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.