PROCEDURAL
GUIDELINES
FOR
APPOINTMENTS,
RENEWALS,
PROMOTIONS
AND
TENURE
IN THE
SCHOOL
OF
ENGINEERING
SPRING
2002
The Faculty
Manual of
Vanderbilt
University
sets forth
standards of
performance
and
procedures
for faculty
appointments,
renewals,
promotions
and the
award of
tenure by
the
University.
It is
authoritative.
This
document
supplements
the Faculty
Manual by
providing
details
regarding
the
procedures
used in the
School of
Engineering.
Endorsed by
a vote of
the Faculty
of the
School of
Engineering
on April 25,
2002.
I.
Tenure-Track
and Tenured
Positions
A. Titles
and Terms of
Tenure
The titles
Instructor
and
Assistant
Professor
designate
non-tenured
positions
that are
normally in
the tenure
track.
Service in
these
positions is
counted as
part of the
probationary
period
leading to
tenure.
Faculty
candidates
who have not
held
tenure-track
positions
prior to
joining the
School
usually are
appointed to
the rank of
Assistant
Professor,
provided
that they
hold the
doctoral
degree.
Faculty
candidates
who are in
the process
of
completing
their Ph.D.
degree are
normally
appointed to
the rank of
Instructor.
The title
Associate
Professor
normally
signifies a
tenured
position
unless
otherwise
specified at
the time of
appointment
to that
rank.
Initial
appointment
to the
position of
Associate
Professor
without
tenure is
possible,
but
promotion to
the rank of
Associate
Professor
carries
tenure. The
title
Professor
normally
signifies a
tenured
position.
B.
Procedures
for Initial
Appointments
Standards
of
Performance
Candidates
recruited to
positions at
the rank of
Assistant
Professor or
Instructor
are
evaluated on
the basis of
their
potential as
researchers
and
teachers.
There must
be
definitive
evidence of
capacity for
excellent
scholarship.
External
candidates
for tenured
positions
must meet
the same
standards as
those
required of
faculty
promoted to
such
positions
from within
the
University,
i.e.,
excellence
in research,
a high level
of
effectiveness
in teaching,
and
satisfactory
service.
These
standards
are set out
in the
Faculty
Manual and
are
elaborated
later in
this
document. A
person
appointed at
the rank of
Associate
Professor
without
tenure must
show
substantial
promise of
meeting the
criteria for
tenure
within the
term of the
initial
appointment.
Search
Committees
The Dean
appoints
search
committees
in each of
the
departments
in which
faculty
members are
sought.
Search
committees,
adhering to
the relevant
Federal
statutes and
to the
Affirmative
Action Plan
detailed in
the Faculty
Manual,
advertise
vacant
positions,
interview
candidates,
read
scholarly
works of the
candidates,
and evaluate
the
candidates'
references.
Using such
information,
a search
committee
ranks
candidates
and invites
qualified
candidates
to visit the
campus to
present
seminars to
the faculty
and to meet
with various
faculty
members
within the
Department
and with
members of
the
administration,
as
appropriate.
Candidate
Files
The file of
a candidate
for an
initial
appointment
to the
faculty of
the School
of
Engineering
shall
contain all
material as
directed by
the Provost.
Offer of
Appointments
After
collecting
comments of
faculty
members who
have met the
candidate
during the
campus visit
and
evaluating
the
candidate's
promise as a
researcher,
teacher and
colleague, a
search
committee
may
recommend to
the Chair
the
appointment
of the
candidate to
a faculty
position.
The Chair
will then
seek the
concurrence
of the
voting
members in
the
Department,
as specified
in the
Faculty
Manual.
Those voting
for the
Department
are faculty,
with primary
appointments
in the
originating
Department,
of rank
equal to or
greater than
that of the
offer in
question. A
majority
vote is
required,
defined in
terms of the
departmental
roster. For
offers at
the
Professor
level, a
second vote
to award
tenure must
be made by
the tenured
faculty. The
details of
the
concurrence
shall be
discussed in
a memorandum
of
recommendation
prepared by
the Chair
for the
Dean.
