I should not get upset by these trivialities. In the end, who give a fuck.
I am trying to understand the logic of these guidelines. The school has decided/practiced that each premium paper warrants one merit (provided satisfactory teaching and service). If multi-year acceleration is discouraged, however, unfair outcome will arise:
(A) Faculty A publishes 3 premiums in two years, but all in year 2. So he can only get one merit, because multi-year acceleration is discouraged.
(B) Faculty B publishes 3 premiums in three years, say year 1, 2, 3 each. Then he can get three merits by three one-year accelerations.
We all agree faculty A outperforms B, yet B gets three times rewards. Is this fair? Is this what we really want?
The purpose of the merit is to reward true excellence, not a tool for gaming the system. So it should be fair, not just in name, but also in essence. If the school truly values excellence, as a policy/consensus, it should encourage multi-year acceleration to ensure fairness.