Section A: Tasks and Responsibilities of the Chair

This section identifies the tasks and responsibilities of the Department Chair for the handling of faculty promotion cases.  These CAS Guidelines are governed by the University at Buffalo "Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions" as published in the Faculty/Staff Handbook.  Before proceeding further, the Chair should carefully review this text (included as Section B of this document).  These CAS Guidelines interpret and in some instances supplement University policies and procedures.  They are meant to assist Department Chairs in the handling of these key personnel matters, and have as a goal the implementation of consistent and uniform practices across the Departments of the College.

This section presents the Chair's tasks in the chronological order in which they should be undertaken for each faculty promotional action (for any off-cycle tenure cases, please consult the Senior Associate Dean for deadlines and suggested timetable).  The timetable below indicates the suggested dates by which these tasks should be initiated or completed.  The intent is to assure the timely handling of each task within the constraints of Dean's Office and Provost's Office deadlines.

 

Back to Promotion Guidelines Introduction

 

Timetable for Dossier Preparation

The deadlines for submission of the "advance version" (original plus one copy, for explanation see step 11 below) of the dossier to the Dean's Office are:

  • Promotion to Full Professor:

    Advance copy - October 1

    Final corrected version (ready to copy) - October 15

  • Promotion to Associate Professor:

    Advance Copy - December 19

    Final corrected version (ready to copy) - January 15

Normally the minimal time for the external evaluators to review the materials and submit their letter of evaluation is 30 days.  In instances where a book or book manuscript is to be evaluated, some additional time should be allowed.

 

Suggested timetable for promotions to full professor (Fall semesters):

April 1 - The candidate should submit to the Chair the required material:

  • curriculum vita,
  • copies/abstracts of selected recent scholarship or creative activity,
  • candidate's statement about research or creative activity,
  • candidate's statement about service,
  • teaching portfolio (15-20 pages maximum which will be sent to internal evaluators only),
  • list of student evaluator names.

May 1 - The Chair has determined the final list of external evaluators and begins initial e-mail contact.

May 15 - Chair's letter and candidate's materials are sent to evaluators (external and internal).

August 15 - All materials due in the Chair's office.

October 1 - Advance copy of dossier due in the Dean's Office

October 15 - Final corrected version of the dossier due, deadline for copies & estimated APT date conveyed to the department.

December 1 - Dossier due in the Provost's Office.

 

Suggested timetable for promotions to associate professor (Spring semesters):

September 1 - The candidate should submit to the Chair the required material:

  • curriculum vita,
  • copies/abstracts of selected recent scholarship or creative activity,
  • candidate's statement about research or creative activity,
  • candidate's statement about service,
  • teaching portfolio (15-20 pages maximum which will be sent to internal evaluators only),
  • list of student evaluator names.
  • The chair has determined the final list of external evaluators and begins initial e-mail contact.

September 15 - Chair's letter and candidate's materials are sent to evaluators (external and internal).

November 15 - All materials due in the Chair's Office.

December 19 - Advance copy of dossier due in the Dean's Office.

January 15 - Final corrected version of the dossier due, deadline for copies & estimated APT date conveyed to the department.

March 1 - Dossier due in the Provost's Office.

 

Chronology of Tasks

Step 1.  Initiate faculty promotional action: In all cases, except for the required sixth-year review of tenure-track assistant professors for promotion to the rank of associate professor with continuing appointment, any faculty promotional action begins with a letter from the candidate to the Chair requesting promotion. Specifically, in all cases of promotion to the rank of full professor and in cases of early promotion to the rank of associate professor with tenure, the candidate for promotion must submit a written letter to the Chair requesting consideration for such promotion. (A one-sentence letter stating this request will suffice). The original letter is retained in the Department's Faculty Personnel files with a copy sent to the Dean. It is not included in the promotion dossier. If the Department's by-laws or customs do not otherwise stipulate the procedures by which individual faculty members are to be considered for promotion, it is good practice for the Chair to meet with any prospective candidate for promotion before the candidate submits the written request. This will permit the Chair to review with the candidate the likely prospects for promotion. The Chair may also wish to consult with senior colleagues in the Department as to the potential merits of the case, particularly if the candidate's research area is different from that of the Chair.