After the
Dean and the
Chair agree
on the
appointee
and the
conditions
of the
appointment,
the Dean
will seek
the approval
of the
Provost. The
Dean,
following
the
Provost's
approval,
sends the
official
offer letter
to the
candidate.
C.
Actions
Regarding
Renewal of
Faculty
Appointments
Prior to
Tenure
-
All
tenure-track
faculty
normally
receive
an
initial
appointment
of three
years,
normally
followed
by
appointments
of two
and then
three
years,
assuming
that
their
records
support
additional
appointments.
This
3-2-3
scheme
would
normally
lead to
reappointment
reviews
in the
candidates'
second
and
fourth
years,
and a
tenure
review
in the
candidates'
seventh
year.
Candidates
may be
considered
for
tenure
earlier
if
merited
by their
accomplishments
and
promise.
-
Tenure-track
faculty
members
will be
recommended
for
reappointment
only if
their
performance
provides
a
reasonable
basis on
which to
project
continued
progress
that
could
ultimately
enable
them to
qualify
for
tenure.
More
evidence
is
needed
with
continued
time in
rank.
However,
some
degree
of
evidence
is
needed
at each
renewal
period.
-
Candidates
who
receive
reappointments
at the
second-
and
fourth-year
renewal
periods
will
also
receive
detailed
counseling
from
their
Chairs
on the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of their
performance
and
promise.
This
counseling
will be
in both
written
and oral
forms.
The
specific
evaluation
and
recommendations
made in
the
counseling
sessions
will be
agreed
in
advance
of the
session
by the
Dean and
Department
Chair.
The
written
record
of the
counseling
sessions
must be
included
in each
candidate's
file.
All
tenure-track
faculty
will
receive
feedback
about
their
performance.
Most
often,
additional
feedback
is
self-evident
to the
candidates
and may
consist
of
course
evaluations,
actions
by
journal
or book
editors,
funding
decisions
on grant
applications,
and so
forth.
-
The
Chair
will
appoint
a
department
review
committee
from the
tenured
faculty
to
evaluate
the
candidate's
performance
and
promise
for
future
success.
The
review
committee
will
provide
a
written
evaluation
and
recommendation.
The
Chair
will
report
the vote
of all
the
tenured
faculty
in the
Department
and will
make a
recommendation
to the
Dean.
-
The Dean
will
review
carefully
all
recommendations
he or
she
receives
for
reappointment
from the
Chairs.
If the
Dean
concurs
with the
recommendation
to
reappoint
a
tenure-track
faculty
member,
the
recommendation,
along
with all
supporting
documents,
will be
sent to
the
Provost
for
final
approval.
The file
will
contain,
at a
minimum,
(1) a
copy of
the
candidate's
vita,
(2) an
evaluation
of the
candidate's
teaching,
including
all
relevant
course
evaluation
summaries
and
student
comments,
(3) an
evaluation
of the
candidate's
research
accomplishments
and
promise
by the
departmental
review
committee,
the
Chair,
and the
Dean;
(4) an
evaluation
of the
candidate's
service,
and (5)
a copy
of the
written
record
of any
formal
counseling
session(s)
with the
candidate.
In
addition,
recommendations
for a
second
reappointment
(normally
at the
end of
the
fourth-year
review)
will
include
a
specific
statement
of the
candidate's
performance
between
the
second-
and
fourth-year
reviews,
evaluating
this
performance
both
from an
absolute
perspective
and in
light of
the
specific
counseling
given at
the
second-year
review
and at
other
relevant
points.
Junior
Faculty
Mentoring
It is
important
that junior
faculty have
access to
the advice
of senior
colleagues
on issues
directly
relevant to
their
academic
progress. In
many, if not
most cases,
this advice
is
adequately
provided
through
informal
channels or
through the
formal
second- and
fourth-year
reviews. In
some cases,
however,
junior
faculty may
voluntarily
request
additional
help in
establishing
a mentoring
relationship
or the Chair
may suggest
such
additional
help. If the
individual
requests
specific
mentoring,
the Chair is
responsible
for
establishing
such a
mentoring
relationship.
The Chair
should
assure that
the advice
received is
informed,
fair,
cautious,
and helpful.
