The promotion and tenure process

1. The promotion and tenure process New Academic Administrators Workshop August 8, 20123

2. 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.

3. General Guidelines All parties involved in the process should familiarize themselves with the guidelines: http://www.utexas.edu/provost/policies/evaluation/tenure/

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Elements of Dossier

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Review Process

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.