Approved
by SEAS Faculty in May 2005.
The new SEAS Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
below are also available in PDF format.
OTHER RESOURCES
Promotion
and Tenure Guidelines
School of Engineering and Applied Science
University
of Virginia
Revised May 18, 2005 This document describes the promotion
and tenure guidelines and annual review procedures for the School of Engineering
and Applied Science at the University of Virginia. These guidelines are based
on the premise that the School is dedicated to: 1.
Providing excellent education and degree programs at all levels;
2. Achieving
prominence and leadership in scholarly research pursued in the support of higher education; and
3. Demonstrating leadership
in professional service to the University, to our disciplines, and to society.
Promotion and tenure decisions will
be based on how well candidates meet these expectations.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
General
Philosophy
The success of the School of Engineering and Applied Science is strongly
dependent on the quality of its faculty. The School expects a commitment to excellence in
all three aspects of a faculty member's responsibilities - teaching, research, and service.
The School believes strongly that teaching and research is a truly integrated process.
Therefore, faculty members are expected to have a genuine and sustained commitment to excellence
in teaching and are expected to develop and maintain a distinguished research program that
enhances their teaching endeavors. Although it has been the general observation of the School
that good researchers are often also good teachers, faculty members are expected to continually
improve their teaching effectiveness. In addition, excellent research programs bring recognition
to the School and University, which in turn attracts outstanding undergraduate and graduate
students and faculty. In addition to teaching and research, service is a necessary component
for an excellent faculty member's activities. Since the School and University are run by the
faculty, participation in the activities of the University community is expected. In addition,
a distinguished research program implies visibility in the professional community and, therefore,
participation in professional activities is necessary for a successful academic career.
Leadership and vision are crucial qualities that we look for in our faculty and must be
demonstrated for promotion to full professor. However, some of the attributes of a true leader
are necessary at all academic levels. True leaders possess the ability to chart new paths and
the confidence to persuade others to follow. Leaders are highly proactive and constantly look
for and create new opportunities; they act rather than react. Leaders care for the collective
welfare of their colleagues and institution, even when this requires investments of their own
resources. Leadership means focusing on priorities and addressing strategic issues before tactical
ones. Leaders have high impact on their professions, their peers, and their institutions. They
strive to set ever-increasing standards of sustained excellence. Therefore, through the promotion
and tenure process, the School seeks to identify and reward individuals who serve as leaders, role
models, and the foundations upon which the School can build its future.
The School would like to see all faculty members succeed and excel, and the School will do
everything reasonably within its power to mentor faculty and help them attain their full potential.
Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of individuals to demonstrate that they deserve promotion or
tenure; it is not the responsibility of the School to demonstrate that they do not. It is also
important to note that although numerous opportunities for a successful career have been listed in
this section, the ultimate goal of the faculty's efforts should be to make the University of Virginia
a better and stronger institution.
Teaching Performance
There should be evidence of genuine and sustained commitment to excellence in teaching, as well as evidence of a strong record of achievement in carrying out that commitment. Solid evidence of effective teaching is an essential part of any dossier submitted to the School Promotion and Tenure Committee. Such a dossier is expected to contain:
· A personal reflective statement of the faculty member's teaching philosophy, goals,
strategies, successes, innovations, etc.
· Evidence of significant efforts to improve one's teaching effectiveness (teaching
is a learnable skill), and evidence that the faculty member has addressed potential problem
areas indicated by the evaluations. For example, the use of mid-course evaluations or peer-review
assessments (such as those offered by the Teaching Resource Center) can be evidence of commitment
to continuous improvement in teaching.
· End-of-course student evaluations. These should include both statistical summaries and
a complete listing of student comments for courses taught during the most recent five years.
Further, to ensure that evaluations represent true consensus, faculty are strongly encouraged to
take steps to maintain a high response rate from student evaluations. The School will assist the
faculty member by returning the end-of-course evaluations as close to the end of the semester as possible.
· Evidence of advising and mentoring, covering a broad range of activities, from advising
graduate students on research, to advising undergraduate students on research, curriculum, career choices, and other issues.
· Documentation of teaching performance in both undergraduate and graduate courses.
The dossier must be supplemented by additional evidence of a strong commitment to teaching
excellence, as deemed appropriate by the candidate and the candidate's nominator. Relevant items
can include evidence of:
· Attendance at teaching workshops, local, regional, or national (e.g., those offered
by the Teaching Resource Center).