Each
tenure-track
faculty
member will
receive upon
appointment
a copy of
the
University
and School
guidelines
for
reappointment,
promotion,
and tenure.
The
University
guidelines
are
contained in
the Faculty
Manual. The
School of
Engineering
guidelines
are
contained in
this
document.
The Dean is
responsible
for
evaluating
the
mentoring
activities
of the
School and
making an
annual
report on
junior
faculty
mentoring to
the Provost.
Schedule
for Faculty
Evaluation
for Renewal
(see also
Appendix A)
The
following
events
comprise the
evaluation
cycle (the
exact
deadlines
will be
announced
each year).
Dates in
parentheses
refer to
faculty
originally
appointed at
the start of
the spring
semester:
|
May
1 |
Notification
of
the
Department
by
letter
from
the
Dean
to
the
Chair
of
the
names
of
candidates
who
must
be
considered
for
renewal
to a
term
position
in
the
next
academic
year |
|
May
15 |
Chair
notification
of
the
candidate(s)
by
written
memo
with
the
present
document
as
an
attachment |
January
1 -
31
September
1 -
30) |
Candidates
prepare
dossiers
per
this
document
format |
February
1 -
March
15
(October
1 -
31) |
Departmental
reviews
conducted
Departmental
eligible
faculty
voting
completed
Chair
writes
administrative
letter
on
the
candidate
to
the
Dean
Dossier
forwarded
to
the
Dean |
March
16 -
April
15
(November
1 -
30)
|
Dean
reviews
all
dossiers
Dean
prepares
recommendations
to
the
Provost
for
all
positive
recommendations
Dean
notifies
Chairs,
who
then
notify
faculty
of
negative
recommendations
|
|
April
15
(December
1) |
Dossiers
due
in
the
Provost's
Office |
|
June
1
(January
1) |
Written
notification
of
renewal
or
non-renewal
is
normally
due
to
faculty
who
have
appointments
exceeding
one
year |
D.
Procedures
for Awarding
Tenure
Standards
of
Performance
Promotions
are based
solely on
merit and
not upon
seniority or
length of
service. A
person shall
attain
promotion as
rapidly as
merited.
Consideration
for
promotion
should allow
for the
recognition
of
exceptional
productivity
and unusual
achievement,
but
nominations
leading to a
tenure
review
before a
candidate's
seventh year
require
justification
by the
Department
in the
tenure
dossier.
There shall
be no age
restriction
on the
various
ranks.
For the
award of
tenure, the
School of
Engineering
requires (a)
excellence
in research,
(b) a high
level of
effectiveness
in teaching,
and (c) a
satisfactory
record of
service to
the
profession
of
engineering
and to the
University.
1.
Research
Excellence
The
principal
measure of
excellence
is a
significant
and
sustained
record of
high-quality,
scholarly
research.
Candidates
for tenure
are expected
to
demonstrate
an
independent
record of
scholarly
research
based
primarily on
their own
work and
that of
graduate
students
they
supervise.
The most
important
specific
evidence of
sustained
scholarly
research
accomplishment
is a record
of
publication
in
high-quality,
peer-reviewed,
archival
journals.
Publication
of abstracts
and
non-reviewed
conference
proceedings
provides
evidence of
appropriate
and
desirable
exposure of
the
candidate's
work, but in
the tenure
review
process such
publications
are not as
important as
refereed
journal
articles. In
some
disciplines
within the
School,
papers
published in
certain
conference
proceedings
undergo a
rigorous
process of
selection,
peer review,
and
subsequent
revision.
Such
publications
may be
comparable
to refereed
journal
articles,
and should
be clearly
documented
and
identified
as such.
Although a
precise
number of
journal
articles
appropriate
for
promotion to
tenure is
not to be
specified, a
typical
candidate
for tenure
will have
published a
significant
volume of
work in
reviewed
journal
articles.
The quality
of the work
will be
judged by
the
reputation
of the
journals, by
the written
opinions of
external
evaluators,
and by
Vanderbilt
faculty
members who
will read
the papers.
The School
of
Engineering
normally
expects its
faculty to
generate
externally
funded
research to
support
scholarly
investigations,
graduate
students,
and other
professional
activities.