Assistant professor candidates for promotion to associate professor with tenure normally are accorded only one opportunity for promotion (not the exceptional circumstance identified in the Faculty/Staff Handbook, II.C.8,  p.18, which may justify reconsideration in cases where tenure has been denied).  There are thus significant risks entailed if such a promotional action is undertaken early with a faculty member's record that might in any way be considered as premature or marginal.  Nonetheless, in certain instances such early action may be fully warranted, particularly for those with exceptional achievements, or for assistant professors with previous appointments in tenure-track positions at other universities prior to appointment at UB (such cases may be technically "early" by UB guidelines but not in terms of the candidate's overall career).  All promotional actions should be undertaken in a timely fashion, which recognizes the faculty member's achievements and the competitive environment for attracting and retaining outstanding faculty.  A candidate for an early tenure decision may choose to withdraw the case during the review process; the last opportunity to withdraw the case is after the Provost has reviewed and made a recommendation to the President, but before the President has rendered a decision.  A withdrawn case may be reconsidered during the normal sixth year review.  The Chair should contact all prior evaluators by sending an updated c.v. and relevant supporting materials and indicate that the external evaluator may choose to revise the original letter or submit a supplement to it.  Please confer with the Dean's Office for an appropriate text to be sent to the evaluators.  In this situation, a new department vote must be taken, and all evaluator letters from the previous dossier as well as newly solicited and updated evaluator letters should be included in the new dossier.  The Chair must write a new Chair's letter.  The dossier will be reviewed by the APT Committee and the Dean.  Before initiating any "early" tenure promotion cases, the Chair should consult with the Senior Associate Dean.

In exceptional circumstances, tenure review may be deferred until the 7th year.  If the 7th year review is being considered, the candidate must submit a written request to the Department Chair providing the justification for deferral.  The Department Chair should recommend approval or disapproval to the Cognizant Associate Dean.  Final decision rests with the Dean.  Note that faculty undergoing 7th year reviews are expected to present a profile of accomplishments in research & scholarship relfecting 6 full years of activity (not 5 as in the case of a normal 6th year review).

No normal timetable governs the timing of faculty promotion to full professor.  Promotion to full rank should take place in a timely fashion, reflecting University criteria and the standards for the discipline prevailing at leading research universities.  A candidate for promotion to full professor may withdraw the case during the review process; the last opportunity to withdraw the case is after the Provost has reviewed and made a recommendation to the President, but before the President has rendered a decision.  Note again that significant risks are entailed if the promotion is regarded as premature and denied.  Aside from the immediate impact on the candidate's career, any reconsideration (see II.C.8,  p.17, of the Faculty/Staff Handbook.) requires a "de novo process, including preparation of an entirely new dossier," and "as a general rule, considerable time must elapse," typically three years or more, before a candidate who has been denied promotion can be advanced again for consideration.

Step 2.  Ask candidate to submit required materials :

•  Curriculum vitae. Provide the candidate with the statement on the curriculum vitae included in the template dossier (Section C of these Guidelines ); note that the CAS Guidelines indicate more detail than the Faculty/Staff Handbook (III.A.I.4, p. 20). Candidates should follow the CAS Guidelines . Note that if significant additional information becomes available regarding the achievements of the candidate after the initial submission of the c.v., the candidate may request inclusion of appropriate documentation in the dossier (included in the Unsolicited Materials section). Such significant additional information might be the awarding of a major research grant, the acceptance of a book for publication, the acceptance of an article in a refereed journal, or the winning of a fellowship, honor, or award for scholarship, creative activity, or teaching. If the new information is regarded as of major consequence, the Department Chair may wish to inform the external and internal evaluators even after the formal request for a letter of recommendation has been sent (see below under “External Evaluators”). Note also the final paragraph of II.C.1 in the Faculty/Staff Handbook (Section B of these Guidelines , p. 13) with regard to significant new information that becomes available only after the case has reached the Provost's Office.