· Teaching awards or other teaching-related honors,
including for example University Teaching Fellowships or Teaching and Technology
Initiative Fellowships.
· Peer reviews of teaching.
· Continual dialogue and interaction with the students throughout a semester (with E-mails,
newsgroups, and Web pages being valid mechanisms for such interactions).
· Journal or conference articles addressing questions of pedagogy.
· Letters from former students describing the long-term impact of a class taught
by the candidate.
· Classroom materials developed by the candidate
which were adopted by other faculty at the University of Virginia or elsewhere.
· Development of new courses, new classroom or lab materials, and the
creation of textbooks designed for classroom use.
· Innovative or novel approaches to standard classroom material, and incorporation of new technologies
in the classroom.
· Service on various examining committees, such as
doctoral qualifying exams.
Many of the items above may be incorporated into a single teaching portfolio. A variety of
such portfolios are available for inspection at the Teaching Resource Center,
which also organizes seminars on the mechanics of assembling teaching portfolios.
Research Performance
A distinguished research program that improves the quality of both the graduate
and undergraduate programs is essential. Excellent research also brings recognition
to the School and the University and enhances its ability to attract good students,
outstanding faculty and research funding, which in turn support the overall educational
mission of the School.
Faculty members are expected to engage in scholarship and active research, and they
will be measured on their performance in these areas. It is important to note that
excellence in scholarship and research is a necessary condition for promotion. Scholarship
and research productivity is typically measured by the publication of articles in
archival journals, conference proceedings, books, invited lectures, patents, original
software and hardware systems, individual and multi-investigator grants, research awards
and honors, and peer evaluation external to the University. It is the nominator's responsibility
to identify the leading refereed conferences in the candidate's field and demonstrate that the
refereed conference proceedings in question undergo the same enduring documentation and review
process in their publication as do refereed journals. Similarly, it is the responsibility of
the nominator and the candidate to document the candidate’s creation of the original software
and/or hardware systems that represent a significant scholarly contribution. This could be effected,
for example, by demonstrating that it is used as a reference research tool by multiple groups, or
enables new computational algorithms, or constitutes a major new computational tool, or by advancing
any other relevant documented, quantitative, and convincing metric of peer-recognized quality.
Candidates worthy of promotion and/or tenure should also:
· Produce a substantial body of recognized scholarly work.
· Attain a reputation among recognized leaders in their field for significant and creative
contributions to their research field.
· Demonstrate a substantial promise of continued growth and productivity.
· Demonstrate sustained activity during the term of probationary period.
· Have a record of sustained research funding. Research funding is a clear measure of the
external peer recognition of a candidate's research and scholarship. Research funding is also
essential in attracting, training, and mentoring graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, and
will be considered in the evaluation process.
In research and publication, peer-recognized quality is absolutely essential. Impact on one's
field is much more important than the number of papers on a candidate's vitae: it is much preferable
to author authoritative and truly original papers than to produce numerous incremental and less
definitive papers. Cross-disciplinary research is encouraged and is recognized as a valuable
complement and enhancement of the candidate's strength and depth in a central area of expertise.
Collaborative research efforts are also encouraged, as long as the candidate's own individual
research prowess and contributions are clearly discernable and documented.
Service
Performance
Service is recognized as an important activity for all faculty members. Areas that
are considered important include service to the departments, to the School and the
University, as well as to the profession and the public.
o Faculty are expected to serve their department, the School, and the University in a
variety of ways, including recruiting students, participating in curriculum development,
assuming administrative tasks and committee memberships, hosting parents, visitors, and invited speakers, etc.
o Faculty are expected to participate in service to professional societies, including
committee work, organizing professional meetings, serving as editor or reviewer for
journals and conferences, advising government agencies, consulting related to one's field, etc.
o Faculty are expected to demonstrate initiative in starting new educational or research activities,
facilities or centers; proposing and implementing novel means of improving the departments, the School,
and the University; improving the culture and advancing the goals of the School; and generally serving
as a role model and a mentor to students and to colleagues.
o Faculty are encouraged to actively provide their expertise to educate the public on scientific
and engineering issues, speak for the engineering profession, render technical community service,
or participate as an expert in the development of public policy, and generally serve the public
well-being through service contributions.