Therefore,
additional
appropriate
evidence of
excellence
in research
may be shown
by a
consistent
record of
success in
generating
external
funding. In
some cases,
this
additional
supporting
evidence may
include
success in
generating
collaborative
funded
research, if
it is clear
that the
candidate
has had a
significant
role in
developing
the funding,
designing
and
performing
his or her
portion of
the
research,
and
reporting
the results.
When working
in a
collaborative
environment,
the
candidate's
individual
contributions
should be
substantial
and
documented.
2.
Teaching
Effectiveness
Evidence of
highly
effective
teaching is
supported by
a
chronological
compilation
of anonymous
student
ratings in
regularly
taught
classes.
Additional
supporting
evidence may
include
teaching
awards,
design of
new courses
and
curricula,
peer reviews
of classroom
teaching and
curricular
materials,
and
publication
of
textbooks.
The
candidate
should also
show
evidence of
a high
degree of
effectiveness
in educating
graduate
students
through
graduate
classroom
instruction,
student
projects and
research.
3.
Service to
the
Profession
A candidate
for tenure
will have
demonstrated
a
satisfactory
level of
service to
the
profession,
including
activities
such as
chairing
conference
sessions,
serving on
external
professional
committees,
and
reviewing
journal
papers and
federal
agency
proposals.
These
activities
should
indicate
that the
candidate is
prepared to
assume a
leadership
role in the
profession.
In addition,
the
candidate
should have
carried out
his or her
service
activities
within the
University
with
professional
dedication
and
effectiveness.
These
activities
may include
service on
appropriate
committees
in the
Department,
School, or
University,
and advising
student
organizations.
Review
Committee
Responsibilities
The examples
presented
herein
should not
be
considered
definitive
of a
successful
promotion
dossier. The
attainment
of tenure is
not
contingent
upon a
specific
number of
publications
or a
particular
rating of
classroom
teaching. It
is based
upon the
judgment of
faculty
colleagues
and
administrators
and is
awarded to
those who
show clear
evidence of
excellent
scholarship,
highly
effective
teaching,
and
satisfactory
service and
whose
dossiers
demonstrate
the
likelihood
of
continuing
productivity
and
improvement.
The most
detailed
consideration
in any
recommendation
for
promotion or
tenure
should be a
comprehensive
evaluation
by the
appropriate
faculty of
the
candidate's
department.
Therefore,
the Chair,
with the
advice of
his/her
tenured
faculty,
will form a
departmental
review
committee by
September 1
to
facilitate
the
promotion
and tenure
process. In
cases where
the
candidate's
teaching
and/or
research
transcends
the
department
of primary
appointment,
persons from
other
departments
may be asked
to serve on
the review
committee.
The
departmental
review
committee is
directly
responsible
for working
with the
candidate to
assemble the
evidence in
the tenure
case and for
submitting a
written
report on
its findings
to the
tenured
faculty of
the
Department.
This
evaluation
shall
include a
detailed
review of
the
candidate's
scholarly
works,
teaching
record,
external
letters of
review, and
other
available
evidence
pertinent to
the above
stated
criteria.
For those
candidates
engaged in
multi-disciplinary
work that
crosses over
departmental
boundaries,
evaluations
shall also
be sought
from the
secondary
department,
center, or
other
administrative
body
responsible
for the
research.
The
departmental
review
committee is
expected to
assign
appropriate
members to
critically
review and
assess the
impact of
the
candidate's
scholarly
publications,
funded
research,
and graduate
student
productivity.
The combined
works shall
be reviewed
for their
intrinsic
quality and
relation to
the mission
of the
department
or research
center in
which the
work is
being
accomplished.
The quality
of the
archival
journals and
the impact
for the
publications
are to be
assessed.
The
scholarly
quality of
the research
is to be
assessed in
terms of its
engineering
or
scientific
challenge,
opportunity
for impact,
and
dissemination
of the
research
findings.