•  Candidate's statement about research or creative activity. Point the candidate to the relevant section of the Faculty/Staff Handbook, III.A.I.5, pp. 20-21, included in Section B of this document. The Dean's Office recommends that the most effective form for the research statement is a one-page overview intended for non-specialists, followed by a 2–3 page more detailed description designed for experts in the field. The candidate's statement about research or creative activity should be transmitted to the external and internal evaluators along with the c.v. and appropriate publications.

•  Candidate's statement about service . Point the candidate to the relevant section of the Faculty/Staff Handbook (III.A.I.6, p. 21) included in Section B of these Guidelines , and provide the candidate with a copy of the CAS addendum included under the “Statement about Service” tab from the template section (Section C).

•  Candidate's Teaching Portfolio . Point the candidate to the relevant section of the Faculty/Staff Handbook (III.A.I.7, pp. 21-23) of the Faculty/Staff Handbook included in Section B of this document. Note that the Handbook states that the materials in the Appendix should be “selective, representing the candidate's best and most important teaching accomplishments;” the Appendix should not exceed 20 pages. The Teaching Portfolio is provided only to the Internal Evaluators, not the External Evaluators.

 

•  Student Evaluator names . The candidates should provide a list of 6-7 current or former students whom they have taught in a course or mentored, such as masters or doctoral students, or for undergraduate honors projects. The candidates should indicate the year(s) and the capacity in which they knew the students and also provide current contact information (addresses, e-mail). From this list the Chair will select 3 names from whom to solicit letters of evaluation.

 

•  Publications : The candidate should be informed of the documentation needed for the dossier/evaluators, and should supply copies of selected recent scholarship or creative activity, including those materials to be sent as a package to the external evaluators and those to be reviewed during Departmental deliberations on the promotion case and subsequently transmitted with the dossier to the Dean's Office.

Step 3.  Ask candidate to designate an advocate . The CAS by-laws state that “…each candidate for promotion within a CAS department will name an advocate who, together with the department chair, will present the candidate's case to the APT Committee…” The rationale is that, given the breadth of the disciplines represented in the College, the candidate will benefit in the review processes of the APT Committee if a faculty member close to the candidate's area of expertise submits a statement to the dossier and is able to be present to answer questions or otherwise clarify aspects of the candidate's case during the deliberations of the APT Committee. It is expected that candidates will typically designate such an advocate at the start of the review process (see Faculty/Staff Handbook, II.C.4, pp. 15 – 16, with regard to the selection, role, and responsibilities of the Advocate). The candidate will inform the Department Chair as to the name of the designated advocate. If the candidate does not deem that the case will be strengthened by the designation of an advocate, the candidate will submit a letter to the Dean, copied to the Department Chair, declining this opportunity. Declining this opportunity at this juncture does not preclude the candidate from designating an advocate after the case has been transmitted from the Dean's Office to the Provost's Office. The Dean's Office believes that cases are strengthened by the inclusion of an advocate's statement, prepared after the conclusion of the Department's deliberation, in the dossier reviewed by the APT and the Dean. The Advocate's Statement, by nature, cannot be confidential or expunged. The Chair should advise the advocate not to identify confidential evaluators in the Advocate's Statement. As with the Chair's letter, advocates should refer to evaluators according to their number on the "List of those to whom letters were sent and evaluations received."  The advocate may revise the Advocate's Statement at subsequent points in the review process depending on circumstances.

Step 4.  Choose External Evaluators.

•  Note that the guidelines in the Faculty/Staff Handbook (III.A.I.9, Section B, pp. 23-24) stipulate a minimum of four disinterested external evaluator letters.  Although the minimum number is four, more letters are normally included in the dossier, typically six to ten.  Note that Step 9 (below) requires you to list all the External Evaluaotrs initially contacted, and to provide a rationale for the list. You may also find that perhaps one or two evaluators, after initially agreeing, will fail to supply letters by the required deadline despite the best of expressed intentions, so the number you solicit should take this into account.  Key reasons for planning to include more than the minimum four letters are that certain evaluator letters may not prove particularly useful, either because they are too brief or too general, or the evaluator may suggest he or she is not the best person to judge the merits of the research, or the evaluator fails to respond adequately to the questions asked.  If at later stages of review, University administrators or review committees regard the number of informative external evaluator letters as inadequate, it is their prerogative to require that additional letters be solicited, inevitably causing delays in the review process.  It is best to avoid this at the outset if possible.

