CoE Procedures for Promotion & Tenure Evaluation

S. Jack HuAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs

2

Prelude – Who’s Up?

April/May

• Chairs and candidates decide if they want to put a case forward this year

√ Assistants in 5th year must come up in 6th year unless approved of tenure delays.

√ For full, 6 years in rank is considered aggressive to be put forward

√ For unusual cases, EC will review vita and make recommendation to the chair

3

Appointing the Committee

May

• Chair/Candidate proposes Evaluation Committee (Casebook committee)

• Committees have 3 members

√ Two from inside department

√ One from outside department

• EC approves or suggests changes

4

Function of Evaluation Committee

• Evaluation committee

√ Manage development of casebook*• This must be done objectively and completely

• Quality of case book is key

√ Make first recommendations• Here you can be an advocate

5

Casebook TemplateA. Three page promotion and/or tenure recommendation (for Regents

communication, but draft prepared by department)B. Cover letter prepared by the DeanC. Chair/Department LettersD. Curriculum Vitae

a. Candidate Informationb. Teachingc. Researchd. Servicee. Summary of contributions to teaching, research, service and impact

E. Documentation of TeachingE.1 Committee’s Evaluation of TeachingE.2 Courses Taught at UM and Evaluations

F. Documentation of ResearchF.1. Committee’s Evaluation of Research and ImpactF.2. Ranking of Journals

F.2.1. Candidate’s own ranking of journalsF.2.2. Committee’s ranking of journals

G. Documentation of Service 1G.1. Committee’s Evaluation of Service

H. Brief Description of Credentials of External Reviewers and Relationship to Candidate

I. Sample Letter Sent to External ReviewersJ. Evaluation Letters by all External ReviewersJ. Evaluation Letters by Internal ReviewersAppendix – Records of Communications

6

Outside Letters

July/August • Candidate submits CV* and selected papers to be sent

to outside reviewers• Provost rule – minimum of 5 “arm’s length” letters, 2 of

which from reviewers identified by department (committee)

• Ask for 8-10• Candidate submits short list (~4-5), committee selects

half (of the 8-10) from candidate’s list, half not from list• Quality of CV very important

• CV must follow template. • Note changes in courses taught table.

7

Arm’s length

• The letters should be truly evaluative and at "arm's length." For candidates on the Instructional tenure track or the Research Professor track, the "arm's length" letters should be from persons who are outside the present institution of the candidate and who did not teach, work or train with the candidate at other institutions.

• While letters from persons who have served as a candidate’s thesis adviser, mentor, co-author, major collaborator, or who are in the same department as the candidate or co-taught a course, can be especially helpful (because they can be presumed to have a good sense of both the person and the work), it is also true that their own reputations are involved in the work being evaluated. If such letters are included, they must be in addition to the minimum requirement of five "arm's length" letters.

• Note: as of August 2008, we will allow letters from persons who have been a co-author or a major research collaborator with the candidate in excess of 10 years prior to the candidate’s expected start date.

• Also the Provost’s office requires at least two arm’s length letters be from the committee list.

8

Outside Letters (cont.)

• Candidate may submit stop list and letters should not be solicited from names on the stop list.

• All external letters must be included in the casebook to Provost.

• PhD/PostDoc advisor, close collaborator may be included, but does not count in the minimum of 5.

√ Positive comments discounted

√ Negative could be very damaging

9

Email to Potential Reviewers

• Candidate prohibited from contact with potential reviewers

• Committee sends e-mail to chosen reviewers

• 3 options to choose for reply• Yes, available to serve as an external reviewer

• No, unavailable due to time constraints

• No, candidate’s area is too distant from reviewer’s

• If candidate reviewer respond with “yes”, need to follow up with letter and candidate material

• Use wording provided in casebook

• Other responses might compromise the integrity of the review process

• e-mail exchanges should appear in casebook as appendix

10

Internal Letters

• Two letters from faculty• Candidate may also submit internal stop list. Unsolicited internal

letters are transmitted to the chair and CoE Executive Committee, but not part of the formal casebook.

• Graduate students

• Undergraduate students• Selection of undergraduate students: Letters should be solicited from

students at different performance levels (e.g., letter grade equivalents of A, B, and C ranges). The faculty candidate will recommend half of the names of undergraduate students, and the committee, through the department advising office, will identify the other half. Letters will be solicited from this cohort. A minimum of four undergraduate student letters are required and at least one MUST come from the committee’s list and not a member of the candidate’s research group.

11

Data Gathering

July-November• ADAA provides detailed template for candidate to “fill in”

• It is not necessary to fill in every blank to get tenure or promotion!!

√ Intent is that for any valuable activity, there should be a place for it to go

• Committee needs to gather and verify information

• Be conservative in classifying publications

You don’t want a credibility problem

• If citations are used, must verify with candidate

12

Distillation and Response

November

• Committee submits casebook and recommendation to department chair

• Submits to candidate distillation letter of salient findings

√ Shall not contain any recommendation

√ Also include in casebook

• Candidate MAY respond in writing to ADAA, copy chair

• Department makes decision based on established procedure (e.g., vote by Executive Committee, or Faculty at rank or higher)

• Chair forwards department recommendation (and vote) to ADAA – by Nov. 25.

13

Review and Refine

December

• ADAA office reviews each casebook, asks for missing data

• Submits to EC

• Each casebook is assigned one EC member as lead for discussion

• Deliberate through January, may ask for clarification

14

Chairs’ Meeting

January

• EC holds straw-vote and preliminary discussion on each case.

• In a joint meeting of chairs, associate deans, and EC members, • Each case is presented briefly by the department chair.

• EC responds with issues (if any)

• All questions from chairs, AD’s, & EC welcomed

• Chairs & ADs give advisory vote to EC

• EC makes final decision on recommendation by end of January

• Candidate informed by ADAA in late February of CoE recommendation when communications to the Provost are complete

15

At the Provost’s Level

February-May

• All tenure cases (positive and negative) and all positive promotion cases go to Provost for review

• Provost appoints a committee to evaluate all casebooks

• Recommended cases go to Regents for final approval

• It’s official in May

• All 2012-2013 promotion recommendations were approved by the Provost and Regents

17

Acceptable External Letters

• Original, signed letters are preferred• Letters sent by fax with the appearance of an original signature• Evaluation letters uploaded to a secure website• Letters sent by email:

– If the text is in the body of the email (from a university or business email address)

– If the email attachment is accompanied by the original email within which it came (from a university or business email address)

– If the person only has a personal email address, it will be accepted only if the email is followed by a hardcopy of the letter

18

External Letters (cont.)

• If a letter is received without a signature, not delivered electronically, a verification letter or email must be submitted by the committee chair indicating the authenticity of the letter

19

Research Faculty

• Similar casebook template as T&T, but

– Emphasis on research and publications; impact for promotion to more senior ranks

– Do need “Statement of Understanding Regarding Responsibility for Bridging Support”

– Research scientists evaluated by OVPR

– Research professors evaluated jointly by OVPR and Provost• Independence and non-didactic teaching

20

Reappointment

• Same process as P/T – no outside letters

• Winter semester of third year

√ January starts, as if started following fall

• ADAA writes blunt letters reflecting EC comments