The
departmental
review
committee is
also to
provide an
evaluation
of the
candidate's
teaching
effectiveness
that is
broader than
the student
evaluation
forms. The
review may
include data
and
evaluations
of the
candidate's
teaching
based on
valid
classroom
observations,
appropriateness
of materials
such as
written
material,
laboratory
manuals,
web-based
support
material,
and other
teaching
tools and
supplements.
Student
achievements,
presentations,
awards, and
other
evidence
tied to the
candidate's
role in
educating
and
developing
students may
be
considered.
Finally,
such
material as
textbooks,
web-based
educational
products,
research on
learning and
teaching,
and other
evidence of
teaching
excellence
is to be
considered
by this
committee.
Departmental
Action
All voting
members of
the faculty
are to be
given a
report by
the
departmental
review
committee
and a chance
to
participate
in a
discussion
of the
findings
with that
committee.
The eligible
faculty are
to meet to
discuss and
vote on each
case.
Minutes or a
summary of
the
discussion
and the vote
are to be
recorded.
The minutes
(or summary)
and the
voting tally
must be made
available to
all who were
eligible to
participate
in the
meeting and
are to be
included in
the dossier.
In general,
the full
range of
views about
the
candidate as
expressed by
those
eligible to
vote should
be contained
in the
report.
All tenured
faculty with
primary
appointments
in the
Department
are eligible
to vote on
promotion to
and tenure
decisions
for the
position of
Associate
Professor.
All
Professors
are eligible
to vote on
promotion to
the position
of Professor
in the
Department.
The Chair
will record
and report
the voting
in all such
cases. The
record of
the voting
is to be
reported by
the Chair as
part of the
promotion
and tenure
dossier,
normally in
the letter
from the
Chair to the
Dean
containing
the Chair's
recommendation
and
evaluation.
The Chairs
will furnish
formal
recommendations
for all
candidates
together
with
dossiers of
supporting
documents to
the Dean's
Office. The
principal
responsibility
for
presenting
the case for
evaluation
rests with
the Chair.
All voting
shall be in
accordance
with rules
established
by the
Department.
The ballot
is secret if
any eligible
member of
the faculty
so requests.
Thus, such
rules should
include the
nature of
votes to be
cast and
whether
faculty not
present may
vote. For
example, the
chair could
open the
meeting with
a request
that all
ballots be
secret. Only
those
eligible
members of
the faculty
participating
in the
discussions
shall be
entitled to
vote.
Special
arrangements
for voice or
video
conferencing
with
eligible
faculty on
leave should
be made
whenever
practical.
The faculty
recommendation
is based on
a simple
majority
based on the
department
roster. The
Chair
participates
fully in the
discussion
and the
voting.
School
Consultative
Committee on
Promotion
and Tenure
This
committee
serves as a
consultative
body on
faculty
evaluation
to the Dean.
All dossiers
associated
with
promotions
and award of
tenure
submitted by
Chairs will
be reviewed
by the
committee.
Recommendations
in each case
will be
communicated
in writing
to the Dean
at the
conclusion
of
deliberations.
These
deliberations
are strictly
confidential;
consequently,
no one other
than the
Dean shall
communicate
with the
committee.
The
committee
and its
chair are
appointed by
the Dean.
The
appointed
professors
must have
full-time
appointments
in the
school and
must not
hold
administrative
appointments.
Terms will
be staggered
so that the
committee
has a
reasonable
level of
continuity
from year to
year.
Appointments
to this
Consultative
Committee
are made
public by
October 1.
The nominal
term of
appointment
is three
years.
Schedule
for Faculty
Evaluation
for
Promotion
and Tenure
(see also
Appendix A)
The
following
events
comprise the
evaluation
cycle (the
exact
deadlines
will be
announced
each year.
Dates in
parentheses
refer to
faculty
originally
appointed at
the start of
the spring
semester:
|
May
1 |
Notification
of
the
Department
by
letter
from
the
Dean
to
the
Chair
of
the
names
of
candidates
who
must
be
considered
for
promotion
to a
tenured
position
in
the
next
academic
year
This
is
also
an
appropriate
time
for
tenured
departmental
faculty
to
take
preliminary
votes
regarding
early
promotion
to
Associate
Professor
and
promotion
of
individuals
from
Associate
Professor
to
Professor.
