Presentation on theme: "CSE Promotion and Tenure. Primary Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Teaching and Research Service is important but secondary Is accompanied by the granting."— Presentation transcript:
CSE Promotion and Tenure
Primary Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Teaching and Research Service is important but secondary Is accompanied by the granting of tenure; criteria the same Decision may be made in any year of the probationary period but must be made in the sixth year—the decision year. Promotion from Assistant Prof (N) to Associate Prof (P)I. Criteria are the same as for tenure and for Assistant (N) to Assoc (P) Promotion from Associate Prof (N) to Associate Prof (P)II. A high level of professional distinction in research and high standards in teaching; service is taken into account but is not in itself sufficient for promotion to Professor. Promotion to Professor is also not granted solely on the basis of length of service. Promotion from Associate Prof (P) to Professor (P)III. Promotion from Prof (N) to Professor (P)IV. Criteria are the same as for tenure and for Assistant (N) to Assoc (P)
Resources on Promotion and Tenure Faculty Tenure and Promotion – Provost website Departmental 7.12 Statements (New)
Promotion and Tenure Process Department P & T Committee reviews the record and makes a recommendation. August–October The department head or designee assembles the dossier, department head requests letters from outside reviewers. Department faculty vote October-November Department head writes letter of recommendation, dossier sent to CSE Dean’s office CSE P & T Advisory Committee makes recommendation to the dean January Dean’s letter to candidates about the Advisory Committee’s recommendations, candidate’s response CSE dean’s recommendation to SVPP February SVPP’s recommendation to the Board of Regents April
CSE Promotion and Tenure Schedule for 2010 – 11 (Tentative) Files from departments due in dean’s officeNov. 17 Files available in 105 Walter for Advisory CommitteeNov. 24 One-half of recommendations to dean’s officeDec. 20 Rest of recommendations to dean’s officeJan. 11 Dean’s letter to candidates about CSE Advisory Committee recommendations Jan. 14 Candidate’s responses dueJan. 21 Dean prepares recommendationsJan Due in SVPP officeJan. 30
CSE P & T Advisory Committee 2010 – 11 Term Ends Sachin SapatnekarJune 2011 ECE Andrew OdlyzkoJune 2011 Math Nicholaos PapanikolopoulosJune 2011 CSE Krishnan MaheshJune 2012 AEM Donna WhitneyJune 2012 Geo Rajesh RajamaniJune 2013 ME Larry QueJune 2013 Chemistry
Checklist for P & T Files Cover SheetA-1: Part A: Report of Action Statement of Faculty ActionA-2: Personal Statement of the Department HeadA-3: Reports from Individual Faculty (if any)A-4: Supplemental Statement by the Candidate (if any)A-5:
Checklist for P & T Files The Candidate’s Resume A format has been provided. The order of items is important. In a multi- authored conference paper, underline the actual presenter. In a multi- authored journal paper, identify the candidate’s contribution to the joint authorship wherever possible. (%) Service contributions must be included here. B-1: Part B: Complete File of the Candidate Evaluation of the Candidate’s Teaching Courses taught, written student evaluations, peer faculty evaluation, comparison with departmental averages (use format provided), etc. B-2: Evaluation of the Candidate’s Research and Other Scholarly Contributions Candidate’s statement on his/her research, apportioning credit for joint authorships wherever possible, proposals funded/pending, selected reprints of published papers, etc. Include no more than 5 reprints of papers for a tenure file and 7 reprints for a promotion file. The choice rests with the candidate. B-3:
Checklist for P & T Files Part B: Complete File of the Candidate Letters of Recommendation Must include brief info about the letter writers; must have a mixture of referees suggested by the candidate and the department. Hold to a minimum: internal letters and letters from the candidate’s research collaborators. B-4: Copies of President’s Form 12 For probationary faculty B-5: Additional Material Supplied by the Candidate (optional) B-6: Departmental Statement on Indices and Standards for Promotion and Tenure (7.12 Statement) B-7:
Responsibilities of the Candidate Help the head or designee in assembling the major portion of your dossier. Be sure that the documentation (for teaching, research, and service) is complete and well organized. Names of master’s and doctoral students who have completed their degrees a) Names of master’s and doctoral students in progressb) Complete list of refereed journal publicationsc) Complete list of refereed conference publications. Underline the name of the author who presented the paper; wherever possible, specify your contribution to jointly authored papers in (c) and (d) (%). d) Complete list of invited paperse)
Responsibilities of the Candidate Help the head or designee in assembling the major portion of your dossier. Be sure that the documentation (for teaching, research, and service) is complete and well organized. List of books authored, book chapters authoredf) Complete list of invited talks at universities, government laboratories, etc.g) List of research grants received (with start and end dates, level of funding, shared funding) h) List of proposals submittedi) Awards and prizes received for teaching/research/servicej)
Responsibilities of the Candidate We recommend that you select no more than 5 of your best publications to be included in the tenure dossier and no more than 7 in your promotion dossier. Copies of all publications must be assembled in a separate 3-ring binder. Note: It is best if you keep a running file of all of your reprints, as they become available.