•  University guidelines stipulate that evaluators must hold a rank equal to or above the rank to which the candidate would be promoted.  Evaluators at the full professor rank are strongly preferred for maximum credibility, regardless of whether the promotion is to associate or full professor.  Every effort should be made to get full professors as evaluators.  Evaluator letters also gain in credibility if they are submitted by recognized experts in the candidate's field of specialization and if the evaluator's faculty appointment at an AAU or other leading research university enables them to speak to the current expectations for promotion in the discipline at research universities.  It is preferred that all external evaluators hold appointment at AAU or comparable institutions, but CAS requires that at least four external letters be submitted by faculty at AAU universities.  For a listing of AAU member institutions, please see the Appendix to Section B.

•  It is acceptable to ask the candidate if there are one or two potential evaluators who should not be asked for an evaluation because of either personal or professional differences. Any such names must be so indicated in the section entitled “Background Information on Letters” in the dossier.

•  Note that any external evaluators suggested by the candidate (as allowed by University guidelines) will not count as disinterested letters; therefore, in order to allow evaluation letters to have maximum impact, the College strongly recommends that the candidate not suggest potential evaluators.

•  Note that the University guidelines suggest that “generally, evaluators should be selected by an ad hoc faculty committee.” The PRB has advised in the past that the dossier gains in persuasiveness if referees have been selected or recommended by an ad hoc committee of colleagues, or by leaders of relevant scholarly societies in the field.

•  The selection of appropriate “disinterested” evaluators is probably the most critical task the Chair or ad hoc committee undertakes in the promotional process. Members of the CAS APT Committee and of the PRB will scrutinize the selection process carefully, especially if the case appears marginal or there is any suspicion about the objectivity of the evaluator letters. It is critical to avoid missteps. Note that the Faculty/Staff Handbook stipulates that “the Chair should make every effort to avoid letters from interested scholars, those having personal or close professional relationships with the candidate: friends, students, former teachers and colleagues, mentors, co-authors and co-investigators.” A post-doc supervisor is not regarded as disinterested. The selection of disinterested evaluators in a small field of research can sometimes be problematic in that, within a small field, most scholars know each other well. However, evaluators can be considered disinterested if they are: contacts/acquaintances from conferences, an editor of a journal or book in which the candidate's work has appeared, or merely a colleague held in “mutual regard.”

•  In addition to at least four disinterested evaluators, the Chair may find it useful to seek a letter for the dossier from an interested evaluator, not as a letter of evaluation, but rather, for instance, to clarify the respective contributions of the post-doctoral mentor and the candidate to publications, or the respective contributions of the candidate and co-authors or co-researchers to a project. The letters soliciting such information should explicitly indicate why this is sought as part of the promotional review and should include the confidentiality form. These letters shall be included in the external evaluator section of the dossier, but should be separated from and follow the actual letters of evaluation. The reasons for soliciting any such letters should be addressed in the Chair's letter and in the statement of procedure for selecting external evaluators.

•  After the initial list of external evaluators is developed, it is suggested that the Chair contact the selected evaluators by e-mail to determine their availability to submit the requested letter of evaluation by the required deadline. This should be a brief request and should not imply anything about the merits of the case (a sample template for the e-mail is included in the Template section of these Guidelines under the tabs “External/Internal Evaluators” and “Background Information on Letters”). All communications with evaluators must be maintained in the department. Evaluators should not be given an opportunity to defer a decision on whether to accept the task of evaluation until they have had a chance to review the materials sent to them. Note that in the “Background Information” the Chair must include a listing of all the evaluators initially contacted (by email, telephone, etc.) including those who failed to respond, declined to serve as an evaluator or failed to submit an evaluation after agreeing to do so. You should make repeated follow-up requests to any individual who has agreed to provide a letter but has failed to do so by the deadline. Also, for evaluators who have declined to evaluate a candidate, give the reasons why (e.g., on leave, prior commitments, unfamiliar with research area, etc.) . In all such cases, relevant email documentation or telephone logs must be provided (see Step 9 below).