The
initiative
for
such
promotions
is
within
the
Department |
|
May
15 |
Chair
notification
of
the
candidate(s)
by
written
memo
with
the
present
document
as
an
attachment |
May
15 -
August
31
(May
15 -
July
30) |
Candidates
prepare
dossiers
per
this
document
formatChair
consults
Dean
for
approval
of
external
reviewers
Chair
solicits
and
receives
external
letters
on
candidates |
September
1 -
November
15
(August
1 -
August
31) |
Departmental
reviews
conductedDepartmental
eligible
faculty
voting
completed
Chair
writes
administrative
letter
on
the
candidate
to
the
Dean
Dossier
and
recommendations
forwarded
to
the
Dean |
|
September
1 |
Dean's
Consultative
Committee
appointed |
November
15 -
December
31
(September
1 -
September
15) |
Dean's
Consultative
Committee
reviews
all
submitted
dossiers
Dean's
Consultative
Committee
provides
dossier
assessments
to
the
Dean |
December
1 -
January
31
(September
1 -
September
30) |
Dean
reviews
all
dossiers
Dean
prepares
recommendations
to
the
Provost
for
all
positive
recommendations
Dean
notifies
Chairs,
who
then
notify
faculty
of
negative
recommendations |
|
January
10 |
Two-thirds
of
dossiers
due
in
the
Provost's
Office |
|
February
1
(October
1) |
Balance
of
dossiers
due
in
the
Provost's
office |
|
March
1
(November
1) |
Written
notification
of
renewal
or
non-renewal
is
due
to
academic-year
faculty
on
one-year
appointments |
|
June
1
(January
1) |
Written
notification
of
renewal
or
non-renewal
is
normally
due
to
faculty
who
have
appointments
exceeding
one
year,
in
the
year
preceding
the
candidate's
final
year |
|
Appeals |
All
policies,
procedures,
and
timing
regarding
appeals
are
contained
in
the
Faculty
Manual |
Contents
of the
Tenure
Dossier
The format
of the
tenure
dossier is
standardized
and will
include the
following
items in the
indicated
order. The
official
requirements
for the
dossier are
specified by
the Provost.
-
Cover
sheet
with
Table of
Contents
for the
dossier.
The
dossier
will
normally
have
tabbed
markers
for each
major
section
and each
tab will
be
clearly
annotated.
-
Memo of
transmittal/recommendation
from the
Dean to
the
Provost.
-
Memo of
transmittal/recommendation
from the
Chair to
the
Dean.
Any
correspondence
between
the
Chair
and the
Dean is
to be
included
in this
section.
-
Recommendation
of the
tenured
faculty
that
includes:
(a) a
report
of the
departmental
committee
evaluation
of the
candidate's
research,
teaching
and
service
accomplishments
and
prospects.
The
report
should
be
detailed,
comprehensive,
and
rigorous
as an
assessment
of both
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of the
teaching
and
research
of the
candidate.
The
assessment
should
relate
explicitly
the
candidate's
accomplishments
to
Vanderbilt's
standards
and
justify
consideration
prior to
the
seventh
year, if
applicable.
It
should
also
include
an
analysis
of the
candidate's
contributions
to
jointly
authored
publications,
multiple
investigator
research
projects,
and
team-taught
courses
including
appropriate
input
from
research
colleagues
or team
members.
(b) a
summary
report
or
minutes
of the
meeting
of the
Department's
tenured
faculty
in which
the
recommendation
regarding
tenure
was
made.
This
report
is to
include
the
names of
all
present
and
absent
at the
meeting
at which
the vote
was
held,
the vote
tally,
and the
minutes
of that
meeting.
The
report
should
reflect
the full
range of
views
expressed
by those
faculty
eligible
to vote.
Both
reports
are to
be made
available
to the
tenured
faculty
and any
faculty
comments
on the
two
reports
are to
be
included
herein.
There
are to
be no
other
letters
or
administrative
contacts
made in
regard
to a
candidate
other
than in
this
manner.
See the
Faculty
Manual
on ex
parte
letters
for
background.
