses and handles teaching aids properly | 7 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][9] }} | ||
| Utilizes time efficiently and punctual in ending topic presentation | 5 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][10] }} | ||
| Summarizes the topic and gives appropriate applications | 5 | {{ $data["committeeTwo"][11] }} | ||
| VI. License/eligibility: not to exceed 5 points (rated en banc) | 5 | {{ number_format($sumElig, 2) }} | ||
| Applicable License | 5 | {{ $data["enbancSix"][0] }} | ||
| CSC Eligibility | 3 | {{ $data["enbancSix"][1] }} | ||
| Skills training certificate (TESDA & similar trainings) per certificate | 1 | {{ $data["enbancSix"][2] }} | ||
| VII. Other Qualifications: Writing skills, computer literacy, drawing, statistical analysis, etc. (to be rated individually based on submitted document or en banc) |
5 | @php $sumOther = 0; for($pp = 0; $pp < 5; $pp++) { $sumOther += (double)$data["enbancSeven"][$pp]; echo $data["enbancSeven"][$pp]; } $totalRate += $sumOther; @endphp | ||
| TOTAL | 100 | {{ number_format($totalRate, 2) }} | ||
| {{ !is_null($data["screening_date"]) ? date('F d, Y',strtotime($data["screening_date"])) : ""}} | {{ $data["committee"]->realname }} | |
| Date of Screening/Evaluation | Name of Evaluator |
Note: 1) Backround investigation (BI) will be conducted by the hiring unit and the result will be part of the requirements for hiring.
It is given points but it can help the unit decide whether to hire or not. Negative findings during the BI will be sufficient
reason not to appoint the top ranking candidate.
2) For applicants with advanced degrees, average GPA will be computation separately for BS, MS, and PhD, then the
overall average of the 3 will be obtained and used as basis in giving the rating.