•  The formal written request to the external and internal evaluators should use the model letter included in the Template Section of these Guidelines (Section C) under the tabs “External/Internal Evaluators” and “Background Information on Letters.” In addition to the c.v. and the package of publications, external evaluators should receive a copy of the “Candidate's Statement about Research or Creative Activity,” but should not be sent the Teaching Portfolio, or the Statement about Service.

•  If, after the materials have been sent to the evaluators, there is a major development in the candidate's research or creative activity, (such as the award of a major external grant, a fellowship, or the acceptance of a book for publication) it is appropriate to notify the evaluators of such a development should this occur. Even after the dossier has been submitted to the Dean's office, it is recommended that you notify our Office of any such development with appropriate documentation supplied.

Step 5.  Choose Internal Evaluators . Note that the University guidelines in the Faculty/Staff Handbook, III.A.I.9, p. 24) state that “at least two letters should be solicited from colleagues at UB, preferably from the candidate's department or from center and institute directors and affiliated faculty where applicable.” Use the model letter included in the Template Section of these Guidelines (Section C) under the tabs “External/Internal Evaluators” and “Background Information on Letters.” Internal evaluators are to receive a copy of the candidate's Teaching Portfolio and are explicitly to be asked to review the candidate's teaching capabilities.

Step 6.  Solicit Student Letters . The Chair should solicit 3 student letters of evaluation from the list of 6 or 7 provided by the candidate (see “student names” under Step 2 above). Use the model letter included in the Template Section of these Guidelines (Section C) under the tabs “External/Internal Evaluators” and “Background Information on Letters.”

Step 7.  Compile Quantitative Teaching Evaluations . Chairs should complete the standardized CAS form provided in the template section (Section C) of these Guidelines under the tab “Quantitative Teaching Evaluations.” A sample is provided there. If you have questions about how to complete this form, please contact Monica Vacanti at 645-6000 ext. 1168; for assistance in acquiring data for the form, please contact Brian O'Connor at 645-6000 ext. 1140. The summary table of quantitative teaching evaluations for candidates for full professor promotion should not be completed until after results from the previous spring semester's courses have been included, provided these are available at the time the dossier is assembled. For additional items to be included in this section, see the Faculty/Staff Handbook (III.A.I.8, p. B23) for guidance. In general, it is appropriate (although not required) to include a selection of written comments in this section. Only those comments that have some substance or offer insight into the faculty member's overall effectiveness should be used (i.e. do not include comments such as ‘the best/worst teacher I've ever had', etc.). Use a selection of representative comments, positive and negative, from both graduate & undergraduate courses, but not all the comments from every course. When compiling the comments, the department may use qualifiers such as ‘this comment is typical of 20 received for this course during the ___ semester'. Do not use raw data or simply attach copies of the written comments.

Step 8.  Conduct a department review and vote . The departmental vote of record is the vote of all faculty eligible to vote on a particular promotional case, that is all faculty of the same or higher rank than the rank of the proposed promotion. In addition, faculty on Research Leave or another type of leave where they remain in local residence retain full voting rights, provided they review the assembled materials and participate in the meeting devoted to consideration of the promotional case. Faculty not in residence are not eligible to vote. The Chair should make available to all eligible faculty all the relevant material assembled for the case, including the materials submitted by the candidate, the letters from external and internal evaluators and from students, the quantitative teaching evaluations, any unsolicited material provided by the candidate, and copies of the candidate's publications. In particular, the voting faculty should not deliberate or vote on the case until all the external and internal letters of evaluation have been received. The faculty must vote by closed ballot.