Science Technology, and Society Faculty
In general, candidates in the Department of Science, Technology, and Society (STS)
will be held to the same standards of excellence as other tenure-track faculty in SEAS
and the rest of the University. STS candidates are expected to demonstrate excellence
in teaching, research, and service. However, some flexibility must be exercised in
judging the nature of the research, scholarship, and teaching of members of the STS Department.
For example, the typically heavy, writing-intensive teaching loads of STS faculty, including
their responsibilities in supervising senior theses, will be taken into account in reviewing teaching.
Also, STS faculty may not be expected to receive research grants of the magnitude or frequency
of those received by researchers in other engineering disciplines. Similarly, in many STS fields,
books are a more important publication vehicle than in other fields of engineering.
Members of the STS faculty are expected to play important roles in engineering/applied science
and humanities/ social sciences. STS faculty, like all engineering faculty are expected to be active
in SEAS-wide committees and demonstrate a strong involvement in relevant activities of the University at
large. STS faculty are encouraged to work with graduate students and participate in the education and
research activities of the School and other units of the University, whenever possible.
General Faculty
General faculty are appointed to untenured positions with similar responsibilities to those of tenure
and tenure-track faculty. However, it is expected that general faculty will focus strongly in a single
area of either teaching, research or service. They are expected to make contributions in a second
area, but will not be required to contribute in all three. For instance, a general faculty member
may devote most of his/her time to either teaching or research, providing only secondary contributions
to professional service. Or, as service, a general faculty member may concentrate on administrative
responsibilities, with only secondary contributions to teaching. It is expected that candidates will
display the same qualities of recognized excellence defined elsewhere in these guidelines. General
faculty should not expect to transition into the tenure track.
Standards for areas of specialization are outlined below:
Teaching: A general faculty member specializing in teaching is obligated to maintain a high
level of professional competence as an educator, and to remain informed of developments in teaching
methods and curricula. The candidate must be a recognized educator and, have a significant publication
record of textbooks and/or education-related periodicals. The candidate should also participate in
professional activities that will enhance the candidate's reputation in leading educational forums.
This may include the support of academic programs, participation in conferences on engineering education,
involvement in activities of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), and other
scholarly activities. As service, the candidate must participate in the operational aspects of the
department pertaining to teaching, such as course and lab development, student advising and recruitment,
or teaching- related departmental committees and special activities as listed in the individual's annual
activity report.
Research: A general faculty member specializing in research is expected to advise and fund
graduate students and secure sustained research funding. The candidate is expected to maintain a high
level of professional competence, and must be a recognized expert in his/her field. This recognized
expertise should be documented by a strong record of publications and presentations, as well as professional
activities such as conference organization, editorial boards, and other forms of leadership within
professional organizations and forums. As service, the candidate must participate in operational aspects of
the department pertaining to research, such as recruiting of graduate students, design and administration of
the graduate program, funding and operation of research facilities and equipment, hosting of speakers and
professional meetings, or other special activities as listed in the individual's annual activity report.
Candidates providing classroom instruction will be evaluated on their teaching and any special contribution
they bring to the teaching mission of the department. It is important to note that since the initial research
programs of research faculty are often in close collaboration with tenured/tenure-track faculty, it is very
important that these individuals establish their own independent technical reputation by the time of promotion.
Service/Administration: Service is recognized as an important activity for general
faculty members. Areas that are considered important include service to the departments, to the School and the University, as
well as to the profession and the public. Specific service activities for a general faculty member are the same
as those described for tenured and tenure-track faculty.
A general faculty member specializing in administration is expected to make exceptional contributions to the
operation of the department and/or school. As such, activities should go well beyond routine administrative
responsibilities. Indeed, it should be demonstrated that the candidate’s efforts have made a fundamental
contribution to the advancement of the School’s missions of teaching and/or research. Such administrative
activities might include duties related to budget and finance, undergraduate and graduate program operation,
and distance learning development. Further, as a member of the faculty, the candidate is expected to directly
participate in education through at least secondary efforts in student teaching, advising or counseling.
