the promotion and tenure process
DESCRIPTION
The promotion and tenure process. New Academic Administrators Workshop August 8 , 20123. Promotion and Tenure. The most important thing we do. Provide a thorough and objective review of the substance and merits of each faculty member’s case. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
THE PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCESSNew Academic Administrators Workshop
August 8, 20123
Promotion and Tenure
The most important thing we do. Provide a thorough and objective review
of the substance and merits of each faculty member’s case.
Of sufficient depth and character to support decisions in the best interest of the University.
Independent review at multiple levels. Recommendations at each level reflect
the professional judgment of those involved.
General Guidelines
All parties involved in the process should familiarize themselves with the guidelines:
http://www.utexas.edu/provost/policies/evaluation/tenure/
Awarding Tenure
The granting of tenure has consequences of great magnitude and long life and must be considered especially carefully.
The record must be examined for: Evidence that contributions of appropriate
magnitude and distinction in teaching, research and service have been made, AND
Evidence that such contributions can be sustained through an extended career with the University.
Preparing Tenure-Track Faculty Mentoring
Assistant Professors are a significant investment. Establish and maintain a structure and
environment that will help ensure their success. Third-year comprehensive reviews
Provide clear, productive and informative guidance to candidate as to their progress toward tenure.
Research/Scholarship support Funding opportunities provided by VP Research
and Graduate School. Unbalanced teaching load. College fellowships and course relief.
Areas of Contribution
Teaching at both undergraduate and graduate level. Research, creative activities and other scholarly
effort. Academic advising, counseling and other student
services. Administrative and committee service to the
department, college, and university, and professional service to the nation, state, and society.
Other evidence of merit or recognition, such as fellowships, grants, and special honors.
http://www.policies.utexas.edu/policies/recommendations-regarding-faculty-compensation-faculty-promotion-tenure-renewal-appointment
Areas of Contribution by Rank Tenured and Tenure-track faculty
Evaluated on ALL areas of contribution.
Lecturer, Clinical and Adjunct series Review focuses on teaching excellence and a
record of accomplishment in least one other area.
Research Professor series Review focuses on record of research excellence
and other ways in which the candidate contributes to the academic enterprise.
Promotion Timetable
Tenure-Track Assistant Professors
Reviewed no later than the sixth year of probationary period.
Cases considered before the sixth year in rank are considered early and should be explained.
If probationary period extended under university family and medical leave policies, evaluate as if the work were done in the normal period of service.
Promotion Timetable
Associate Professor with tenure May be considered at any time deemed
appropriate by the budget council.
Promotion before six years in rank is considered early and must be explained.
Right of Consideration May be invoked by those with ten years or
more in rank. The case will be considered at all levels unless
withdrawn by the candidate before the budget council vote.
Promotion Timetable
Non-tenure Track
May be considered after serving six years in rank.
Cumulative service may be full or part time.
Early promotion recommendation should be explained.
Promotion Roster Timeline
Late-March Provost’s Office will provide to the dean a
list of candidates that must be reviewed as up-or-out.
Mid-May Deadline for submitting all candidate
names to provost.
Mid-July Deadline for submitting updates to
candidate list.
Elements of Dossier
Peer Teaching Observations
Conduct frequently. Include suggestions for improvement;
anyone can improve. Organization and mastery of the material
is expected; key question is whether the teacher is helping students to learn.
Provide prompt feedback to faculty member observed.
http://ctl.utexas.edu/node/9
External Reviewers
Select reviewers who understand expectations of research university.
Letters from peer institutions are important.
Balance the number of referees selected by the candidate and by the BC/EC.
Avoid conflict of interest. Letters are subject to open records –
reviewers must be informed.
Recommendations
Dean and department chair letters are important. Evaluate not advocate. Provide own assessment, but also describe fairly
the rationale for Budget Council or College Committee recommendations.
Explain negative votes, if possible. Explain abstentions, if possible. Unexplained
abstentions will be interpreted as negative votes. Explain early cases. Acknowledge weaknesses and provide context, if
applicable.
Review Process
Department Chair Responsibility Meet with candidate to explain process. Develop list of outside reviewers with input from
candidate. Allow candidate to review list BEFORE solicitation
letters are sent. Department chair should consider candidate objections
or concerns, but has final say over selection. Candidate may place statement in the file.
Ask candidate to check materials in the file before BC review (excluding BC statements and external review letters). Candidate may see the other materials if explicitly
requested.
Candidate’s Access to File
Candidate may inspect anything in the dossier at any time during the process.
Requests for access should be directed to department chair, dean, or provost, as applicable.
Inspection should be supervised. Copying of materials is not permitted. If a candidate wishes to obtain copies, a
written request must be submitted to Provost’s Office.
Addition of Information to the File All factual information relied upon in the
process will be included in written form. When written information other than
required statements is added after the candidate has checked the materials: the candidate must be informed and
given an opportunity to place a statement in the file addressing the addition.
all other administrative parties having already reviewed the file shall also be notified.
Dossier Levels of Review
Departmental Budget Council or Executive Committee
Department Chair College Advisory Committee Dean President’s Committee
Each case discussed with respective dean
Outcomes
Conferences with President’s Committee occur mid-November – December.
Announcement of decisions ~ December 20. Terminal Appointment decisions are
“pending”. Candidate has 6 weeks to submit written Final
Arguments. President’s Committee reconvenes in
February to deliberate Final Arguments. Final decisions are communicated unless a
CCAFR review has been requested.
Committee of Counsel for Academic Freedom and Responsibility - CCAFR
The president or the candidate may request a review of the case by CCAFR.
Scope of the review includes: Procedural irregularities Violations of academic freedom Do not review disputes about professional
judgments on the merits of the case. Candidate has 6 weeks to request
review. CCAFR report is due to president by
February 28.
Reconsideration in Terminal Year There is no obligation by the department
or University to reconsider a terminal case.
The department must determine whether new evidence presented by the candidate is substantial in nature and sufficiently compelling to merit reconsideration.
Reconsideration does not entitle candidate to an additional terminal year.