-
A
statement
of any
expectations
for the
nature
of the
candidate's
research
and
scholarship
that
differ
from
those
that
normally
apply in
the
candidate's
department
and that
are part
of an
agreement
reached
with the
candidate,
either
at the
time of
the
initial
appointment
or
subsequently.
-
The
candidate's
curriculum
vitae.
The
curriculum
vitae
format
is not
specified.
However,
specific
additions
to the
normal
CV are
required
for the
dossier.
The CV
should
be
dated,
and
scholarly
work
should
be
presented
in
clearly
labeled
categories
such as:
books,
book
chapters,
articles
in
refereed
journals,
articles
in
conference
proceedings,
book
reviews,
working
papers,
and
invited
presentations.
The full
citation
(including
beginning
and
ending
page
numbers
in book
chapters,
journal
articles,
and
proceedings)
to
published
works
must be
provided.
Indicate
all
authors
in the
order
that the
names
appear
in the
article.
Highlight
the
candidate's
name in
all
publication
citations.
Add a
discussion
of the
candidate's
role
following
each
citation,
including
an
estimated
percentage
contribution.
Clearly
identify
the
graduate
student
authors.
List all
proposals
submitted
as a
researcher,
with
requested
or
funded
budget
totals.
Indicate
the
names of
the
principal
investigator
and all
collaborators
for each
proposal.
State
the
candidate's
offset
and
matching
percentages
for each
proposal.
Clearly
indicate
the
status
of each
proposal
as
rejected,
funded,
or
pending.
Show the
submission
date for
each
proposal
and the
period
of
performance
for all
funded
proposals.
List
graduate
and
undergraduate
student
support
proposals
such as
NASA
GSRPs or
training
grants
separately
from
other
research
proposals.
List
equipment
grants
separately
from
other
research
proposals.
Indicate
all
proposals
submitted
as SBIRs
or STTRs
separately
from
other
research
proposals
(cite
the
outside
business
with
which
the
proposal
was
submitted).
Include
the
names,
dates,
and
research
thesis
or
dissertation
titles
for all
graduate
students.
Clearly
indicate
the
status
of each
by
graduation
date
actual
or
anticipated.
List all
courses
taught
by term,
subject,
enrollment,
and
whether
or not
the
course
is
required.
-
An
analysis,
prepared
by the
candidate,
of the
candidate's
contributions
in
developing
and
writing
proposals
on which
there
are
multiple
investigators
and to
any
group
teaching.
-
Numerical
course
ratings,
together
with
averages
and
other
descriptive
statistics
for all
courses
the
candidate
has
taught.
The
course
ratings
are to
be
summarized
in the
key
evaluation
categories
using a
bar
chart
type of
format
for ease
of
interpretation
for each
course
showing
all
years of
data.
Appropriate
departmental
and
school
averages
and
other
statistical
measures
should
be
provided
for
comparison.
Written
student
course-evaluation
comments
are to
be
included
in the
dossier.
The
written
student
course-evaluations
should
be
re-typed
by the
Department
in
compact
form,
with one
row per
student.
Copies
of the
original
student-written
comments
must be
maintained
by the
Department
so that
they are
available
for
review
at later
stages
in the
process.
-
The
candidate's
statements
on
research
accomplishments
and
plans,
teaching,
and
service
to the
profession
and to
the
University.
The
content
and
organization
are at
the
discretion
of the
candidate,
but the
following
topics
are
appropriate:
description
of the
main
themes
of the
candidate's
research,
a
discussion
of the
linkages
between
various
projects,
and an
indication
of
future
plans.
Similarly,
a
description
of the
candidate's
teaching
philosophy
and
objectives,
including
past and
planned
course
and
curriculum
development,
is often
instructive.
-
External
reviews.
The
School
of
Engineering
requires
that the
candidate
submit a
written
list of
from
three to
six
suggested
reviewers
within
two
weeks of
being
notified
to
prepare
his or
her
dossier.
The
Chair,
in
consultation
with the
eligible
review
faculty
in the
Department,
shall
supplement
the
candidate's
list
with an
equal or
greater
number
of
highly
qualified
and
distinguished
external
faculty.
The
final
list
will be
a subset
of the
submitted
list
from the
candidate
and the
suggestions
of the
faculty.