PROMOTION AND TENURE TIMETABLE
The Probationary Period of Tenure-Track Faculty
The probationary period for tenure is the cumulative amount of time served as a faculty member at the
University of Virginia in full-time term appointments on the tenure track. The probationary period cannot
be longer than seven years for any full-time faculty member (unless modified by a written agreement
between the dean and faculty member and approved by the provost, following the procedures outlined in the
University Faculty Handbook). Probationary-period faculty members who are not reelected or promoted within
the seven year probationary period must be given written notice of termination of contract as follows: at
least three months of advance notice after one year of service, at least six months of advance notice after
two years of service, and at least twelve months of advance notice after three or more years of service. The
normal probationary period for an assistant professor who is appointed in mid-year may be extended by six months.
Leaves without pay, taken while on contract, will normally count toward the probationary period. Rare
exceptions may include leaves in order to carry out substantial public service, parenting leaves, or leaves
required by serious personal or family illness, as consistent with the general University Policy on such matters.
Specifically, the Parental Leave Policy (Policy and Procedures Memo No. 61) adopted on July 11, 1997, enables
faculty members to remain contributing members of their profession without penalizing them for the choice to
have a family in addition to an academic career. The P&T process shall adhere to the existing SEAS policy on
this matter. All leaves must be approved by the dean and provost with an advance written notice to the faculty member.
The Appointment and Probationary Period of General Faculty
Appointment of general faculty requires a majority vote of the departmental faculty of higher rank, the
chair’s consent, and approval by the dean and the provost. Exceptions may be made for general faculty
specializing in administration who may not have a home department. In such cases, only the approval of the
dean and provost will be required. A six-year probationary term will be applied to general faculty of assistant
professor rank. The probationary period is the cumulative amount of time served as a member of the general
faculty at the University of Virginia in full-time term appointments. The probationary period cannot be longer
than seven years for any full-time general faculty member (unless modified by a written agreement with the dean
and approved by the provost). Probationary-period faculty members who are not reappointed or promoted must be
given written notice of termination of contract as follows: at least three months of advance notice after one
year of service, at least six months of advance notice after two years of service, and at least twelve months
of advance notice after three or more years of service. The normal probationary period for an assistant professor
who is appointed in mid-year may be extended by six months. At the rank of associate or full professor, decisions
on reappointments of general faculty will be made by the home department after review by the departmental promotion
and tenure committee (or by the dean for faculty who do not have a home department) and these decisions will not
be reviewed by the School Promotion and Tenure Committee.
For general faculty having a home department, promotions will be subject to the criteria of that department.
All promotions will be subject to the standards and review of the SEAS Promotion and Tenure Committee developed
for all faculty with professorial rank. General faculty of professorial rank should have educational contact with
students through research and/or teaching in order to be promoted. General faculty in strictly administrative or
strictly research positions, without educational involvement with students, should not expect to be promoted under
the school’s Promotion and Tenure policy.
Time in Rank and Early Promotions
Promotion is not an automatic action that is based on seniority: time in rank is neither a sufficient nor a
necessary criterion for promotion. Adequate performance at one rank is not sufficient for election to a higher
rank. The expected quality of performance increases with rank.
Unusually outstanding candidates may be considered for early promotion and/or election to tenure. However,
promotion to associate professor without the full probationary term of six years is rare, and contrary expectations
along these lines on the part of junior faculty should not be falsely raised.
Schedule for Promotion and Tenure
Faculty members shall receive adequate consideration for reappointment and promotion, including sufficient advance
notice of consideration, and the opportunity to submit appropriate materials if not nominated by the department.
The normal annual period for tenure consideration occurs during the fall semester. Departmental recommendations
are due in the dean's office normally around the first of November for consideration by the School Promotion and
Tenure Committee. All faculty members eligible for reappointment and promotion must be notified of the decision of
the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than the end of September. The dean will deliver the School's
recommendations on promotion and tenure to the provost.
The chair will forward to the dean the names of those candidates who received substantial support from the
Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee. The chair will also develop a dossier containing full supporting
documentation for each of the faculty members that are to be recommended for tenure and/or promotion as a result
of the evaluation process by the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee.
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES
Chair's Annual Review Conference for Assistant and Associate Professors
It is crucial that regular constructive feedback be given to faculty regarding performance and expectations.
Therefore, chairs shall discuss on an annual basis with each of their department's faculty below the rank of full
professor recent accomplishments and performance, and reach agreement on proposed activities and goals for coming
years. This conference should take place shortly after the faculty member has submitted an Annual Faculty Activity
Report. The topics to be covered in the faculty annual review conference with the chair include:
o The faculty member's reported professional activity.
o Input from colleagues on the faculty member's effectiveness and professional development.
o Chair's personal performance evaluation of the faculty member.
o Specific problem areas, if any, and plans for improvement.
o Planned activities for coming years.