Step 9.  Prepare “Background Information on Letters” for the dossier (see Template section of these Guidelines ). The Chair must explain the process by which the external evaluators were selected and the rationale for their selection. In particular, the stature of the evaluators and their prominence in the field should be indicated. If there are any potential questions about the “disinterestedness” of the evaluators, these should be forthrightly addressed. Note that all evaluators initially contacted (by email, telephone, etc.) must be listed here whether or not they responded to your inquiry, or if they declined to serve as an evaluator. In addition to a copy of the initial e-mail contact and of the letter seeking the evaluation, include copies of any subsequent e-mail or written correspondence with any evaluator, and summarize in the form of a log any telephone conversations.

University guidelines require information about the academic credentials of the external evaluators. This should be supplied in the form of either a one-page biographical sketch or a one-page web description or a paragraph from the Who's Who in the field, or biographical dictionary compilations, etc.

Step 10.  Write the Chair's letter (these Guidelines incorporate previous suggestions made by the PRB and the CAS Dean's Office; these supplement but do not replace the University guidelines for the Chair's letter included in the Faculty/Staff Handbook (III.A.I.1, pp. 18-19 in Section B of this document):

The Chair should complete his/her letter after all the Departmental deliberations have been completed and the vote of the eligible faculty has been tabulated. That is, the Chair's letter should be informed by and reflect the faculty peer review process of the Department, even if the Chair disagrees with the result. Note also that the Faculty/Staff Handbook states (III.A.I.1, pp. 18-19) that in addition to reporting the vote of the Department, the Chair is expected to comment on the “weight and degree of departmental support” for the promotion. The Chair should note that the vote was by closed ballot and that the faculty involved in the vote all had the same or higher rank than the rank of the proposed promotion. The Chair should also account for all possible votes on any case, including faculty not participating and the reasons for non-participation.

In developing the Chair's letter, note that this text will be scrutinized by administrators and peer review committees, a number of whom will not be familiar with the discipline. All discussion should be couched in language accessible to those outside the field of expertise.

The Chair's letter should be a balanced appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate's qualifications for promotion (whether or not the Chair concurs in the recommendation of the faculty of the Department). Reference should be made to any issues expressed by the evaluators (these should be referred to by number in order to protect confidentiality—see Step 11 below “Assembling the Dossier”). Do not gloss over any negative or ambivalent comments in the external evaluator letters. Discuss these forthrightly. If you are convinced the negative comments are unwarranted, carefully explain why, but do not take a dismissive position. To be persuasive, your views must be credible. Remember that the Chair's letter is not a letter of recommendation for a colleague, but rather is a crucial document of evaluation. Candor is essential. In discussing the external evaluations, characterize (without revealing confidentiality) the stature of the evaluators within the discipline.

For an early tenure decision the Chair must explicitly address the reasons why early promotion is to be considered. In instances of a 7th year tenure review, the Chair must explain why action was deferred to the 7th year. In instances where the tenure clock was stopped, such as for leaves, critical life events, etc., an explanation should be provided.

The Chair's letter is best organized with sections labeled Research, Teaching, Service, etc. It should address a number of critical points:

•  The specific nature of the candidate's research and scholarship (or creative activity), its quality, its significance to the discipline, and its impact on the field. Also how is the candidate's research or creative activity related to the mission of the department and to the discipline as a whole? Research and scholarship may take a variety of distinct but typically related forms:

-- Original research (systematic research or inquiry that leads to the discovery of new knowledge).

-- Integration and synthesis of existing knowledge , including analyzing and presenting knowledge in new and effective ways.

-- Application of research to consequential problems (adapting or evaluating available research for application to specific issues or problems and the technical ability to make research work in a practical context).

The Chair should clarify which of these fundamental approaches to research and scholarship best expresses the candidate's contribution, particularly in cases where the research and scholarship does not take the form of original research.

The Chair should characterize the trajectory of the candidate's scholarly career, especially for cases of promotion to full professor: what have the motivating issues been? What has the candidate aspired to achieve? To what extent has the candidate succeeded? If the candidate's research and scholarly concerns have changed over time discuss how and why. If the candidate's scholarly pursuits relate closely to teaching and public service activities, explain how these interrelate.