Responsibilities of the Candidate Be sure to give a seminar in your department to acquaint your colleagues with your research. Give your department head a list of 10 individuals who can act as external referees. Be sure to pick potential referees from peer institutions and those who are leaders in your research area.
Responsibilities of the Head The external referees: 50/50 mix of candidate and faculty suggestions (identify which) At least half, and no fewer than four, of the external reviews must be obtained from individuals with no direct professional or personal interest in the advancement of the candidate's career (for example, they should not be former advisors, mentors, co-authors, or co- investigators on previous work). Remember to advise the referees about the State of Minnesota’s open file policy. Include in the P & T dossier of the candidate a short biographical sketch of the referees. Reviewers must be told if and when a candidate has stopped the tenure clock and for how long. They are not told the reason that the tenure clock was stopped but should be advised to allow for reduced productivity during the time the clock was stopped.
Responsibilities of the Head Be sure the dossier is complete BEFORE your faculty votes on the candidate. To include additional material in the dossier AFTER it has been sent to the dean’s office, send it to the dean and NOT to the CSE P & T Advisory Committee. We will distribute the material and notify the candidate that his/her file has been changed. If any material, comments etc. are added to the file after the faculty vote and before the file is sent to the Dean, the voting faculty and candidate must be notified and given the opportunity to respond. The probationary faculty member has not only the right but the responsibility to inspect the annual-review file. He or she has a right also to submit written comments and to add relevant materials to the file. Material provided by a candidate should be identified as such.
Responsibilities of the Head The vote is taken by written, unsigned secret ballot. Faculty members unable to attend the meeting must be given an opportunity to vote by written absentee ballot, which should be sent in a sealed envelope to the unit head. Proxy votes, telephone votes, fax votes, and votes are not permitted. Abstentions are strongly discouraged. Important for pre-tenure years: Be as informative as possible in filling out the President’s Form 12 for probationary faculty. Clearly spell out the accomplishments and expectations regarding teaching, research, and service. Retain the secret ballots until after the Board of Regents has acted on all recommendations. They may be needed as evidence should there be a challenge to the unit’s decision.
Guidelines for Evaluating Faculty Performance – TEACHING Student evaluations Written comments (not selective), summary of data by measurement services Peer evaluations Courses, laboratories, software developed Mentoring of graduate and undergraduate students leading to identifiable accomplishments Publication of textbooks Teaching awards Student advising
Guidelines for Evaluating Faculty Performance – RESEARCH Peer-reviewed archival publications Journal papers, book chapters, research monographs Peer-reviewed conference publications, presentations Research software, patents, and inventions Successful proposals for external support of research activity Advising of graduate students Master’s and doctoral levels Development of special facilities necessary to support research activity Invited talks at universities, national/international meetings, and government/industrial research laboratories
Guidelines for Evaluating Faculty Performance – SERVICE Editor/associate editor/editorial board of scholarly journals Organizing national/international professional meetings Officer in a national/international professional society Referee for archival journals, conference proceedings, funding agencies Service at the department, college, university level Other service activities for which substantial contribution can be documented
Records to Keep Written comments by students in all your courses Reprints of all journal publications Reprints of all refereed conference publications Reprints of all other conference papers Book chapters you may have written Textbooks, monographs As they become available, put reprints in separate files or 3-ring binders. Then you won’t have to scramble to collect them at P & T time.
Suggestions from the CSE P & T Advisory Committee Regarding Dossiers It is important that departmental norms (for teaching evaluations) be included in all candidates’ files so that the candidates’ student evaluations can be compared with the departmental norms. Preferably, norms for both undergraduate- and graduate-level courses should be given separately so that student evaluations for a specific course can be compared with those for similar courses at the same level taught in the department. The committee would like to see a short biographical sketch of the evaluators (referees). For promotion to full professor, international evaluators should be chosen in order to establish the candidate’s international reputation.
Suggestions from the CSE P & T Advisory Committee Regarding Dossiers In the candidate’s curriculum vita organize the following information in separate categories: papers published in refereed journals, papers published in refereed conference proceedings, papers presented in refereed conferences, invited talks, books written, and book chapters written should all be categorized separately. Too often one finds both journal papers and conference papers listed under publications. The committee recommends putting these into separate categories. The committee recommends that no more than half of the evaluators come from the candidate’s recommendation. The committee recommends that the referees suggested by the candidate and those suggested by the department be clearly identified.
Suggestions from the CSE P & T Advisory Committee Regarding Dossiers In the case of jointly authored publications, the committee would like to see a statement about the candidate’s contribution to the joint authorship. An example might be the qualify it as “major,” “about equal,” or “minor” for jointly authored publications. (%) For promotion to full professor, the committee suggests that the department consider carefully the body of evidence upon which promotion to full professor rests. Evidence supporting promotion to full professor should be separate from evidence supporting earlier promotions. In the case of conference presentations, the committee recommends that the presenter’s name be underlined.
CSE Promotion and Tenure History 1984–2010 Tenure files Promotion files (5.6 %) 32 (12.1%) # submitted# denied