The chair will give a written summary of the results of this conference to each faculty
member every year, shortly after the annual review conference. Such feedback is essential in giving faculty ample
opportunity to meet the School's tenure and promotion criteria and general expectations.
Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committees
A Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee provides the chair and the nominator with an evaluation of the
performance of each candidate being considered for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. The department chair
will generally chair the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee, unless the department chair delegates this
duty to someone else. The department chair will meet with the committee annually to review the committee’s activities.
The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee for the rank of assistant professor will be elected by the tenured
faculty. This committee will make its (positive and/or negative) recommendations to the entire tenured faculty for a
formal vote. Similarly, the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee for the rank of associate professor will be
elected by the full professors. This committee will make its (positive and/or negative) recommendations to the full
professors for a formal vote. If the candidate is a member of the general faculty, then at least one general faculty
member of a higher rank from within the department or School shall be a member of the committee.
If there are fewer than three departmental faculty eligible for membership on a Departmental Promotion and Tenure
Committee (in addition to the chair), appropriate members from other departments shall be invited on approval from the
dean. If a substantial portion of a candidate's research is cross-disciplinary, appropriate members from other
departments may be invited to provide input about the candidate.
The candidate's file will be made available for review by all faculty who will be voting on that candidate.
Reappointment and promotion will be considered first in each department by a Departmental Promotion and Tenure
Committee. This Committee will meet with the chair, and all ensuing deliberations will be held confidential. It
will be held as a serious breach of professional ethics for members to discuss the deliberations of the Departmental
Promotion and Tenure Committee with non-members, especially regarding the individual candidate being considered.
SCHOOL PROCEDURES
School Promotion and Tenure Committee
The dean will receive the dossiers on proposed reappointments and promotions from the departments. The dean will
review this documentation and request any additional appropriate materials. The complete documentation will then be
distributed to the School Promotion and Tenure Committee.
The School Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews all candidates under consideration for tenure and/or promotion
to assess quality, impact, consistency, leadership, recognition, and future potential for the School and the
University. Each member of the committee reads all dossiers and participates in the deliberations of each case.
The Promotion and Tenure Committee will consist of at least six senior faculty of the School, appointed by the
dean. Members will normally serve staggered three-year terms, in order to provide continuity and consistency in the
recommendation process. This committee is expected to focus in its deliberations on the welfare of the School as a
whole rather than on narrower, departmental-level concerns. The deliberations of the committee require the highest
standards of integrity, confidentiality, honor, and professionalism.
Committee members from a candidate’s department shall be automatically recused from all deliberations concerning
that candidate. Additionally, at the outset of deliberations, each member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee
will submit to the dean a complete listing of any other potential conflicts of interest. These shall include close
collaboration with a candidate in research or teaching, current or pending joint proposals, or any other strong
interaction that might color the committee member’s ability to render a disinterested assessment of the candidate.
Based on this listing, the dean shall decide if additional instances of recusal will be necessary.
The chair of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee will be responsible for communicating to the department
chairs any omissions in a promotion dossier, and work with the chairs to obtain any missing information. The
department chairs should be prepared to present to the committee upon request any clarifications or additional
written material on a nominee. No contact concerning the committee’s deliberations should be initiated with any
member of the committee during its deliberation process, unless specifically requested by the chair of the
committee, until the committee's written report has been submitted to the dean.
Substantial support from the department and from outside, arms-length peers does not guarantee a candidate the
strong support of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee. While the committee will give the utmost and serious
consideration to the recommendations of the department and outside peers, the committee reserves the right to act
as appropriate for the good of the School as a whole. Since the committee is only advisory to the dean, the dean
also reserves the right to act as appropriate for the good of the School. Finally, the recommendation of the dean,
while final for the School, is only advisory to the provost, who reserves the right to act as appropriate in the
best interest of the University.