•  The extent to which external grant (or external fellowship) funding is available in the discipline and the prevailing expectations at major research universities for being awarded such funding. The Chair should evaluate the candidate's success in obtaining external grant support and provide an assessment of the chances of having sustained support.

•  The quality of the journals (and/or presses) in which the candidate's work has appeared.

•  In the cases of joint authorship or collaborative work, the Chair should try to indicate the extent and nature of the candidate's contribution to the published or ongoing work. If there is extensive co-authorship with a dissertation mentor or post-doctoral supervisor, the Chair should explain in what way(s) the research is independent from the mentor. The establishment of an independent research career is in most cases an expected criterion for being awarded tenure. The Chair should also clarify the practice within the discipline of listing co-authors on publications: Is the lead author listed first? Last? Or are authors listed alphabetically regardless of contribution?

•  In discussing the candidate's teaching performance, the Chair should analyze (in addition to the expectations stated in the Faculty/Staff Handbook [Section B, p. 19 of these Guidelines ] regarding the Teaching Portfolio, student evaluations, and the assessments of the internal evaluators) the process and content of the candidate's teaching: that is, both the candidate's methods and approaches to teaching so as to facilitate making the content accessible to student learning, and the relevance and significance of the content itself. The Chair should also address the candidate's performance as student adviser, and as supervisor of independent study and research, particularly of graduate students. There should also be indicated the number of Master's and/or Ph.D. students the candidate might be expected to have directed, given the specific field and the nature of the department's graduate program.

•  In any major public research university, research and scholarship is always the key factor in the evaluation of the performance of all faculty, but teaching and professional/public, university, and community service will also be taken seriously. If the case for the candidate's promotion rests more than typically on the contributions to teaching or to service rather than on achievements in research and scholarship, the quality and significance to these contributions need to be elaborated.

•  Please remember to refer to the evaluators' numbers as assigned on the "List of those to whom letters were sent and evaluations received."

Step 11.  Assemble the dossier for submission to the Dean's Office. Follow the procedures indicated at the beginning of the Template section of these Guidelines (Section C), and assemble the dossier following the model given in the Template.

Prior to the deadline dates of October 15 and December 20, submit to the Dean's Office as an advance text one complete copy of the dossier. This must be the “final” form of the dossier, that is there should be no missing items. The Chair's letter with the department vote must be included.  This “advance text” will be reviewed in the Dean's Office for compliance with University policies and CAS guidelines. Every effort will be made to notify the Department within two working days of receipt of the dossier with regard to any revisions or corrections that need to be made.

Note that the dossier should include a Table of Contents. For the initial submission, leave the page numbers blank. The External and Internal Evaluator Letters and the Student Letters should be organized alphabetically within each category and labeled with the appropriate number, according to the “List of those to whom letters were sent and evaluations received” (see p. C63 for instructions).

When the dossier is approved by the Dean's Office for format and content, it will be returned to the Department. The dossier should then be paginated, beginning with the Chair's letter as p. 1 and continuing through the dossier (excluding the green and blue separator sheets), and the relevant page numbers inserted in the Table of Contents.

The Department will be expected to return the original and 15 copies within one week of final approval. Also to be provided is one set of the candidate's publications.  All items must be submitted no later than January 15 for Spring semester tenure cases..

Step 12.  Provide the candidate with a copy of the Chair's letter. After the final version of the dossier including all copies have been sent to the Dean's Office, provide the candidate with a copy of your Chair's letter (expunged version). This will serve to inform the candidate of the Department vote and for the candidate to learn of the Chair's assessment of the case. At this point, the Chair may permit the candidate to review the non-confidential section of the dossier in the department office. The candidate should not be provided with a copy of any of the materials. In turn, the candidate will receive a copy of the Dean's Letter at the point at which the dossier is transmitted to the Provost's Office. This will serve to inform the candidate of the APT Committee vote and the Dean's assessment of the case.

 

Back to Promotion Guidelines Introduction