The
chair
will
submit
in
advance
to the
Dean for
comment
and
concurrence
the
Department's
list of
potential
external
reviewers
and the
rationale
for
their
choice.
Reviewers
should
be
leading
scholars
in the
field
and
normally
will
hold the
rank of
Professor.
They
will
ordinarily
be
selected
from
distinguished
universities
or other
institutions
with
exemplary
programs
or
faculty
in the
relevant
field,
preferably
from
those
that
rank
among
the top
twenty-five
in the
discipline.
If
exceptions
to this
guideline
are
proposed,
they
should
be
justified
in the
initial
proposal
to the
Dean.
The list
of
external
reviewers
to be
approached
must be
agreed
in
advance
by the
Dean and
the
Department.
The
selection
of the
external
reviewers
is one
of the
more
important
elements
in
obtaining
the data
necessary
to judge
the
candidate's
research
impact
and
professional
standing.
Therefore,
external
reviewers
are to
be
selected
who are
most
able to
provide
objective
comments
on the
candidate.
Both the
candidate
and the
Chair
must
keep
this
central
requirement
in mind
when
recommending
and
selecting
external
reviewers.
The
Chair is
to
provide
the
rationale
for
selecting
each
invited
external
reviewer
and to
document
his/her
credibility
by
discussion
of the
professional
standing
of the
external
reviewer.
This
documentation
is to be
included
in the
candidate's
dossier.
It is
the
Department's
responsibility
to
prepare
a
complete
dossier
for the
candidate.
At least
six
external
letters
should
be
included
in the
dossier
prior to
the time
when the
Department
makes
its
formal
decision.
The
candidate
is to
prepare
his or
her CV
and
attach
reprints
of
principal
research
journal
publications
for use
in
soliciting
external
reviews.
The
package
containing
the CV
and
attachments
is to be
completed
by the
candidate
as
expeditiously
as
possible.
The
Chair
shall
contact
the
potential
external
reviewers
during
this
same
time
period.
As soon
as the
candidate
package
is
complete,
the
package
and the
formal
letter
of
request
for
review
will be
mailed
by the
Chair to
each
external
reviewer.
The
following
materials
should
be
included
in the
external
reviews
section
of the
dossier:
(a) a
sample
letter
sent to
potential
reviewers
(see
Appendix
B);
(b) a
list of
no more
than six
reviewers
suggested
by the
candidate;
(c) a
list of
reviewers
suggested
by
tenured
members
of the
Department;
(d) a
list of
all
reviewers
from
whom the
Department
requested
evaluations;
(e)
biographical
information
about
the
reviewers;
(f) all
external
evaluation
letters
which
were
received,
at least
three of
which
must be
from the
candidate's
list and
at least
three,
and
preferably
more, of
which
must be
from the
Department's
list;
(g) any
correspondence
with
actual
or
potential
reviewers
and
reports/summaries
of
telephone
conversations
between
tenured
faculty
members/Chair
and any
reviewers.
The
Chair is
responsible
for
collecting
and
documenting
the
various
lists of
reviewers.
-
Previous
dated
curriculum
vitae
used for
the
two-year
and
four-year
reviews
and
counseling
information
prepared
as a
result
of those
reviews.
-
All
correspondence
between
the
Department
and the
candidate
regarding
the
tenure
process.
-
Other
material,
including
reprints
of
principal
journal
publications.
All dossiers
received
prior to the
announced
deadline
will be
submitted to
the School's
Consultative
Committee on
Promotion
and Tenure
for review.
After
receiving
the
committee's
report, the
Dean will
make a
decision on
the
appropriate
action to be
taken in
accordance
with
established
procedures
set forth in
the Faculty
Manual.
E.
Procedure
for
Promotion to
Professor
Promotions
are based
solely on
merit and
not upon
seniority or
length of
service. A
person shall
attain
promotion as
rapidly as
merited.
Consideration
for
promotion
should allow
for the
recognition
of
exceptional
productivity
and unusual
achievement.
There shall
be no age
restriction
on the
various
ranks.
The
Standards of
Performance
discussion
in Section
I.D of this
document