Candidate's Dossier Format
Consideration for promotion/tenure is based on the dossier submitted by a department in support of a candidate's
nomination. For the sake of uniformity and fairness to all candidates, the dossier must adhere rigorously to the
following format:
1. Nominator's Letter. The nominator will usually be the department chair, but may be another faculty member
(including the nominee). This letter serves as the executive summary for the School Promotion and Tenure Committee,
and its assertions must be fully documented in the appropriate sections of the dossier. The nominator's letter
must include a substantive summary of the candidate's annual reviews since the time of the candidate's last
promotion or reappointment. This will be considered as a key element of the candidate's demonstration of sustained
excellence and productivity. The vote and recommendation of the department's Promotion and Tenure Committee must
be explicitly stated in the nominating letter. Evidence of leadership also should be discussed in this letter.
2. Candidate's Letter. This letter should describe the candidate's accomplishments, discuss future plans for teaching,
research, service, and in general make the case for promotion. The letter should briefly define the research area
and discuss the significance of the candidate's work in the context of the candidate's research area.
3. Complete Vita, including:
(a) Substantial honors and awards.
(b) List of graduate students directed (separated into doctoral and master's), titles of dissertations, and graduation dates.
(c) A list of undergraduate theses supervised.
(d) A list of visitors and postdoctoral fellows supervised.
(e) External research grants and contracts, either awarded or currently under review (listed chronologically, with
sponsors, amounts, dates, and academic-year support). For all grants listed with multiple PIs, the candidate must
provide a description of the roles of each of the PIs.
(f) A bibliography of all books and refereed publications. Student co-authors should be highlighted (i.e., underlined)
in the candidate's bibliography (the School encourages publication as part of the student's education process).
(g) Graphs depicting cumulative trends of publications in archival journals and refereed conference proceedings,
research funding, and graduate student degree completions. Amounts to use in the construction of research funding graphs
should be computed as follows: the candidate’s share of a given grant in a given year is the amount of funds that came
to the university through that grant for that year, divided by the number of PIs on the grant. This will be the rule.
If the amount of funds for which the candidate is actually responsible differs significantly from this computed amount,
then the candidate should address the issue in this section of the dossier. In cases of multiple-PI grants, the candidate
should explain his/her responsibility toward the execution of these grants.
(h) A list of patents and formal copyrights awarded or pending, if any.
(i) Professional service details, as described in the section on "Service Performance".
4. Copy of three (and in the case of promotions to full professors, five) papers that candidates consider their most
significant work (this is designed to emphasize research impact and quality over quantity); the impact of these selected
publications should be discussed in the candidate's letter.
5. Teaching-related materials, as described in the section on “Teaching Performance.”
6. Peer Evaluation letters. Eight outside letters of reference must be solicited from leading external experts competent
to assess the standing of the candidate in the candidate's research field, and all replies must be included in the
candidate's dossier. The candidate shall recommend four potential references, and the nominator shall select four additional
references, chosen to obtain a balanced and objective evaluation of the candidate. All of the reference letters received
must be included in the dossier. A letter from the candidate’s Ph.D. advisor need not be requested. In the case of
self-nomination, the dean or the dean’s designee should select four additional references. "Arm's length" letters are
preferable (i.e., letters from experts who know the candidate from the literature or professional settings only).
Candidates may a priori identify individuals from whom they prefer that letters will not be solicited, with the final
decision on this resting with the nominator.
The nominator shall submit a letter identifying these external experts and briefly describe their credentials and
leadership status in their field. The letters requesting the appraisals should identify whether the candidate is being
nominated for promotion or tenure or both, should be neutral in tone, and all received letters should be included in
the dossier. Faculty candidates for promotion will be asked to sign a waiver of the right to read such references, and
potential letter writers will be notified whether their letters will be held in confidence. If fewer than six letters
are received, additional letters must be solicited. Procedures for reappointment of non-tenure-track faculty will be
generally the same as those for tenure-track faculty, except that outside letters, although useful, are not required
for reappointment without tenure.
The letters gathered from senior researchers from outside the University concerning the achievements of the candidates
are an important expression of external perception. Candidates should be compared with leading peers and with successful
candidates for a similar promotion at other leading universities. A traditional and satisfactory way of making this
comparison is to request the external letter writers to comment upon the candidate's impact on their field, the
candidate's suitability for promotion at the referee's own university, the candidate's professional leadership,
collegiality, and citizenship. Other senior outside individuals who have special insights into the candidate's
accomplishments may also be invited to serve as referees; however, non-faculty referees should be informed as to the
type of information appropriate for the appraisal.
7. At most five additional letters from senior faculty within the department, and at most three additional letters
from senior faculty within the University (the candidate can help select these letter writers).
8. Student letters (all responses to at most five requests from the nominator).
9. Chair and departmental review assessments. This should include a compilation of the feedback to the candidate as
part of the candidate's annual reviews since the candidate's initial appointment or last promotion or reappointment.
This feedback can be found in the written summary from the chair after the annual review conference.
10. Past recommendations from the SEAS P&T Committee. The memo from the dean to the chair and candidate is the
official record of these past recommendations.
11. A chronology listing the dates of the candidate's major accomplishments and milestones; this is designed to help
the School Promotion and Tenure Committee better understand the progress of the candidate's particular case.
12. Signed waiver form (optional under Federal law; if waiver form is not signed, the letter writers will be so notified).
The dossier must follow the above outline, in the order specified above, and include the subheadings identified
above. Instructions for the construction of the electronic dossier are found in Guidelines for the Submission of
the SEAS Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Documents. The dean's office will maintain copies of past dossiers (excluding
the confidential components) for review by nominators and candidates. The nominator must insure that the candidate's
dossier for promotion forwarded to the dean is complete and up-to-date.
The School Promotion and Tenure Committee will accept a one-time update to the dossier, if necessary. This
update should be delivered no later than the end of the third week of November and should contain only factual
information such as acquisition of new funding, papers accepted, and concrete examples of professional recognition.
SPECIAL CASES
Procedures for Reappointment of Tenure-Track Faculty
In the interest of uniformity, the procedures for faculty reappointment are the same as those for promotion and
election to tenure. In particular, the same dossier format should be followed for reappointments as for
promotions and election to tenure, except that in the case of reappointments no external letters are required.
Promotion to Full Professor
Promotion to full professor will be based on a higher level of sustained achievement in teaching, research, service
and leadership than one would expect for promotion to associate professor. Expectations include: demonstrated
achievements and leadership in the candidate's field, a growing record of significant scholarship with impact on
research directions and on the future of the field; a concomitant supervision of masters and doctoral theses;
substantial contributions to the affairs of the department, School, and University; and, indications that these
efforts and accomplishments will persist.
Leadership within the University should be the distinguishing characteristic of a candidate for full professor.
This should go beyond the routine and ordinary. With the rank of full professor comes the responsibility of
advancing the University to new levels of effectiveness and recognition. It is thus expected that candidates for
full professor should be making identifiable contributions to the growth of the University. Contributions may cut
across the School and University, or they may be local to a single department. It should be clear that the
candidate’s presence had “made a difference” to the University and that, with promotion to full professor, it is
likely that this pattern of leadership will be maintained.
Recognized forms of leadership include: establishment of research and teaching thrusts new to the university;
generation of cross-cutting research projects or curricula; development of new research and teaching facilities;
assuming key roles in fund raising or recruiting; providing distinguished leadership of organizations; recognition
for outstanding contributions as evidenced by professional or University awards; and mentoring of junior faculty.
In short, candidates for full professor rank are expected to be the foundations upon which the School can build
its future and to possess the leadership to serve as role models. Nominees for full professor rank who were not
elected for promotion must wait at least two years before being nominated again.
Direct Hiring into Senior Ranks
In order to maintain overall consistency and uniformity with respect to the School's standards of promotion and
tenure, all external hires into senior or tenured ranks must be evaluated by the School Promotion and Tenure
Committee. This policy is designed to insure that the School's promotion and tenure standards are met by all
individuals, whether they come in from the outside or rise up from within the ranks of the School. A compressed
timeline is often dictated in cases of external hiring into senior ranks, depending on the hiring opportunity at
hand, and a subset of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee will therefore be prepared to convene on short
notice if called upon to deliver prompt advice to the dean. Note that in the case of external hires into senior
ranks, tenure and rank may on occasion be de-coupled; for example, it is possible to hire an individual as an
untenured associate professor, with the election-to-tenure decision to be made independently at a negotiated
later time (but not longer than six years).
Promotions upon Retirement and Election to Emeritus Status
Promotion from associate to full professor upon or following retirement shall be based upon the same criteria as
are prescribed for active faculty members. Election to emeritus status follows the procedures outlined in the
University Faculty Handbook.
The new SEAS Promotion and Tenure Guidelines below are also available in PDF
format.
In addition, a SEAS Candidate's Release/Waiver Form is available here.
|
